The role of teachers’ religious beliefs in their classroom practice – a personal or public concern?

ABSTRACT

This article reports on research into the influence of teachers’ religious beliefs in religious education. Drawing on accounts from eleven teachers in Controlled Schools in Northern Ireland, it shows the contested space many of them occupy in relation to handling personal beliefs, teaching about diverse religions and articulating a public rationale for their subject in the face of challenges from pupils and parents. In particular, we investigate how and why they teach World Religions in the way that they do. The findings are considered in the light of debates on the role of teachers’ beliefs in religious education. In contrast to other studies in this field which offer personal reflection as a way to resolve such challenges, the case is made here for understanding teachers’ choices within a wider lens which acknowledges the public nature of the space within which they operate. We argue that the challenges cannot be resolved or mitigated by individuals alone. Changes in policy to provide an inclusive and balanced curriculum with robust pedagogical purposes is needed along with clear ethical expectations around how teachers approach teaching religious education.

KEYWORDS:

• Religious education
• teacher beliefs
• Northern Ireland
• confessionalism

Introduction

Previous research on teachers’ religious beliefs in education has identified connections between what teachers believe and how they teach. This includes the choices they make about teaching materials (Hartwick 2014), their relationships with pupils (Hartwick 2014; Arthur et al. 2019), their representation of difference (Everington et al. 2011) and the professional identity they adopt in the classroom (White 2010). Across these areas, scholars show that teachers’ religious beliefs have the potential for both positive and negative influences on their pupils and advise that teachers must take care not to exert undue or inappropriate influence over them. Hartwick (2014, 140) is typical in recommending the need for teacher self-reflection as part of professional learning. He suggests that teachers should ‘work through their belief hierarchies, including a careful examination of their spiritual beliefs’, and concludes this will enable them to ‘ … consciously adopt practices that are most beneficial for their students’. From this perspective, teachers’ beliefs are relatively benign, operate within the personal domain and can be easily adjusted if need-be through reflection on practice.

Indeed, Everington (2012; 2014) has shown that teachers who draw upon stories from their personal lives can add authenticity to the learning context and this has positive outcomes for pupil motivation. Other positive effects are reported by Arthur et al. (2019) who conclude from their research into the beliefs of RE teachers in England that personal religious belief provided teachers with motivation for their career choice and a positive regard for pupils’ religious diversity in the classroom. Nonetheless, like Hartwick (2014), they suggest that to guard against the exercise of undue influence, RE teachers should be given opportunities during their professional education to reflect on how they handle their beliefs in the classroom context (Arthur et al. 2019; Everington 2012, 2014).

In contrast to this picture of teachers’ beliefs as largely unproblematic and benign is a view that highlights the significant power and influence of the teacher. In a classroom context the teacher is a ‘powerful storyteller’ (Copley 2007) who can consciously or unconsciously privilege one set of beliefs with the risk of excluding those who don’t share in those beliefs. Worse still, they may impose beliefs on a captive audience. Fontana (2015), for example, has argued that the separation of pupils in schools by religion as well as the approaches taken to teaching RE in Northern Ireland contributes to the perpetuation of divisions in the society. In such a situation where religious belief is controversial, overlaps with political and national identities, and is associated with conflict, the stance that teachers adopt has particular significance (Donnelly et al. 2021). In other contexts, Feinberg (2003; 2006) and Jackson (2012; 2004) also contend that what takes place in the religious education classroom is fundamentally of public concern. This includes how teachers’ personal beliefs influence their representation of religion and beliefs. In light of these debates, we wanted to know more about how teachers’ beliefs influence their practice in RE and how they navigate related issues such as neutrality or impartiality. This paper reports on one empirical investigation into the influence of RE teachers’ beliefs on their pedagogical approaches to teaching World Religions in Northern Ireland.

Background

Religious education is a compulsory subject in the Northern Ireland curriculum throughout all twelve years of schooling for every registered pupil in all state-funded schools. While all schools share a common syllabus (Department of Education Northern Ireland (DENI) 2007), the approach taken to RE varies among the major types of school: Catholic, Controlled, Other Voluntary Grammar and Integrated (see Table 1). In Catholic schools, RE is taught in a confessional way within a Catholic framework (Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference (ICBC) 2001). Controlled schools teach RE within the ethos of ‘non-denominational Christian values and principles’ (Controlled Schools Support Council (CSSC) 2022). Integrated schools have a ‘Christian-based ethos’ in which RE is tailored to students from both main religious backgrounds (Catholic and Protestant) as well as those of other worldviews, ‘in an environment where those of all faiths and none are respected’ (Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE) 2010, 4). Other Voluntary Grammars vary considerably and include denominational schools (e.g. Quaker and Methodist), royal charter schools and those founded by Christian philanthropists; they are generally long-established schools and the majority espouse non-denominational Christian values. Therefore, the majority of post-primary schools in Northern Ireland have a religiously influenced ethos, ranging from strong to weak and they vary between those with high levels of single identity pupils and those with mixed populations (Hughes et al. 2013).

