1.	The progress of a National Framework for RE in England and Wales

1.1	Background  The idea of a national framework for RE is not new.  The idea was raised in recent times at a St. Gabriel’s Conference in September 2000 where the matter was debated at some length by LEA advisers, university lecturers, SACRE reps, QCA and others.  In the same year, at a lecture given in Liverpool, John Keast (QCA subject officer) asked me what I thought about the idea of a non-statutory national framework for the subject.  John Keast was clearly beginning to consult on the matter at this stage.  
1.2	 Work on a national framework needs to be seen in the light of the work of the RE team at QCA since the early 1990s when an RE officer and team were appointed.  Prior to this date initiatives in RE were funded and carried out largely by the LEAs or bodies such as the National Society, trusts and other RE organisations.  The RE team, in addition to limited statutory tasks (the preparation of an annual review of SACRE reports for example), has succeeded in securing funding for RE almost as if it were a National Curriculum subject.  RE was part of the major curriculum review, it has developed an assessment structure similar to that for NC subjects, it has developed schemes of work and has attainment targets as do NC subjects. The effect of this has been to create a national profile for RE and an impetus for central control. What RE lacks in relation to other subjects is a framework of concepts, attitudes and skills into which the teaching content of the subject fits. To produce such a framework would be a logical next step although how it would relate to the QCA schemes of work and the work of Agreed Syllabus Conferences would be difficult issues to resolve. 
1.3	Work on a national framework is also driven by weaknesses identified by OFSTED in RE in its subject report of February 02, particularly at Keystage 3.  Pupils are said to be making slower progress in RE than in any other subject. Weaknesses identified are a lack of a path through the curriculum, the subject can often be little more than a list of disparate topics (said to be typical of many schools) resulting in long-term confusion and lack of retention, pupils are learning too many religions, teachers are unsure of how to teach the subject, some LEAs could do with support to improve their Agreed Syllabuses, progression between KS2 and 3 is virtually impossible because of the variety of topics taught in primary schools. Dr. John Gay, director of the Culham College Institute has said that the latest OFSTED reports underline the need for a national framework. 
1.4	Perhaps most important of all is the belief (not stated publicly) of QCA and OFSTED that RE will simply not survive in non-church schools unless some further statutory provision is made.  There are schools (I am told) where Heads are ignoring legal requirements and inspection findings in relation to RE.  Heads have learned that one may break the law in relation to acts of collective worship and so why not in RE? 
1.5	Publishers find RE a risky area compared with other subjects where the national curriculum provides clear guidance and areas of content to be covered. A national framework would be of help to them.  A new initiative is going ahead at the moment, called meta-tagging the curriculum.  This matches concepts with content throughout the national curriculum, enabling publishers of textbooks and CDs to check that they have covered all areas effectively.  Clearly it would be of help if RE could be included in this scheme. 
1.6	However what makes RE different is the tradition (enshrined in law) of local determination by agreed syllabus conferences, monitored by SACREs who advise the LEA on RE and collective worship. Many SACREs and ASCs are jealous of their prerogative and have been actively campaigning to retain their task in determining the particular form that RE should take in their locality.  They provide a forum for inter-faith cooperation and support for the teaching of RE in ways that help to make religious life real for pupils.  Any national framework that rendered the syllabus conference redundant would be resisted and for this reason it is likely that any national framework will specify minimal prescription and maximum flexibility.
1.7	In November 2001 John Keast secured funding from within QCA for a feasibility study of a non-statutory national framework.  By March the study was complete, following wide consultation within the profession and those concerned with the subject.  
1.8	At the completion of this feasibility study QCA authority members became interested and called John Keast in to report on it.  They agreed to take it on board as official QCA policy and Lady Stubbs wrote to the Secretary of State for Education to ask for funding for the development of a non-statutory framework. As a result details of the feasibility study are now embargoed, pending a decision by the DfES.  
1.9	It is not known when the DfES will respond.  Several of those consulted suggested that the DfES might well drag its heels on this but that if they approved it they would want the money spent in this financial year; by April 03. It would mean that the time for developing the framework would be severely limited.  A six month period between a go-ahead and publication seems the best guess but the period could be shorter.  This means that spring or summer 03 seem likely publication dates if the go-ahead is given. 

