Anne Andrews explained that the syllabus currently stated that Christianity and Judaism should be taught as the core religions at Key Stage 1; Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism as the core religions at Key Stage 2; and Christianity, Buddhism and Islam as the core religions at Key Stage 3. She stated that this didn’t mean other religions couldn’t be covered in addition, but it was legally required that these should be studied at each Key Stage.

One change that had been proposed was that teachers would be provided with a list of religions to study by the end of Key Stage 2 and it would be for each school to decide how and when teaching of each religion should be delivered. It was noted, for example, that some pupils may not study Judaism again post Key Stage 1 and would not study Islam at all until Key Stage 3. It was felt that this approach would provide pupils in Key Stage 1 and 2 with a broader range of study before examining some religions in greater depth in Key Stage 3, and at the same time providing schools with a greater level of flexibility regarding which topics to cover. Members were reminded that it was a legal requirement for Christianity to be taught to all year groups. It was felt that pupils should have learned about three religions by the end of Key Stage 2, and a further two by the end of Key Stage 4.

Members were asked to give their views on which religions should be studied. Hilary Harris said she believed Christianity, Islam and Judaism should be considered as the three core groups due to their level of influence, but also said that schools should be free to study other religions and suggested Hinduism and Sikhism, to reflect the number of people who observe those religions in the Royal Borough. Ceri Neil stated her belief that the core religions should be studied across all age groups. Cllr Kellaway asked if study of Christianity needed to be Bible-based. Anne Andrews replied that the syllabus did not dictate this, and teachers were free to choose how the subject was taught.

Mike Gammage asked if there had been any feedback from teachers about what, if anything, needed to be changed. Louise Ceska said the Head of RE at her school was happy with the syllabus. Anne Andrews said she had surveyed schools and feedback suggested teachers generally liked the Believing, Belonging and Behaving and Big Questions sections of the syllabus. Some teachers had indicated they wanted more freedom to choose which religions they studied, but others had said they wanted clearer guidelines on what should be taught. Anne Andrews added however that this feedback was based on just 49 responses to a survey sent to all schools across all six local authority areas in Berkshire.

Chris Sayers stated his belief that pupils should be taught about more than just the basic aspects of religion, and that the purpose of religion should be explored. Anne Andrews said this was covered by the Big Questions.

Members were reminded that a national RE syllabus could not be made without a change in the law, so local syllabuses would help to reflect the religious composition of each area of the country. Anne Andrews noted that in most parts of the Royal Borough the second largest religious group was Islam.

Ila Gangotra suggested that the Abrahamic religions could be taught as one study block and Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism could be studied as another group, in order for pupils to look at the commonalities between different religions.

After further discussions, members felt the approach that afforded the most flexibility while also giving teachers guidance on what should be taught would be for the syllabus to state that all religions needed to be explored; however a core group of further religions for further study would also be recommended. Members also felt that there was little that was fundamentally wrong with the syllabus as it stood. It was agreed that these comments would be fed back to Jan Lever.