Table 1. Main post-primary school types in Northern Ireland (2020–21).

School Type	No.
Controlled (Secondary and Grammar)	64
Catholic (Maintained and Voluntary Grammar)	86
Integrated (Grant Maintained Integrated and Controlled Integrated)	20
Other Voluntary Grammar	21

(Source: DENI 2022, https://www.education-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/education/table-1-number-of-schools-and-preschool-education-centres-by-management-type-201617–202021.xlsx)

While Integrated schools have attracted significant interest from researchers since their establishment, there has been increasing attention given to understanding the nature of Controlled schools (Barnes 2021; Gracie and Brown 2019). This interest is because of the ambiguous place they occupy as religiously influenced schools, untethered from denominational control, within an increasingly secular environment. To some extent the sector can be seen as an exemplar of ‘non-denominational’ schools which are experiencing similar dilemmas in many European states (Franken 2021) and elsewhere. These are different from ‘confessional’ schools and, using McGraw’s (2015, 1088) typology, could be characterised as ‘contextual’ schools (those with a religious legacy but which have limited interest in the religious formation of pupils). Existing research has shown that teachers of religious education in Controlled schools tend to be religious although they have conflicting views on the pedagogical purposes of their subject, especially in relation to how to handle diversity (Yohanis 2015). For this reason, they provide a valuable context within which to explore the relationship between teachers’ religious beliefs and their approach to teaching World Religions.

A module on World Religions is contained within the current RE syllabus (Department of Education Northern Ireland (DENI) 2007) that was agreed by the four largest Christian Churches in Northern Ireland: the Church of Ireland, the Catholic Church, the Presbyterian Church and the Methodist Church. This is one of four modules (locally called ‘learning objectives’) taught at Key Stage Three. The other modules are: The Revelation of God, the Christian Church and Christian Morality. Pupils are expected to learn about two world religions, apart from Christianity, to “develop knowledge of and sensitivity towards, the religious beliefs, practices and lifestyles of people from other religions in Northern Ireland” (Department of Education Northern Ireland (DENI) 2007, 29). The syllabus lists seven areas for potential exploration of World Religions: the origins; beliefs; sacred writings and symbols; worship and prayer; feasts and festivals; family life; and ceremonies: birth to death (p. 29). Apart from general assertions that teaching these topics will develop tolerance, there is no rationale provided for the study.

There is very limited evidence of how pupils experience this aspect of the curriculum, but what there is suggests that religious education facilitates assimilationist or separationist practices. In a study of children from minority belief backgrounds, Niens et al. (2013) found students in RE classes were generally assumed to be Christian and if they weren’t comfortable with this, they chose to separate themselves by opting out. Interestingly, however, they found that when asked what approach they would favour in religious education, most pupils wanted an ‘integrationist’ approach (p. 921) whereby they could express their own identity as well as being made to feel part of the whole school community and its ethos. However, teachers have not been well-supported in their implementation of the religious education curriculum and no explicit guidance is in place to set expectations around professional discourse or the sharing of personal beliefs with pupils (Nelson and Yang 2022). Further, the inspection of religious education falls outside the remit of the local inspection authority. While churches have the right to inspect religious education this is generally only carried out by Diocesan advisers in Catholic schools and there are no records of any church inspections in the public domain. More needs to be understood, therefore, about local practice within wider debates about teacher beliefs, confessionalism and the public role of religious education teachers in publicly funded schools.

