I write in response to your piece, “RE teaching has cross examination” (TESS, 4 March), because some of the points made are neither up-to-date nor accurate.
The most crucial factor is that most of the points refer to trivial, or at least non-fundamental, issues. Producing a piece of research based on books used in RE is a good example of this, because the fundamental research work referred to has already been undertaken.
Such research was published via the department of curricular studies at Strathclyde University in 2007, as part of my doctoral research programme. This looked at the sources, orgins and links of religion and education; a literature review; a review of report literature relating to religious education; a review of HMI report literature on religious education; analysis of interviews with heads of religious education in university education faculties and HMIs responsible for RE; consideration of responses to the national survey of religious education conducted for the study; the contribution of religious education and general curricular thinking; and the implications of educationalising religious education.
I mention this in the hope that it will contribute to the debate.
William Hannah, retired adviser in religious education, Dunbarton Council, Strathclyde Region and Glasgow City Council.