The National Council for Curriculum Assessment (NCCA) recently launched a consultation paper on a proposed new curriculum for primary schools called “Education about Religion and Beliefs (ERB) and Ethics”.

This short piece analyses how likely it is that ERB will be compatible with the current way of teaching religion by primary schools with a faith-based ethos. It is argued that ERB will in all likelihood be incompatible with the current way of teaching religion in denominational schools because its pedagogic approach will implicitly endorse an agnostic attitude towards all faiths.

The NCCA sees its proposed ERB course as a “pluralist” form of education (p. 10); the course is to be taught in an “objective, critical and pluralist” manner (p. 11). (The consultation paper can be found in full here).

As the consultation paper itself recognises, however, “No subject or teaching is value-free” (p. 22). There are good grounds upon which to conclude that the NCCA is adopting a strongly neutralist approach to religion, i.e. a substantive or agnostic form of neutrality in relation to religious truth claims.

The NCCA states that its pluralistic approach to the subject matter “equally recognises the diversity of beliefs, values and aspirations of all religious and cultural groups in society” (p. 20) (quoting a previous NCCA document). In itself, “recognises” is an ambivalent term: it could mean “perceives” or it could approximate more to “endorses”. That the latter meaning is what is intended becomes clear with the next sentence, “Pluralism places value on a range of views rather than a single approach or method of interpretation of life” (p. 20).

The consultation paper goes on to endorse a “constructivist” approach to knowledge whereby children “co-construct their knowledge, identity and culture with peers and adults” (p. 21) and generate their own meaning and knowledge (p. 24, n. 3). Constructivist approaches to knowledge are incompatible with “realist” approaches which view the search for knowledge as a search for what is really true, irrespective of subjective constructs (a point the NCCA seem to accept (p. 29)).

Realist approaches to knowledge are presupposed and endorsed by all Christian denominations. In line with this, the concept of objective truth barely receives a mention throughout the NCCA’s document.

The NCCA confidently asserts that its proposed ERB course is entirely compatible with current religious formation in faith based schools.

It bases its judgment in this regard on the claim that the ERB course will contribute towards an ‘inclusive’ school environment (p. 11). While it is true that inclusivity is a value promoted by schools of a Christian ethos, it is neither the only value comprising this ethos nor an absolute at-all-costs value. Furthermore, inclusivity itself is neither univocal in how it can be understood and pursued, nor neutral as to its effects on other goods.

An agnostic approach to religious education would indeed foster a particular version of inclusivity within the classroom, but only by excluding from the classroom the truth of particular religious claims (such as the divinity of Christ or the existence of God) and, moreover, only by excluding from appropriate consideration the rights of religious parents to have their children formed in the faith while in a faith based school.

In other words, the wrong kind of ‘inclusivity’ can easily slide into relativism.

The NCCA argues in its consultation paper that the ERB course is not intended to replace existing religious formation within denominational schools (p. 7). Yet the question is not whether the ERB course replaces current instruction, but rather whether it is compatible with it.

(In my next blog I will look at the NCCA’s proposed “Ethics” course)