Teacher beliefs and teacher stance

Detailed work on the beliefs of religious education teachers has previously been undertaken by European scholars in a major collaborative project: REDCo¹ (Everington et al. 2011; van der Want et al. 2009). Using personal accounts of 36 Secondary RE teachers from six European countries, they investigated teachers’ perspectives on and responses to religious diversity in classrooms, and the relationship between their personal beliefs, past experience and professional behaviour. Teachers in the study all admitted their religious beliefs significantly influenced the strategies they adopted to handle diversity issues in classrooms. This confirmed previous work by Jackson (1997) who highlighted the pedagogical importance of teacher beliefs for representation and interpretation of religious knowledge in the classroom. In the REDCo project it was found that the RE teachers’ perceptions about diversity issues in teaching were shaped by their family upbringing, professional training, educational experience, religious beliefs and life encounters with people from different traditions. There is some discussion of the different styles of teaching adopted – some involving personal sharing and some adopting a more neutral stance – but they note that there is no strong correlation between religious background and pedagogical approach. Similarly, Yohanis (2015) found that teachers’ pedagogical positions were profoundly influenced by their beliefs when teaching religious education, though the nature of the influence was not consistent. What is most surprising about the REDCo research is that the researchers do not move beyond their findings to problematise or query their implications. They seem to assume that any influence of an educator’s personal beliefs on their teaching is inevitably benign and a matter of individual preference.

As far back as 1984, however, John Hull noted that the choices teachers make in relation to the status of their own beliefs in the classroom can have a negative influence upon pupils’ religious freedom. He distinguished between a convergent approach and a divergent one. According to Hull, convergent teachers allow their personal religious standpoints to be expressed explicitly in their teaching, as reflected in three aspects: “personal religious faith, a preference for teaching it, and the hope that their pupils will come to share it” (Hull 1984, 37). A divergent teacher may also have a strong belief, but ‘the personal faith of the teacher diverges from the content and the aims of the teaching’. The purpose of religious education for the divergent teacher is enquiry – it is not to ask pupils to ‘think like me’ but to ‘think for themselves’. While debates around teacher beliefs in religious education have evolved and deepened in the last 40 years, Hull’s dichotomy highlights the epistemological significance of the choices teachers make. How they frame the content and purpose of their lessons links to their belief-informed intentions and has consequences for pupils’ identity and sense of inclusivity. This epistemological point is affirmed by Bekerman and Zembylas (2017, 134). They are conscious of potential negative outcomes from epistemologically narrow classrooms, especially the possible alienation of pupils from minority communities. Like Heitmeyer and Anhut (2008), they are concerned at the potential link between alienation and social disintegration. For that reason, they believe it is essential to pay attention to the stance which teachers adopt, how this shapes and frames knowledge within their classrooms, and how it positions pupils’ identity and beliefs too.

Within the field of religious education this question of teacher beliefs is generally framed within wider debates concerning liberalism, confessionalism and secularism. There is not space to develop these debates fully but it is important to draw from them three tensions within which teachers make choices and position themselves: confessional-impartial; liberal-postliberal; religious-secular.

Confessional-impartial

Philosophically, debates concerning teachers’ religious beliefs in education have focused upon issues of indoctrination, confessionalism, neutrality and impartiality (Cooling 2002; Thiessen 1993; Hand 2014). There is much agreement around the inappropriateness of indoctrination and the impossibility of neutrality, and so we limit our comments to the confessional-impartial interface. Confessional religious education generally refers to teaching about religion in order to promote and preserve beliefs and values in a nurturing environment (Barnes 2002b). Wright (1993) has criticised confessionalism for its failure to take account of religious diversity. His concerns for this approach are that it ignores pupils’ autonomy, which impedes development of critical thinking skills and hinders personal development. Those sympathetic to a confessional approach however believe that it is possible to learn to be critical from within a tradition (Alexander 2019; McLaughlin 1984), and they are careful to distinguish confessionalism from indoctrination. The case for reasonable confessionalism is grounded in the view that no education is neutral and teaching a religion sympathetically does not inevitably undermine a pupil’s autonomy (Cooling 2013, 2010; Barnes 2002b). Its reasonableness, they say, is also determined by the extent that parents are happy with it and it does not involve undue influence or coercion.

For many committed to an inclusive form of religious education, however, a confessional approach is regarded as inappropriate in a publicly funded school. Jensen (2008, 133) rejects it entirely on the grounds that equality is best served by the removal of any confessional element. RE teachers, he believes, should be ‘experts in methodological atheism’; their beliefs should not interfere with an objective, scientific study of religion. Such a stance is, however, open to the criticism that it imposes a secular approach and so replaces one type of confessionalism with another. Jackson’s (2012) alternative is a non-confessional, impartial approach which is secular, though not ‘secularist’ or relativist, and unlike Jensen makes space for teachers’ beliefs. While some may wish to move on from the debate around confessionalism, it remains alive (Franken and Loobuyck 2021; Niemi 2018; Whittle 2016). A primary reason for this is that the translation of policy into practice is so challenging. Take, for example, how two ‘impartial’ positions are translated into practice. For Jackson and Everington (2017, 10), teaching impartially means: ‘ … teachers may draw upon their personal views, provided they do this with academic integrity, and without the aim of persuading students to adopt their views’. By contrast, in Canada, the requirement for teachers to adopt an ‘impartial’ approach to teaching Ethics and Religious Culture means they are explicitly prohibited from sharing a personal view (Gravel 2018). This highlights the importance of further research in this area, including how teachers understand their role as ‘confessional’, ‘neutral’ or ‘impartial’, and what this looks like in practice.

