Curriculum And Assessment Review Special

On 5th November 2025, a landmark recommendation was revealed for RE as a result of the Curriculum and Assessment Review.  They proposed that RE become part of the National Curriculum for the first time in it's history.  Then one day later, the DfE announced it's plans to bring RE into the humanities alongside History and Geography in the newly named 'breadth' bucket. But what will this mean for the subject?  What question do we need to consider. To help us navigate this, I have invited Deborah Weston from NATRE, RECouncil and the RE Policy Unit. Katie Freeman - Chair of NATRE, and Sarah Lane Cawte from the RECouncil on to the podcast to answer some key questions.

• What is the CAR? Its purpose and what has the process been?
• What is the current status of RE?
• What are the current issues with RE?
• What were the findings in the interim report?
• What are the recommendations for RE in the final report?
• What is it NOT saying?
• How will this benefit RE?
• Why is high quality RE so important for young people in modern Britain?
• What happens next? Staged approach - Stage 1&2. Draft curriculum based on NCS. Consensus required.
• Recommendation for EBacc to be scrapped. How will this impact RE?
• Who will write it?
• What happens to SACRES?
• What about voluntary aided school’s with religious character? 
• What will happen to the Right to withdraw?
• Should we change the name?
• What about Non statutory RE?
• What are the changes to GCSE? 
• What about staffing, bursary, SKEs?

Transcript

SPEAKER_00: 0:00

This episode of the Army Podcast is sponsored by Reimagining Education, an organization dedicated to making learning inspiring, relevant, and future focused. Just like this podcast, they're passionate about exploring life's big questions and helping both students and teachers thrive. Find out more at reimaginingeducation.uk. A huge thank you to Reimagining Education for supporting the podcast. Welcome to the RE Podcast, the first dedicated RE podcast for students and teachers. My name is Louisa Jane Smith, and this is the RE Podcast. The podcast for those of you who think RE is boring, which it is, and I'll prove it to you. This week, the final report for the Curriculum and Assessment Review was made public. And the recommendation for RE to become part of the national curriculum is an historic moment for the subject. In this episode, I wanted to speak to some key players of the RE community to unpack what is being recommended and explore what this might mean. So with me I have Katie Freeman, who is a primary school teacher and chair of our RE subject association, Natre, Sarah Lane Court, who's chair of the Religious Education Council, the REC, and Deborah Weston, who is chair of the RE policy unit, the research officer for Natre, and is on the board of the REC, the Religion Education Council. So welcome, ladies.

SPEAKER_02: 1:31

Hi Luisa.

SPEAKER_00: 1:32

Right, so thank you so much for giving up, which is now a Sunday evening, to talk to us about this because I think it's really important that the community kind of understand what is happening, why it's happening, and what this might mean. Deborah, can we start with you? Can you just tell us what the curriculum and assessment review is? What's kind of its purpose? What's the process been?

SPEAKER_02: 1:53

Thank you, Louisa. Yes, um, you'll remember back in July 24 when the government announced this independent review, their remit was basically to look at the current national curriculum and the statutory assessment system in England. So we were really pleased at that point to discover that religious education would be included, and that was stated to us by the current Secretary of State. So, yes, we were included. So that's how it all began.

SPEAKER_00: 2:17

So I think the assessment review has been chaired by Professor Becky Francis, and I think there was this call to evidence, wasn't there, in order to try and work out what was needed to improve the education system. And I think what their hope is is to sort of create a curriculum that's fit for modern day and fit for purpose. So that it's a bit more balanced, it's a bit more ambitious, it's inclusive, more importantly than it is relevant. The decision to make to propose that RE becomes part of a national curriculum is kind of a landmark decision. But let's think about the current status of RE and sort of where we're changing from. So who wants to take that question? Oh and Sarah, yeah.

SPEAKER_03: 3:02

I actually think that's a really important sentence in the report that says RE's importance is not currently reflected in its ranking in the curriculum. I think that actually says more than those few words do. We're always, all of us, because we're all passionate about RE, believe that it's neglected. There are all sorts of reasons it's neglected, there are all sorts of ways in which it's neglected, but that's why any kind of change is really welcome because we want it to be seen as important, we want it to be available to every child and young person, because it's a subject that will intellectually challenge them, but it will also personally enrich them.

SPEAKER_00: 3:45

And I think, Sarah, what's really lovely about the final report is that it really recognises the value of RE, you know, in terms of the skills that it teaches young people and that it equips young people to navigate the modern world, as well as teaching them things like critical thinking that we know is really important for going on to further education. What about the current legal status? Deborah, you're a great geek on this. So, what's the current sort of legal status of RE in the country?

