Are RE teachers losing their religion?

One of the many assumptions made about religious education (RE) teachers is that they are religious. This may seem reasonable, given historical and policy framings for the subject, which allow for conscientious withdrawal (thereby inviting suspicion of indoctrination).

RE - also, depending on where you are, known as RME (the M is for “moral”) and RMPS (religious, moral and philosophical studies) - can also appear to privilege Christianity, according that tradition unique mandatory status. Previous research has also shown that this assumption is evident within schools themselves, where the subject RE is often conflated with religious observance that is often confessional in approach.

All this remains the case despite the fact that next year we will be commemorating the 50th anniversary of the publication of the Millar Report which, in the face of a crisis in confessional RE brought about by societal change (secularisation and diversity) and a shift towards child-centred teaching, advocated a faith-neutral exploration of humanity’s wisdom traditions (religious or otherwise) in Scotland’s non-denominational schools.

Religious education: Pupils pulled from RE lessons to study other subjects

Long read: The battle for the soul of RE

Flashback to 2011: Religious education makes a comeback

The types of changes that initiated the Millar Report were part of a continuing trajectory. Census and social attitudes survey data suggest ongoing decline in those self-identifying as Christian. We wanted to see if this was mirrored within the RE profession. Our data set elicited 355 responses from current secondary RE teachers in England and Scotland, asking them about their (a)theistic position and religious beliefs. We also asked them about their views on how religion should be taught within RE.

Religious education: How should RE be taught in schools?

We wanted to test certain hypotheses. First of all, there is debate among scholars of secularisation about the nature and extent of religious decline. Some, like Professor Steve Bruce, suggests it is decline in association, prestige and power, whereas others like Professor Grace Davie argue that people continue to “believe without belonging”, maintaining certain religious beliefs without attendance or affiliation.

We also wanted to granulate the research to Scotland and England, for two reasons. Firstly, research to date has often conflated English with British RE, blind to the unique history and approaches taken within Scotland. And secondly, some scholars argue that secularisation is more prevalent in nations where previously there was a Protestant majority (particularly of a Presbyterian form). Perhaps the flatter, more democratic ecclesiastical hierarchy adopted in such traditions (as have been influential in Scotland) has led many to follow Martin Luther’s 1517 lead and turn to a more individualistic outlook?

Our results showed that in England and Scotland, fewer than 50 per cent of secondary RE teachers identify as “theist”. More respondents identified as “atheist” in England than in Scotland. One of the most striking findings was that RE teachers are less likely in both England and Scotland to be religious than members of the general population (according to 2011 census data). The census data for England show that 25.1 per cent of the population are non-religious, while our data revealed that, of our sample, 47.6 per cent of RE teachers in England have “no religion”. In Scotland, where the 2011 census data stated that 36.7 per cent of the population have no religion, our data revealed that, of our sample, 55.6 per cent have no religion.

In terms of the aforementioned hypotheses, this seems to bear out Professor Bruce’s analysis: the majority of RE teachers neither believe nor belong. Interesting differences were evident between the two nations, notably the more advanced secularisation of Scotland, perhaps supporting the hypothesis about the susceptibility of Protestant nations to religious decline.  

We were also able to cross-tabulate these responses with other questions about whether religion should be taught positively or could be dangerous. While the largest groups of atheist respondents stated that religion should be taught positively (34.5 per cent ), there was a significant difference with the theist response level (69 per cent ). Our research shows that there is a tendency, in the face of the pressure for RE to develop social cohesion and foster tolerance, that RE teachers often “sanitise” and essentialise religions. This pressure may explain why so many, of whatever religious and irreligious persuasion, responded as they did to statements that religion is “dangerous” and that religions “should be taught in a positive way”. This is something we explore in more detail in a 2018 paper.

Hopefully, our research can help to promote the vision espoused by the 1972 Millar Report for non-denominational RE; of a non-affiliated profession enabling pupils to develop their own worldview vis-à-vis the study of humanity’s various attempts to grapple with existence.

We also hope this can also lead to renewed examination of the statutory framings for RE mentioned at the outset of this article - which continue to preserve suspicion and the view that one must be religious to teach RE.

Professor Graeme Nixon and Professor David Smith are researchers at the University of Aberdeen, and Dr Jo Fraser-Pearce is based at University College London

The paper this article is based on can be accessed here. The paper on sanitisation and essentialised approaches can be found here.