Anne Andrews, SACRE Advisor, reported that an RE Hubs meeting took place after the last SACRE meeting in September 2023 where she received feedback from the Christians in Groups A and B. From this feedback, she had written some minor modifications to the Agreed Syllabus and would share this in due course. She added that she had received little feedback on the questions in the Agreed Syllabus from non-Christian organisations. While she tried to use notes from the conversations surrounding this, she commented that most people on the SACRE Hub were not a very mixed group of people. With the exception of Ashpreet Singh Nainu (Chair of Slough SACRE), most SACRE chairs were “white British” and (at least, nominally) Christians. As a result, Anne Andrews received much feedback and interaction in regard to the questions on Christianity, while receiving little feedback from the other groups, hoping there could be some discussion on this during the current SACRE meeting.

Briefly reflecting on the feedback from teachers, Anne Andrews reported that teachers wanted to see how they could build something coherent from the syllabus so that it provided clear progression in content, skills and understanding. They also wanted the syllabus to be more streamlined so that it was clearer on what they were meant to teach, namely ensuring that it was precise and not too vague and was easily accessible. They also wondered whether there were too many questions and whether to divide the syllabus between compulsory and optional courses (though questions were raised on whether coherence was lost if teachers were given a choice).

Anne Andrews advised that SACRE needed to consider the syllabus proposals and discuss the questions. Afterwards, if there was time and with the Chair’s approval, she would then share some of amendments to the Christianity section of the syllabus.

The Chair asked Anne Andrews to go through the syllabus proposals, through Zoom screenshare.

Starting with the section on Christianity at Key Stage 1, Anne Andrews informed meeting attendees that the feedback from Christian groups was that they wanted to see more emphasis on the big story of the Bible (i.e., how the Bible fitted together and became a story). For the time being, she suggested to leave this section unchanged.

Moving onto the recommendations for the next section on other faiths (namely Abrahamic and Dharmic faiths), Anne Andrews noted that she had used the current syllabus as the basis for the new one rather than making radical changes to the range of recommended religions because most schools did not want radical change. Therefore, her suggestion was that, alongside Christianity, schools could choose to focus on Judaism in one year, Islam in another year, and Sikhism in another year in each year group across Key Stage 1 and Lower Key Stage 1. However, there could be deliberation later on in regard to whether the study of each of the aforementioned religions should be assigned to a specific academic year group (e.g., Hindu Dharma in Year 2, Islam in Year 3 and Sikhism in Year 4).

Anne Andrews then asked SACRE members what they thought about the questions in the Pan-Berkshire syllabus proposals, namely whether they were applicable to each of the four religious traditions; and if so, what the content could be.

Anne Andrews mentioned that she received some feedback from a non-Hindu who believed that the subjects of focus with Hindu Dharma were incorrect. Going over the suggested Worldview questions, she asked SACRE members whether they were applicable for Judaism, Islam, Hindu Dharma and Sikhism:

·       “WV1: What do [faith followers] believe about God and what symbols, artefacts or stories are used to express these ideas? (Theology)”,

·       “WV2: How do beliefs affect the way [faith followers] live in modern Britain? (Human and Social Science)”,

·       “WV3: What do [faith followers] believe about where the world came from? (Or how the world began?) (Philosophy)”.

Anne Andrews also extended the question to other faiths which were not recommended in the syllabus, such as the Baha’i Faith or Humanism (if Worldview Question 1 was reworded slightly).

Anthony Lewis (Humanism) stated that he had sent comments regarding Humanism in the syllabus to Anne Andrews. She confirmed this but stated that they focused on the Key Stage 3 section of the syllabus and that she was asking a different question. Anthony Lewis then stated that it was important to teach at early stages that there was a variety of different origin stories and beliefs.

Anne Andrews then suggested that Worldview Question 3 could be adapted to cover any range of faiths, religions and traditions. Anthony Lewis agreed, stating that Humanists believed that reality was a natural place, with The Big Bang and evolution as the scientifically-based origin story. He mentioned that he had attended assemblies for 5-to-6-year-olds at schools where he would bring his dinosaur fossils along and the young children understood it and found it inspirational.

Referring to Anne Andrews’s mention of the feedback from Christian groups on more focus on the narrative of the Bible, Thomas Kingsley-Jones (KS3 Teacher – Churchmead School) stated he liked those types of questions. He then suggested to add or weave these types of questions and vision into all religions and worldviews, namely the “big story” of the respective religion or worldview, believing that it was a helpful practice to hook together beliefs and practices.

Anne Andrews approved of Thomas Kingsley-Jones’s comment, stating that she hoped to receive that type of comment from the conversations surrounding the syllabus. While needing to defer to those of a religion besides her own, she theorised that the “big story” of other religions may not be as coherent: while Christianity could be interpreted as having a core narrative, she wondered whether this applied to Judaism, Sikhism and Hindu Dharma.

Thomas Kingsley-Jones said this would be interesting to discover. While considering the first Worldview Question, he believed that it should ask what the overarching narrative or “big story” of the respective religion or worldview was so that it would open up discussions. Anne Andrews viewed this as helpful.

While believing that the idea of the “big story” would be really helpful, Margaret Smith (Quakers) observed that the questions related to Judaism focused on artefacts and Shabbat in contrast to the questions on Islam, Hindu Dharma and Sikhism which made references to God and symbolism. Mentioning that she had a Jewish background to some degree (though added that she was not seeking to speak for Judaism), Margaret Smith stated that Judaism included the origin of the one God, similarly to Christianity and Islam. From this, she wondered whether the questions focusing on Shabbat, artefacts and family life were slightly too peripheral compared to the main narratives.