SPEAKER_02: 4:12

Yes, I think there's plenty of people that don't actually understand that. And in terms of the way that we talk about RE, it's quite important that they do. So I suppose what some people do know about RE is the whole issue of an agreed syllabus. So voluntary controlled scores with religious character and community scores. RE there is locally determined, and those scores have to follow an agreed syllabus. Then you have the voluntary aided foundation schools, and they are able to determine their own RE, and that's under the terms of their trustees. And then finally, you have academies who don't have to follow the national curriculum at all, but are required through the terms of their funding agreement to make provision for RE. Now that part could change if the children's well-being and school bill goes through, because of course, if it does, then academies will be required to follow the national curriculum. So there's three separate sets of criteria for religious education currently. And one of the advantages of this decision is it will make it much simpler.

SPEAKER_00: 5:14

Amazing. What we've talked about is actually that there has been a sort of maybe over time a decline in the status of the subject for lots of different reasons. What kind of issues is this then creating that maybe therefore is the reason why we need some change? So, Katie, do you just want to talk about the sort of current issues with RE as it stands and some of the problems with it?

SPEAKER_01: 5:36

Yeah, so I think that there are quite a few problems, but one of the main ones is that these four different rules or laws, as Deborah's talking about earlier, kind of have created a bit of a postcode lottery because obviously locally agreed syllabuses, there are lots of them across the country, and provision in terms of training for teachers, in terms of how teachers are delivering those syllabuses, is patchy. But then also schools can determine their own curriculums if they're an academy, and that can mean that what one five-year-old gets in the South West might not be what one five-year-old gets in London. And so we kind of have always called it a bit of a postcode lottery. And so my hope would be that with a national plan for RE and with RE going into the national curriculum, that we could end that postcode lottery so that all children could receive high-quality religious education to which they deserve. But also, if we're talking about all those things that we just mentioned earlier, about preparing children for life and for work and for going out into the communities and living well with each other, then we need to understand each other first and different lived experience.

SPEAKER_00: 6:40

So there's almost two things there. One is the fact that there's different RE in different areas, and that makes that sort of consistency much more difficult, and that often secondary school teachers don't know what students have done in primary school. So there isn't that kind of consistency and that journey from beginning to end, but also there's a variation in quality. The other thing you kind of mentioned there is that actually, in terms of staffing at the moment, and I think Deborah Weston, you can decide whether I got this statistic wrong. Is it 51% of RE is taught by teachers with another specialum who mainly teach another subject?

SPEAKER_02: 7:18

So nearly. So it's 51% of teachers of RE spend most of their curriculum time teaching a different subject.

SPEAKER_00: 7:24

Yeah. And actually, although there's some really excellent teachers out there, you do have people that don't have a background in theology and religious studies or don't have training in teaching RE, and you have a variety of attitudes towards the subject and towards teaching it. And actually, I know if I had to teach another subject, I would struggle with that. I would find that really, really difficult. Alongside that, we've obviously got sort of a lot of like theology and religious studies places closing and not offering theology and religious studies courses. And so the sort of pipeline isn't there. And so I think this is a question we'll come back to later in terms of staffing any potential changes that happen to RE. Anything else, Sarah or Deborah, you want to say about sort of the current issues within RE?

SPEAKER_03: 8:07

Yeah, another part of it is that I think because it's very difficult for a lot of people to understand where RE sits in the requirements for schools because the legal situation sounds complex and often isn't discussed in the places where it should be. I don't think many school governors are really that aware of it. It does mean that some schools actually just drop RE when it is an entitlement for every child unless they're withdrawn by their parents. And I think that's one of the really big problems that schools will say, particularly year six in primary school, is a peak time for losing RE because there's such an emphasis on SATS, so they want to give the time to English and maths. And in secondary school, there is actually statutory requirement for RE in key stage four when you've got GCSE courses going on. And even those students who are not taking GCSE religious studies should be receiving some religious education, and many of them are not, and the same applies to sixth forms in schools where it gets more complicated there because there are different provisions for students depending on where they are, but actually, schools are not doing what they should be doing. Some schools, and Deborah's got some stats on this, because Deborah is the stats with, but it's really disturbing. And I think the other point to make was that in Key Stage 4, the English baccalaureate has crowded out religious education and religious studies GCSE. So there are lots of things that have a really negative impact on the subject, despite the fact that it's so important for young people in so many ways.

SPEAKER_00: 9:46

Yeah. Deborah, actually, if we we had the interim report back in March. So after the call for evidence, they created an interim report, which was basically what their findings were. There weren't any solutions. And actually, that report echoed a lot of the things that are being said today. Is there anything else you just want to say about the interim report that came out about RE specifically?

