Models of religious education
Excerpt
from
Gerdien
Bertram-Troost, Julia Ipgrave, Dan-Paul Jozsa & Thorsten Knauth,
“European Comparison: Dialogue and Conflict” in … REDCo II (de
resultaten van de Qualitative survey), pp. 409-410
Models
of religious education and their impact on pupils’ attitudes towards
dialogue and conflict
Now we have
shown pupils' views on religious plurality and the role of religion in
education with regard to dialogue and conflict, we will go further into
the influence of the way attention is paid to religion in school
(including different models of religious education) on pupils' opinions
on religion as a factor of dialogue or conflict. The main issue is
whether a certain model for religious education influences the way
pupils look upon religion as a factor of dialogue or conflict. When
gauging the role of religion as a factor of dialogue or conflict, it is
vital to see how religion is present and integrated in the school
environment. Opportunities for dialogue however greatly depend on the
nature and depth of its integration in school which, as we have shown in
this volume, in turn depends greatly on contextual factors determined by
both historical and current developments (see also Jackson, Miedema,
Weisse & Willaime, 2007). Here we will make a distinction between three
ways of integrating religion in school: 'no place for religious
education as a school subject', 'segregation by religious affiliation'
and 'mixed-faith religious education'.
No place
for religious education as a school subject
The legal
framework and educational policy of some countries show reservation
towards religious education as a school subject. This applies on one
side to Estonia and Russia. A secularist tradition of keeping religion
out of the public sphere remains strong in both countries as a heritage
from their socialist past. This is mirrored in the attitudes of pupils
showing a lack of experience with religious education affecting
attitudes towards the place for religion in school. Against this
background the possibilities of dialogue are limited. On the other side,
this reservation toward religious education in public schools applies
also to France, (with the exception of Alsace and Moselle) with its
unique principle and tradition of laïcité. In the French case
pupils mainly believed that the secular school ensures equality for all
by keeping religion and religious affiliation outside the school
context. They viewed this form of equality, created through excluding
differences, positively, but criticised a position that made the school
a solitary sphere of an equality absent in society at large. The
principle of laïcité seemed to pacify conflicts in school,
whereas outside school it did not affect existing conflicts. Pupils
spoke about separation, exclusion and prejudice as notable elements in
societal tensions. From their words it seemed that with this way of
dealing with religion in school (namely, leaving it out), conflicts of
religious heterogeneity are locked out, and unresolved, granting the
pupils no more than a temporary respite.
Segregation by religious
affiliation
Another way
of integrating religion in school is the model of segregating of pupils
according to their religious affiliation (e.g. in the shape of
confessional religious education). This institutional framework allows
for mainly intra-religious exchange. This was regarded as positive as
long as it served as a secure space in which the students could express
their religious views openly without causing offence, feeling
embarrassed, meeting criticism or ridicule. Young people in this case
felt protected from discrimination due to their religious commitment.
On the other hand, the data seems to indicate that a confessional
religious education (as, in our sample, is the case in North Rhine
Westphalia and Spain) runs the risk of confirming existing dividing
lines in the social life of pupils. The common result of our analysis is
that a lot of pupils do only socialise with peers with the same
religious background or the same attitude towards religion. The
question remains unanswered whether pupils in these contexts can
conceptualise a religious education characterised by mutual exchange
between pupils of different religious backgrounds and worldviews.
Mixed-faith religious
education
The model
'no place for religious education in school' as well as the model
'segregation by religious affiliation' have an influence on the pupils'
readiness for interreligious dialogue. However, even contexts with
mixed-faith religious education have to face problems of division along
religious and ethnic lines. These lines (as shown by the Hamburg data)
appear to be less obvious and more implicit. However prejudices and
conflicts can, to a certain extent at least, be corrected through
interreligious dialogue in mixed-faith religious education classes.
Respondents reported positive experiences of this approach and made
clear that it leads to a more differentiated and complex understanding
of other positions.
Where the
respondents favoured mixed-faith religious education classes, the value
of learning directly from each other was mentioned as very positive. The
benefits of discussion and sharing different viewpoints were cited. In
some participating schools these were not only the young people's
aspirations but also their experiences of religious education.
|