The Professionalisation of Non-Denominational Religious Education in England: Politics, Organisation and Knowledge

In response to contemporary concerns, and using neglected primary sources, this article explores the professionalisation of teachers of Religious Education (RI/RE) in non-denominational, state-maintained schools in England. It does so from the launch of Religion in Education (1934) and the Institute for Christian Education at Home and Abroad (1935) to the founding of the Religious Education Council of England and Wales (1973) and the British Journal of Religious Education (1978). Professionalisation is defined as a collective historical process in terms of three inter-related concepts: (1) professional self-organisation and professional politics, (2) professional knowledge, and (3) initial and continuing professional development. The article sketches the history of non-denominational religious education prior to the focus period, to contextualise the emergence of the professionalising processes under scrutiny. Professional self-organisation and professional politics are explored by reconstructing the origins and history of the Institute of Christian Education at Home and Abroad, which became the principal body offering professional development provision for RI/RE teachers for some fifty years. Professional knowledge is discussed in relation to the content of Religion in Education which was oriented around Christian Idealism and interdenominational networking. Changes in journal name in the 1960s and 1970s reflected uncertainties about the orientation of the subject and shifts in understanding over the nature and character of professional knowledge. The article also explores a particular case of resistance, in the late 1960s, to the prevailing consensus surrounding the nature and purpose of RI/RE, and the representativeness and authority of the pre-eminent professional body of the time. In conclusion, the article examines some implications which may be drawn from this history for the prospects and problems of the professionalisation of RE today.

Teaching Rules or Teaching Creativity: a Paradigm Shift

Structure is everything in a screenplay we are told. If indeed there are any rules to screenwriting then this would be carved in tablets of stone. Within pedagogical frameworks we are diligent in our instruction of the three acts, advocating it as a paradigm. We pass on tools for the analysis of character that are gleaned from psychology. But I have seen students struggle with this toolbox. They feel constrained by concrete techniques. So often seeing principles as rules, structure as restriction. The stifling of free-form ideas is further compounded by the plethora of books that claim the path to glory lies only in structural devices. Some even purport to have a formula, a simple prescriptive model that will bestow almost certain success. Yet this is an industry that abhors formula, that hungers for the fresh and the new. Without bravado, imagination and experimentation with character and form, the best structured screenplay in the world is merely a typing exercise. As educators we have a duty to retain a balance between letting a student’s mind dance and keeping them to the tempo. This study will compare a variety of diverse structures, from Hegel to Alcoholics Anonymous, Kubler Ross to Jung. It will analyse recent journal articles, on both new techniques in teaching creativity and new approaches to the instruction of screenwriting, to suggest a model of how best to inform the application of structure to HE students and keep creativity uppermost. A structure of emotional truth. An equal appreciation of both the tools of our craft and an imaginative exploration of character and world that can unlock our originality and our artistry.