Liberal-postliberal

A second arena of academic debate that is pertinent to teachers’ religious beliefs concerns liberal and postliberal perspectives. Hull (2000) proposes a liberal pluralist approach that eschews religious exclusivism (which he terms ‘religionism’) and adopts an ‘anti-religionist’ agenda. This means teachers should represent religions in a tolerant way and on an equal basis. Barnes (2002a; 2007) and Wright (1997), however, are highly critical of Hull’s argument, describing it as a liberal romantic perspective which misrepresents religion. Instead, they call for a critical form of religious education in which teachers facilitate an open and critical enquiry into diverse beliefs and traditions. The alternative, they believe, falls into the very trap it is trying to avoid; by treating all religions equally, teachers would be promoting a theologically liberal view as truth. Instead, a post-liberal form of religious education should, according to Barnes (2014, 239) recognise the ‘distinctiveness and uniqueness’ of religions and the diversity within them. The task of the teacher from this perspective is threefold: to facilitate critical analysis; make religious education relevant to the life-world of pupils, especially through exploration of moral issues; and challenge religious intolerance and religious prejudice. In practical terms what is required of the post-liberal teacher is that they do not ‘endorse the truth of any one particular religion or even the truth of religion in general’ (p. 241) but they present ‘truth-claims’ and the ‘forms of evidence to which religions appeal’ as well as ‘the kinds of assessment that are relevant to the consideration of this evidence’ (p. 241).

In their day-to-day practice religious education teachers make judgements on these matters which, in turn, have implications for classroom practice. Take, for example, the issue of social cohesion. Both liberal and post-liberal positions put value upon the aim of understanding religious beliefs and practices and argue that religious education can make a positive contribution to social cohesion (Halstead 2015), but they differ in the means by which they think this can be achieved, and the role the teacher plays in that too. In the post-liberal environment beliefs are subject to critical scrutiny, and it is believed that teachers and pupils can disagree respectfully. Indeed, honest disagreement is seen to be a mark of a healthy plural society. Davis (2015, 71) counters from a liberal perspective that it is ‘extraordinarily difficult’ to respect someone whose truths we fundamentally reject and, like Hull, wants teachers to extend tolerance to religion generally. In his view, emphasising the common good and shared values across religions and beliefs, is more important than emphasising differences which are exclusive and potentially divisive.

Religious – secular

A third area within which teachers position themselves is the school context. In this case, context refers to whether the teacher is in a school which is religious, secular or somewhere along that continuum (Franken 2021). Justifications of religious education differ, for example, between inclusive arguments for public schools (Jackson 2004) and mission-based/faith-development arguments within faith schools (Dineen 2015; Conway 2015). It might be expected therefore that the ways in which teachers manage their beliefs in the school environment will be determined solely by these expectations operating within the school culture. Where religion is part of the school ethos, teachers might assume that the expression of beliefs are subject solely or primarily to what is appropriate within the religious culture of the school. In other words, sharing of beliefs on a personal religious level would be considered valid to the extent that they are orthodox within the doctrine of the religion or denomination. This, however, ignores the responsibilities of a publicly-funded school within the framework of a politically liberal education (Halstead 2015).

Religious-ethos schools, especially in Europe, are often publicly funded and operate within legal and rights-based frameworks which set limits on their religious role and seek to safeguard young people and set standards for public discourse. Teachers are also, in many places, accountable to systems of inspection. Ultimately, as Feinberg (2006) notes, the role of the teacher in any RE classroom (whether faith school, public school or something in between) is a public concern and while Gearon (2013) believes that the subject should not become entangled in political aims, it is impossible to disentangle the work of the teacher from civic responsibility. In other words, teachers of religious education have a public role (Jackson 2012). The very fact that justifications for religious education as a school subject often include an aspiration for it to create a more tolerant and inclusive society (Grimmitt 2010), highlights the civic and political role of the teacher. If we acknowledge this role then there is a need to consider the implications for the influence of teachers’ beliefs across school-types.

Across these three areas above we can see the complex terrain that attends the question of teachers’ beliefs in religious education. We turn now to report on our investigation of the challenges within our chosen context.

