English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Using Dr. Marks Chater’s opinion piece as a starting point, this response tries to show why some of the proposed reforms of RE should fail, at least as put forward by the REC’s ‘Commission on RE’. It does so by countering the two major grounds cited by Dr. Chater as obstacles to the ‘reforms’ proposed. Firstly, in so far as one genuinely seeks to convey knowledge and understanding in education, including RE, political considerations are wholly irrelevant. Moreover, contrary to his accusation, having an interest or a passion for a body of knowledge is not corrupting in and of itself, and may even be essential. Hence, religious communities are right to support and promote RE. Political considerations only come into play when one seeks to allocate finite time and resources. Secondly, applying his somewhat alien business model of ‘the economics of producer capture’ to RE, neatly demonstrates the precise opposite of what Dr Chater appears to believe it shows. From this model, it is clear that on no account should RE be entrusted solely into the hands of a small group of ‘producer’ teachers and academics as recommended by the REC’s ‘Commission on RE’. In many respects, the current SACRE role is ideal in recognising diverse interests.

A response to Mark Chater’s: why RE’s radical reform could fail: the politics of epistemology and the economics of producer capture