Thread by @MarkChater1

A thread on curriculum design in RE, following today’s discussion on @BBCR4Sunday about #Hinduism in RE. A Hindu organisation has raised concerns about the quantity & quality of teaching about Hindu Dharma in schools. This thread doesn’t discuss any particular belief system. 1/

In this thread I’m asking what happens if any & all belief systems exert influence over the school RE curriculum - what then? 2/ @NATREupdate @reonline_tweets @ReformingRE @areiac @aulretweets @NASACRE @goochkt @RE_McGEE @RECouncil @CommissionOnRE

Currently the law allows some religion & belief groups a say in shaping the local syllabus for RE. This is a corrupting influence on the curriculum for four reasons: time, design, terminology, & false positivity. I’ll say a quick word about each reason. 3/

First reason: time is limited in RE. More time for 1 belief system means less for another. Merely because a belief system gains a place at the SACRE table shouldn’t give it a right to demand a slice of the pizza. That should be a teacher’s decision, within a national paradigm. 4/

2nd reason: curriculum design. Building a curriculum driven by demands of belief organisations tends to favour belief-by-belief units. This is not great for progression or for overall understanding of the nature of religion & worldviews. 5/

3rd reason: terminology, teachings & texts are arbitrated by the belief organisation, which gets to say what can & can’t be said about them. Some of them have intellectual or commercial interests to promote. Again, this should be a teacher decision within a national paradigm. 6/

4th reason (a): False positivity. Any belief system, whether secular or religious, will naturally want a syllabus to highlight their most positive practices & play down or ignore their more destructive or intolerant aspects. To allow that in a syllabus is academic distortion. 7/

4th reason (b): False positivity can particularly mask or avoid teaching about abusive theologies which demean women, LGBT, primal cultures, & others, or provide cover/excuses for abuse of children. Children need to know about this. The system instead promotes ‘respect’. 8/

4th reason (c): False positivity also can lead to putting abusive organisations into positions of influence over an RE curriculum, which is not a great idea. It’s a safeguarding issue. 9/ Nearly done.

The above reasons, why giving belief organisations a share in determining the RE curriculum is a corrupting influence, apply equally to secular belief systems as to religious ones. The principle applies equally to them all. @Humanists_UK @NatSecSoc 10/

A fancy name for this argument is the ‘politics of epistemology.’ Expect more from me on this, it’s a vital issue affecting every RE teacher. Change is overdue. See blogs in reformingre.wordpress.com/blog/ @RECouncil @ReformingRE Thread ends.