Methods

In light of the literature above, we chose to investigate the ‘interactional practices and strategies’ (Bekerman and Zembylas 2017, 135) of teachers to understand how religions are represented, identities constructed and whether groups or individuals are ignored or diminished in the process. In this regard, three core research questions were identified:

What approaches do teachers of Religious Education in Controlled Schools in Northern Ireland take when teaching World Religions?

How do these teachers understand the purpose of teaching about World Religions?

In what way do the teachers’ personal beliefs influence how they represent World Religions?

While our focus on Controlled Schools was intentional for reasons noted earlier, it is acknowledged that a study which extended to a broader range of school types would yield even richer data and would be a valuable extension to this particular research.

Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with eleven teachers who were purposively selected (Brod, Tesler, and Christensen 2009) on the grounds that they had experience of teaching World Religions at Key stage 3 in Controlled schools in Northern Ireland. One had 5 years’ experience of teaching religious education and one chose not to say because it was ‘too long’, but the others had more than 11 years’ experience each, the average being 18 years. They were from a mix of rural and urban schools and chosen as part of a wider study of World Religions in Northern Ireland investigating policy implementation as well as teacher beliefs. All participants said they came from a Christian background and were exposed to Christian faith as a child. Ten identified themselves as committed Christians at the time of interviews and one considered himself agnostic.

Reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2021) was adopted. Specifically, this involved descriptive and conceptual coding of interview transcripts. The latter was informed by the literature and fell within Braun and Clarke's (2021, 6) definition of deductive Thematic Analysis (TA): “A deductive orientation in reflexive TA involves using pre-existing theory as a lens through which to interpret the data; deductive reflexive TA is not about ‘testing’ a pre-existing theoretical framework or hypothesis”. As will be seen, Hull’s concepts of ‘convergence’ and ‘divergence’ became suitable thematic anchors around which to develop the analysis.

Findings and discussion

Through the data analysis it was possible to identify teachers’ responses which reflected a liberal approach (Barnes 2006). This was evident in their justifications for teaching about World Religions which emphasised diversity, tolerance and social benefits. In relation to the teachers’ beliefs, these were coded as Divergent stances. By contrast there were responses which were conceptualised as Convergent in relation to teachers’ beliefs, although these were of two kinds – those where teachers were explicit in attempts to persuade pupils to their view and others which were implicit. What is important to note is that convergent and divergent positions were not mutually exclusive, rather individual teachers occupy an uncertain space where they shift between divergent and convergent approaches. The findings also illuminate the increasingly controversial nature of their role as RE teachers, from what was previously a ‘settled’ position.

Divergence and impartiality

Hull’s (1984) notion of the divergent teacher is of one who has equal concern for all pupils in the classroom, is open-minded and encourages a spirit of enquiry. Such perspectives were expressed by one teacher whose primary purpose was to get young people to think for themselves:

Religious Education is all about finding out for yourselves, using your skills, evaluating, you know, analysing. I’m not here to say, I am indoctrinating you. It will be lovely if I could indoctrinate them! but I can’t cos’ they’ve got a brain and they think for themselves, so that’s what I believe RE is about, just helping children to think for themselves, showing them the information, giving them as much information as they need, so that they can make up their own opinions. (Eileen)

Other teachers who when asked about diversity spoke of difference as positive and welcomed the opportunity to teach World Religions because ‘it gives our students a more rounded idea of religion in general’. (Sarah), and, ‘We live in a very multicultural society where you have people from different religions and they, you know, our young people need to appreciate that’. (Laura). Further, the teachers think it pivotal that learning about World Religions does not involve just knowing there are different people practising distinctive religions or traditions; the subject should also contribute to social cohesion and pro-social attitudes, such as tolerance and respect. Looking back on her treatment of the theme of charity one teacher explained how tolerance was promoted in the lesson:

It didn’t matter whether you’re Christian or you’re Sikh, you know what I mean? The same underlying principles still were there. And one of care, and love your neighbour, and tolerance and respect, and that was a big message I was trying to get across through teaching the World Religions, that there’s something bigger and better out there … ’ (Alison)

For another the purpose of learning World Religions was respect and understanding:

‘I want them to be able to respect, respect people of different religion … to have an understanding of why people do things’. (Samuel)

In taking this perspective, however, many found themselves facing challenges from their pupils, especially around teaching Islam. Teachers concurred that teaching about diverse religions required overcoming barriers from many pupils who fail to see the value of the learning:

‘[they] have the idea that why, why do we need to know this? Why do we need to learn these things?’ (Alex)