2.   The Recommendations of the Feasibility Study
2.1 The main features of the feasibility study are fairly clear.  The vice chair of PCfRE reported the    following recommendations in the summer edition of RE Today: 
The study has concluded that a national framework based on the structure of the NC booklets for foundation subjects such as History, Geography and Music is feasible and desirable.  A clear consensus exists to develop a framework for a number of reasons.  Most important of these is that it has the potential to support the Agreed Syllabus Conferences and SACREs in their important roles.  The study has also concluded that the introduction of any framework would need careful planning to avoid confusing users and to reflect the prime importance of the local Agreed Syllabus in the planning and delivery of Religious Education. It was agreed that a framework would be of most use if it promoted clarity and coherence in Agreed Syllabus construction and consequently in teaching and learning.  Such a framework would also need to contribute to wider curriculum development nationally, for example with the electronic metatagging of the curriculum which is currently under development.
The feasibility study has recommended that any national framework be non-statutory. John Keast told me that the most likely scenario is that attempts will be made to map out concepts and skills which will structure the learning, leaving decisions about teaching content to ASCs and that the format of the history orders might be a likely exemplar. This would not, one assumes, pre-empt the framework from setting out areas of optional teaching content (rather like the existing schemes of work).  Exactly where the existing schemes of work will fit in is unclear.  John Keast said that it is unlikely that they will be ditched but that the framework would not be determined by them. Other experts consulted were less willing to be drawn on the matter.
2.2	The history orders are set out in two sections. The first section sets out four areas which structure the learning in each of the three keystages.  The second section is called ‘breadth of study’ and constitutes detailed teaching content.  John Keast suggested that the RE framework might produce something equivalent to the first section, leaving the syllabus conferences to work out the equivalent to breadth of study (i.e. content). The four areas are: 
•	history is the study of events in time, 
•	events have causes which may be analysed
•	societies and peoples change over time
•	the past is represented differently by different peoples and in different times
In addition to these areas there is an emphasis on the skills of researching the past (through a range of sources of information) and evaluating sources of information.  
The second section is by far the more detailed and lengthy, setting out the detailed teaching content that is required.   It is characterised by a concentration on British history, followed by European and then selected aspects of world history.  Within the first section the dating system to be followed is the traditional Christian dating system (BC and AD). 
2.3	Summary of what is known about the structure and content of a possible framework:
•	It will be non-statutory
•	It is likely to be modelled on the history orders
•	It will contain concepts and skills intended to provide coherence throughout the keystages
•	It may contain examples of optional teaching units, mapped to the concepts and skills
•	It will not contain prescriptive teaching content
2.4	Will the DfES commission a national framework?  QCA is positive that they will.  One expert considered it more than 51% likely.  Another felt that it will be a ‘close-run thing’.  In favour is the fact that the RE world has put its weight behind the idea and that QCA has given its full approval.  In the past any lack of consensus within the RE profession has enabled Government to avoid initiating change. The Government’s first question tends to be ‘who is against it?’ In this case it seems that the answer is ‘very few’. However Government has come under fire for their policy on faith schools. The issue of Creationism vs Evolutionism which arose following criticism of Emmanuel College, Gateshead has caused them problems too.  They may not want to get embroiled in further controversy and decide not to risk bringing in a national framework.  They do not favour a national curriculum for RE and will need reassurance that a national framework for RE does not constitute such a thing. On the other hand they may ask whether a flexible, minimalist, non-statutory framework is worth the time and expense. They will also need to be convinced that such a framework will result in higher standards in RE in the classroom.  The issue would appear to be finely balanced.  One report that has reached me is that a meeting between Estelle Morris and the National Society to discuss the matter was scheduled for the day that turned out to be the day Morris resigned.  The National Society would have reported favourably on the framework.  What the new Secretary of State will do, and when, is anybody’s guess.  It looks as though further delay is likely. 

Implications of either decision

•	there will be no major or sudden change to the delivery of RE
•	RE will continue to reflect the legal requirement which names Christianity and requires the taking account of other principal religions
•	Agreed syllabuses will still be free to develop their own syllabuses
•	Teachers will continue to work according to their own perceptions of best practice
•	The short course GCSE success will continue with ‘wash-down’ effect on KS3. This course always requires study of Christianity and candidates may and often do, study only Christianity.
•	The SCAA models will stand (QTS requires students to be familiar with them) 

Is a  national framework feasible?

Expert opinion is that it is feasible to produce a national framework for religious education.  But is it so easy? I have my own reservations about the possibility of creating a formative framework (in the sense of one which determines the teaching content) acceptable in the current climate of opinion about what RE should be about.    A high powered phalanx of experts worked for three years in the 70s on a national framework (published as A Groundplan for the Study of Religion) and produced nothing more than a check list of areas to be covered when studying a particular religion. The difficulty is that the word ‘religion’ defies satisfactory definition, sufficient to bear the weight of a whole syllabus.   What is religion?  What are its concepts?  What attitudes characterise it?  These are the questions that must be answered if a formative and substantial framework for the study of religion is to be created. 

Penny Thompson’s website.

November 02.