Balancing Rights in Religious Education through Collaboration and Dialogue

While the right of parents to educate their children in their religious or philosophical conviction is recognised in Human Rights instruments (e.g. CoE 1952, protocol 1), educators must also attend to the right of a child to autonomy (UN 1989, Article 12.1) and the right of liberal democratic states to reproduce values of equity and freedom. This paper argues that certain forms of inter-religious dialogue and/or inter-religious collaborative learning can assist educators in balancing these rights where religion has significant influence and power over the management of schools and/or the curriculum. It is argued that in addition to the learning benefits which may result, the use of collaboration and dialogue goes some way in addressing three philosophical criticisms of religious education: first that religiously separate and religiously based education pays insufficient attention to the rights of children and, secondly, is likely to contribute to social fragmentation; and third, pupils will lack the skills to overcome prejudice or intolerance where they have no experience of others as a result of separate schooling or from a religiously narrow curriculum, and the latter may in fact support intolerant views. A rationale is developed that asserts the value of collaboration or dialogue as a pedagogical strategy that can, to some degree, mitigate potential negative outcomes from religious education. This argument is further supported with reference to a range of empirical studies.

Mobile Phones and Contact Arrangements for Children Living in Care

This article reports the findings from the first UK study to examine the use of mobile phones by looked after children. Contact with family and friends is important, but it has sometimes to be carefully managed to avoid unintended consequences such as placement instability. The study examined the ways in which mobile phone technology impacts on contact, drawing on the experiences of children and young people in foster-care and residential care, and of policy makers, social workers, foster parents and residential care staff. No guidance was available that addressed the issue of mobile phone contact arrangements for looked after children and young people. Three years on from the start of the study, this remains the case in the area where the study was conducted, resulting in variation in the way mobile phone use for contact is managed; the issue appears only to be specifically addressed when identified as a problem. The position of mobile phone facilitated contact as a recognised form of contact requires review. The evidence suggests it should routinely form part of children’s care plans, and that residential staff and foster parents need to be adequately prepared and supported for the dynamics of mobile phone facilitated contact.