Thus the RE classroom is a site of ‘contestation of knowledge’ (Bekerman and Zembylas 2017, 134), and a space in which teachers and students negotiate what counts as knowledge. The hegemonic narrative noted above, that the study of religion encouraged tolerance, respect and an appreciation of others was perceived by the teachers to be a ‘neutral’ position. Barnes (2006; 2007), however, labels this as a theologically liberal position in which religions are assumed to be positive and have equal claim to respect. It is a position which Barnes rejects as misrepresentative of real religion and ‘is more likely than not to under-mine respect for difference, while simultaneously failing to challenge religious intolerance and bigotry’ (Barnes 2006, 408). Indeed, in one case in our sample the approach failed and, as a result of sustained complaints from parents about the teaching of religions other than Christianity, the teacher eventually gave up on teaching World Religions. Others acknowledged that they too faced parental challenges:

“they would phone up and say, ‘We want our children withdrawn from RE lessons because we don’t want them to learn anything about Islam because you’re trying to make them into a member of ISIS’.” (Eileen)

As a result, these teachers adopted a conservative approach. This involved distancing, superficiality and avoidance. When asked if they addressed truth claims in their teaching one said:

‘I believe my role in this is to present the information, this is what people in this religion believe and I present it’. (Sarah)

Only one teacher claimed to explore differences of belief in any depth. Others emphasised that their focus was on knowledge, in line with the curriculum requirements (Department of Education Northern Ireland (DENI) 2007), and many blamed time constraints for not allowing them opportunities to go beyond that.

In general, the data reveals a picture of teachers attempting to assert a philosophically liberal position through arguments for respect, diversity and social cohesion in the face of views that see certain religions as having negative effects on society and not deserving of equal attention. Barnes’ (2007) view that adopting a liberal stance leaves teachers ill-equipped for such a task would seem to hold true for these teachers. They are caught in a contested space between their liberal paradigm of tolerance, an essentialist curriculum with generic themes and challenging voices (from some parents and pupils) demanding a hierarchy of truth in which certain religious content should be excluded. The teaching of World Religions is, for these teachers, increasingly controversial and they found themselves on the defensive and regularly having to justify their choices to parents and pupils about what they were teaching.

Yet, our data revealed that this was not the full picture. Further enquiry showed that a commitment to liberal beliefs in respect of world religions was held alongside other beliefs which influenced how they represented religions in the classroom. These were their personal faith commitments. All teachers apart from one explained that they had personal faith and belonged to Christian denominations. In contrast to the stated attempts above to be divergent in their teaching, ten of the eleven teachers pursued convergent aims, although these differed between explicit and implicit forms.

Convergence and explicit confessionalism

Two teachers communicated their Christian faith explicitly with students when teaching World Religions. Both were long-serving teachers of religious education in urban schools, one with 18 years and the other 22 years of experience. They used a common treatment for teaching World Religions in RE lessons – comparing each religion to Christianity. They explained the reason was that Christianity is the most familiar religion to pupils, and this contributes to their understanding of other religions, but they also said that they intended to give Christianity an advantage by doing so. One explained that when presenting non-Christian traditions:

I will also encourage them to think for themselves and to go and examine the evidence for themselves. You know, to go and examine the Bible, to go and read, to go and find out … (Rosemary)

In her practice, Christianity is the standard against which all non-Christian religions are measured. As well as this, she admitted, “I would sometimes bring anecdotes [of my Christian experience] into teaching”. And she hoped that her communication of faith to pupils might influence their decision-making and she acknowledged, “I hope they would find a relationship with God that is meaningful”. (Rosemary)

Another Christian teacher, Samuel, expressed his motive for teaching World Religions as, ‘I love the lost’. In what seems at first an indirect response, on further analysis becomes a very clear assertion of his intent. In the language of Protestant evangelicalism the ‘saved’ are those who make a personal commitment to faith in Christ and the ‘lost’ are those who are non-believers or members of other faiths. As a purpose for teaching World Religions this means that he hopes to enlighten his pupils to the error of other faiths and promote the truth of the Christian faith. He elaborated on this evangelical intent by explaining

… I would use experiences from my life to put stories and … to try and get pupils interested in maybe something mentioned in the church or youth group. (Samuel)

As demonstrated during the interview, he evidently conveyed his hope for students to be religious in a Christian way. Also, he does not feel apologetic about introducing personal faith to pupils, saying “there are things that you can’t be neutral on”. To him, sharing faith in class is synonymous with showing passion for RE as a subject, which he believes does no harm to pupils. For this reason, he would prefer to teach about Christianity and expressed reluctance to teach World Religions in too much detail in RE lessons: “I think one of the criticisms would be that we’ve taught [World Religions] too much”.