Anne Andrews responded by saying that when she had discussions with Jewish people and asked them what they most wanted children to learn about Judaism, they tended to point to Shabbat and family life rather than understanding God in Judaism; though she added that she had spent much time with Liberal and Reform Jews. Nevertheless, she took on Margaret Smith’s comment.

While understanding that family life and Shabbat were meaningful, Margaret Smith added that the question on Judaism could be more theological rather than being focused on artefacts.

Ila Gangotra (Hinduism) commented that there was usually too much focus on symbols in Hinduism, pointing out the importance of the Hindu trinity (Trimurti). She then mentioned that there was an organisation in the UK which was responsible for setting up the national curriculum in India, from pre-birth to adulthood. She wondered whether it was worth the Chair and Anne Andrews to have a discussion with them on the teaching of Hinduism, stating that they were experts in this area.

The Chair and Andrews agreed with the suggestion and requested for the contact details of this organisation. Ila Gangotra agreed to provide them.

ACTION: Ila Gangotra to provide the contact details of the organisation to the Chair and Anne Andrews to help formulate/amend the teaching of Hinduism in the syllabus.

There followed a detailed discussion of the Sikh faith.

While agreeing to ensure that faiths and worldviews were taught accurately with no misconceptions, from a Key Stage 1 perspective, Laura Dexter (KS1 Teacher – Furze Platt Infant School) explained that Judaism was introduced to Year 1 pupils at Furze Platt Infant with a focus around Shabbat because it made it relatable and reachable for young children, some who may have never experienced religion. Therefore, she argued, it was important to include artefacts to make teaching pictorial and concrete to make it accessible for children.

Michael Gammage (Baha’i Faith) made a couple of comments. Firstly, he mentioned that Anne Andrews suggested that the Bahai Faith may fit more naturally in Key Stage 4 and that she invited him to suggest some topics. Anne Andrews confirmed that she had received some comments from Michael Gammage though confessed that she had not looked at them yet due to focusing on the earlier stages of the syllabus.

Secondly, Michael Gammage commented that there should be a focus on diversity within religious traditions and worldviews as well as between them, believing that this was something that could not be left until Year 10. He pointed out that there were hundreds of plausible answers to religions believing in a certain subject, stating that it was a disservice to conceptualise everything as “being in a silo and unrelated to everything else”.

Anne Andrews agreed, stating that diversity within religions and worldviews was a key area which needed to be included. This would include, for example, some Christians and Jews who believed in the Big Bang and those who did not. She hoped that this would be part of the methodology which teachers would build in with encouragement at every stage, and that understanding diversity would be one of the key areas that grows as children go through school. She added that “too much diversity” could not be taught to 5-year-olds but could nevertheless inform them that not everyone thinks in the same way.

Michael Gammage added that another important thread was the links between the religious faiths. For example, along with the story of Jesus in the Bible, the Quran also covered the story of Jesus (Isa), while the Baha’i writings also made some references relating to Jesus (some of which did not appear in the Bible or Quran). From this, Michael Gammage argued that these supposedly separate faiths were interlinked and interconnected in certain ways, and that this should be highlighted as well.

Anne Andrews replied that this was being built up to and was part of the theme of diversity in the syllabus. She requested for Michael Gammage’s thoughts to be forwarded to her in an email.

ACTION: Michael Gammage to send over his comments to Anne Andrews on the Pan-Berkshire Syllabus.

Anne Andrews reiterated her request for feedback on the proposals of the Pan Berkshire syllabus in order for it to be finalised. She then noted that some Hub members proposed that a team of teachers wrote the syllabus while another member suggested that SACRE advisors should do it instead. From this, she asked SACRE members whether the teachers across the six SACREs in Berkshire (Slough, Wokingham, Bracknell Forest, Reading, West Berkshire and Windsor and Maidenhead) should be involved with the formulation of the syllabus, or rather this should be done by the RE advisors with the information and advice from SACRE members and communities; with SACREs having the final word.

Revd. Vicci Davidson (Methodism) felt that it was important that the syllabus was deliverable, stating that education had dramatically changed since she attended school, namely the speed and depth in which pupils were taught. She stated that this needed to be a dual act whereby both SACRE advisors and teachers provided input, with the question being where these layers of input would be added to ensure that teachers understood what they needed to teach and ensure that the faiths and worldviews were accurately taught.

Anne Andrews responded that this was what she was seeking to do: having discussions with and then receive feedback from faith groups, and then feed these back into the syllabus proposals. However, the struggle she experienced was not receiving feedback and responses from the respective faith groups.

(Michael Gammage left the meeting at 6:57pm)

Laura Dexter wondered whether there was some key information which teachers should teach and ensured that it was accurate to ensure misconceptions did not happen. The Chair and Anne Andrews liked the suggestion.

Thomas Kingsley-Jones commented that a great aspect of SACRE was that it brought together two main pieces of expertise: religious people who knew about their faiths, and teachers of RE who knew how to teach religion in education. Essentially, it brought a link between both areas of expertise. He then said that it was vital for the syllabus that the expertise from the religious and worldview representatives filtered out the misconceptions and then the expertise from teachers shape the deliverance of the content.