Critical Religious Education

Easton, Christina; Goodman, Angela; Wright, Andrew; Wright, Angela

doi:10.4324/9781315648989-1

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Wright (2007: 113) is explicit that good RE will engage students in discussion of religious and non-religious truth-claims. In their recent book exemplifying what this pedagogy looks like in practice, Easton et al, (2019: 103) argue that the views of the atheist are as important as those of the theist. This is borne out in their chapter exemplifying an Ethics scheme of work, where theistic and non-theistic approaches (including Buddhism, utilitarianism, egoism and Humanism) are given equal coverage.…”

Section: The Majority Position In Re Today: Agreement With the Narrowmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The subject is frequently taught by non-specialists (APPG, 2013), a situation that is unlikely to improve due to the poor incentives to train to teach RE, with bursaries being roughly a third of what is offered in Geography and Classics (REC, 2018a). Moreover, the non-inclusion of RE in the Ebacc, as well as the exclusion of GCSE Short Course Religious Studies from Attainment 8 (the new accountability arrangements) have further contributed to the lowering of status of the subject (APPG, 2013; Easton et at., 2019; REC, 2018b: 8). 14…”

Section: Current Policy and Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Religious Education – reform, not abolition: A reply to Matthew Clayton and David Stephens

Easton

2019

Theory and Research in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is a reply to Matthew Clayton and David Stephens's 2018 article 'What is the point of religious education?' I begin by problematising the 'acceptability requirement' used to justify the authors' conclusions. I then disambiguate the key claim made in the paper. If interpreted broadly, as an attack on curricula that teach about religions, then their claim is implausible, and not one that the authors themselves should endorse. However, if interpreted narrowly, as an attack on the prioritisation of religion at the expense of non-religious views, then their view is one that is already widely endorsed. I then clear up some relevant empirical considerations about current Religious Education policy and practice in England and Wales. I suggest that there are sufficiently weighty, non-partisan reasons for a curriculum subject not dissimilar to what is currently taught in schools. Whilst Religious Education is in need of reform, it would be the wrong conclusion to draw from their paper that Religious Education should be abolished.

show abstract

Section: The Majority Position In Re Today: Agreement With the Narrowmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Current Policy and Practicementioning

confidence: 99%