The teaching practice of these two RE teachers is congruent with their self-identification as Christians who actively practise their faith in life. Their handling of World Religions in RE lessons reflects an explicit attempt to shape pupils’ beliefs towards convergence with their own faith and distorts the religion under study. It falls short of a fair and accurate representation of religion, which should be a minimum standard in a publicly funded education system (ODIHR Advisory Council of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief 2007). This approach also stands as a contrast to their views that teaching World Religions would develop inclusion and tolerance. According to Richardson et al. (2013)², Christian confessionalism is one reason why parents from minority religious backgrounds in Northern Ireland opted their children out of RE classes. Niens et al. (2013)² also found that minority students who withdrew from religious provision in Northern Ireland said that their teacher attempted to instil Christian faith in them. Consequently, that they did not feel integrated, nor did they believe their faith was truly valued in RE lessons. These are not insignificant issues. They raise fundamental questions about freedom of religion, the role of religion in state-funded institutions and the powerful role of the teacher. Copley’s (2007, 296) recommendations to limit the teacher’s powerful role remain relevant. They are, firstly, to ensure any RE syllabus in a publicly-funded school is ‘specific about the legitimate avenues of interpretation’; secondly, that “in the teaching and learning process whatever groups are labelled ‘learners’ should be made more aware of the power of the storyteller”; and, thirdly, that teachers make their ‘telling position’ clear.

Convergence and implicit confessionalism

The other nine RE teachers in our sample did not claim to actively promote their Christian beliefs through the teaching of World Religions and attempted to maintain a professional distance but they were clear that their beliefs undoubtedly influenced their approach. One teacher explained this could be seen in the difference between the way he taught Christianity and World Religions in class:

I suppose from, from teaching Christianity, yeah, it’s relevant to your own faith. Your own background will be evident in what you teach. (Charles)

Similarly, another teacher admitted that she placed a different value on Christianity and World Religions because of personal faith:

They’re [Islam and Judaism] not part of my everyday life, whereas Christianity is. So it’d be very hard to say I value [Islam and Judaism] … Obviously, Christianity is what’s closest to me, so it’s gonna be the one that I place most value on. (Valerie)

These teachers avoid explicit efforts to shape their pupils’ thinking though they admit, nonetheless, to be happy with the privileged amount of Christian content in the syllabus. Reasons given by the majority of these teachers in defence of the pre-eminence of Christianity were that Christianity is the most common religion and at the core of their identity. Five teachers expressed unwillingness to teach more about World Religions citing reasons of time, balance and information overload.

I think the balance is correct. I wouldn’t want to see the balance go the other way. I wouldn’t want to see the balance sway that we are teaching more World Religions than we are Christianity … because I think it’s important to give them a sense, cos’ we can swamp students when they are learning so much about other world religions that they are lost … (Sarah)

Hmm, we couldn’t, we don’t do other world religions because we don’t have time … I don’t wanna take away from the Christianity either. (Ashley)

It is evident that most of these teachers wish to prioritise Christianity in religious education and they believe this is possible without undermining the value of World Religions. Barnes (2015) argues that such a position is possible; he believes that disputes about the importance of beliefs are an inevitable part of religious education and the fact that some are prioritised above others should not overly concern us in relation to issues of social cohesion. In response, Davis (2015) points out that it is extremely difficult in practice to distinguish between the status given to beliefs and the people who hold them. Like Bekerman and Zembylas (2017), he makes a connection between what is taught and what is communicated (implicitly or explicitly) about identity. The extent of the current imbalance in the materials, therefore, compounds the curriculum’s construction of members of World Religions as ‘other’ and endows Christianity, and thus Christians, with a superior status. This finding reveals an inconsistency between these teachers’ espousal of ‘rounded’ or ‘balanced’ representations of religions and the treatment of these religions in their curricula.

Despite this, there were examples in the data that authenticity is an important part of the classroom environment for these teachers when speaking about World Religions. They attempt to adopt a stance which balances their personal and public roles (Stern 2017). Several explained how they would offer an explanation of their own position if questioned. One recounted:

… they [pupils] will say, “Miss, you’re just a Christian. You just believe. You’re being brain-washed” or something, and I’ll say, “No, I don’t think I have. I’ve been thinking for myself. I’ve weighed up all the different options, and this to me was the best option”. (Eileen)

As in other places, this illustrates how these Religious Education teachers find themselves managing a difficult tension between personal sharing and professional distance. In this complex space they are constantly challenged to make professional judgements that take account of their own deeply-held values, professional standards, school culture and wider socio-cultural debates which are constantly shifting. As such, they stand in a professional space that is both personal and public.

Conclusions

The religious beliefs of teachers in our sample undoubtedly played a significant role in their pedagogical choices in their religious education classrooms. The majority of teachers saw no difficulties in sharing personal stories about beliefs and values and, similar to Everington’s (2012; 2014) teachers, believed this brought to life the concepts they were teaching. In this regard, they brought authenticity to their practice. The fact that teachers bring their own lives to bear in the classroom should not be a surprise; teaching is not simply a technical task. Relationships are at the heart of effective teaching, and in any relationship, we will reveal something of ourselves. However, while all content will be edited and interpreted by teachers, it can also be ‘transformed’ or ‘hijacked’ (Copley 2007, 296) in the process and there is some evidence from our sample where personal beliefs are employed to unduly influence and persuade.

All participants were sympathetic to a broadly liberal perspective and commonly aimed for distance and objectivity in presenting World Religions in the belief that this was the fairest approach. They were also motivated to teach about religions for positive public values of tolerance and respect. However, it is possible to see that this was difficult to achieve, and as Barnes (2007) suspected, the liberal arguments offered a limited foundation on which to counter claims from parents that certain beliefs were harmful. Nor did the liberal arguments provide a substantial base from which to approach the teaching of World Religions. Some teachers were able to actively promote their views of Christianity as having superiority over other religions while claiming they were promoting respect and tolerance. Fontana (2015) has previously offered evidence of how conservative elements within schools, including religious education teachers, can resist moves to more open and inclusive forms of education and so continue to cultivate labelling and othering among pupils. Although they were a minority, the explicit convergent approaches by some teachers in our sample reinforce her concerns.

The majority pursued a confessionalism that was less explicit and arguably in step with the approach imagined by the syllabus writers; an approach which gives preferential treatment to one religion and seeks to cultivate ‘awareness’ and ‘appreciation’ of inter alia Christian worship, the Bible as the Word of God and God as the creator of all things (Department of Education Northern Ireland (DENI) 2007). Indeed, these expectations were set in 2007 and the syllabus has since been found in breach of European human rights legislation³. We believe, therefore that discussion of teachers’ beliefs in publicly funded religious education should not be framed merely in personal terms but as inevitably personal and public. Nelson (2018) has argued that religious educators in publicly funded schools bear a particular burden to ensure that what they teach cultivates citizens who make a positive and reconciling contribution to their society. As Bekerman and Zembylas (2017) note, these are fundamentally political issues in that there is an entanglement of religious and civic aspects which go beyond individual teachers to the status of knowledge within the curriculum, to the recognition, or not, of particular identities and to the power of the gatekeepers who decide whose voices are heard. Teacher self-regulation is important but the evidence here shows that it is not sufficient. Possible mitigations that can assist in maintaining appropriate boundaries could include a code of practice for teachers of religious education, the inspection of Religious Education by qualified inspectors, a well-balanced curriculum that is informed by a pedagogical model for inclusive religious education in plural environments, and a meaningful and contemporary legal framework for teaching about religion. Unfortunately, none of these are currently in place for these teachers in Post-Primary Controlled Schools in Northern Ireland. A wider civic and political discussion is needed that provides teachers with a robust rationale for teaching diverse world views within RE classrooms, clear pedagogical strategies, and agreed ethical principles in relation to personal sharing and professional distance.

Ethical approval

This research was approved by the Ethics Committee of the School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work, Queen’s University Belfast

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

James Nelson

James Nelson is a Senior Lecturer and Director of PGCE initial teacher education programmes in the School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work at Queen’s University Belfast, 69–71 University St, Belfast BT7 1HL, UK

Yue Yang

Yue Yang is a postgraduate student in the School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work at Queen’s University Belfast, 69–71 University St, Belfast BT7 1HL, UK

Notes

1. REDCo stands for ‘Religion in Education. A contribution to Dialogue or a Factor of Conflict in Transforming Societies of European Countries’.

2. In both of these studies ‘minority religious belief’ is defined as: people of religious belief other than Christian (the sample being taken from the Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Bahá’í communities); people of minority Christian or Christian-related belief (the sample included two Christian-related communities – Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses); people of non-religious belief (the sample being taken from Humanists and Pagans); and people of no specific belief (the sample being taken from atheists and from people contacted via various public organisations, including ethnic minority organisations).

3. At the time of writing, a judicial review in the High Court has found in favour of a family who believe that domestic law on religious education is incompatible with human rights law (Judicial Communications Office 2022).