SPEAKER_02: 10:08

Yes, I think there was a brief statement which basically said that the evidence that they'd analyzed suggested that there was a lack of national agreed content standards, and that had led to national disparities. So it's the postcode lottery that Katie was talking about, and national disparities and the quality of provision. So that was the indicator from the start that the evidence had been taken on board and that they had seen the picture for what it is. I mean, I guess one thing I wanted to add to what Sarah and Katie said about the issues is of course that the sequence of the Academies Act coming in and those schools being still required to make provision for RE according to their funding agreements, but that is the limit of the requirement. There's no syllabus or anything like that that is set out in the way it is for agreed syllabus schools. So they have to make provision for RE. So we started investigating that from NATROS perspective, and we found schools that had been publishing basically one lesson for each of the six principal religions, and that was it. That was their entire provision, there was PSH in citizenship, all crowded into that one lesson a week. The only way we could address that, because it was you know perfectly legal according to the funding agreement, was to take a complaint out against those schools to test it. And a parent asked us if we would take a complaint on his behalf, but we failed in that assessment because the school was making provision for RE, even though it was very small and so on. And it was only a challenge to that rejection that got it overturned, and we eventually were successful in that complaint. But you can't do that for every school. And another statistic, I suppose, is that one in six schools report zero hours of religious education at Key Stage 4. So at the time when students really, really do need sort of a good place to be able to talk about religion and belief to get really excellent knowledge and understanding about religion and worldviews, it's just not there. It's just not there.

SPEAKER_00: 12:04

So actually, the announcement on Wednesday, and the recommendation is going to be for RE to join the national curriculum. What else did it say? So, in this final report, what are the full recommendations for RE?

SPEAKER_02: 12:19

So I suppose the issue of us going into the national curriculum isn't quite as straightforward as we are going into the national curriculum. The government recommended that this was handed back to the sector, handed back to the RE community, if you like, and to work through a staged process. And the goal of the staged process would be to achieve a consensus over what should be in a national curriculum for RE. And only, and that's not going to be an easy process, but only if we can achieve consensus, will the government then commit to hold a consultation on that content. So there's a piece of work to be done. I suppose I'm feeling very confident about that, but then I'm quite an optimistic person anyway. But the reason I'm feeling so confident is because people told us at the start when we did the work on the RE council's national content for RE in England that we would never achieve consensus because RE people cannot agree amongst themselves, apparently. But you know what? We proved them wrong. And the result of that is that we did have a national content standard which is signalled as the basis to start this process of developing a national curriculum.

SPEAKER_00: 13:28

Yeah. The recommendation is we join the national curriculum, but there are these provisos put in that actually there has to be consensus. But you talked there about a staged process. So let's go through what those two stages are. What's the first stage?

SPEAKER_02: 13:44

Well, the first stage is that essentially the faith groups, non-religious groups, and wider teaching and education sector come together as a task and finish group. That's what they call it, a task and finish group, and work on to develop a program of study. So the first stage is to do that. And then the second stage, if we can reach consensus, is that DFE will conduct a formal consultation on that. Okay.

SPEAKER_00: 14:10

Have we got any sort of sense of who's going to be part of that stage one?

SPEAKER_02: 14:15

Not really. I mean, we we know that it's going to be led by the person who led the literature deep dive from the panel, and that's Dr. Vanessa Ogden. We know that she is going to lead it, but beyond that, there hasn't yet been announcement.

SPEAKER_00: 14:29

Okay. And so is it people that have bid to be on that table and then who makes that final decision who's going to be there?

SPEAKER_02: 14:35

I have no idea.

SPEAKER_00: 14:37

Interesting. Okay. And I think this is worth saying that there are still some questions around it. But stage one is to create or have a consensus over what should go in the national curriculum. Am I right? Yes. In understanding you there. And that's going to be led by Dr. Vanessa Ogden. Yeah. What's stage two?

SPEAKER_02: 14:55

So stage two is that if if we reach a consensus in the RE sector, in the RE community, then the DFE will conduct a formal consultation on the detailed content. And there's another part of stage two as well, which is that they will consult on proposed changes to the legislative framework, including any proposal to repeal the requirements to teach RE in school six forms, because that was another part of the recommendation. So there's that sort of parallel process that goes into looking at the legal changes that might be necessary.

SPEAKER_03: 15:28

It's important to note as well that the consultation is about the content. It isn't a consultation about the recommendation that RE is located within the national curriculum.

SPEAKER_00: 15:39

Yeah, that's a really good distinction to make that actually this is going to be decided, what's going to be on there. But also, just alongside what you're just saying, Sarah, is that we need to look at what a national curriculum looks like in other subjects. If we look at history, we have a look at geography, it's not detailed, it's not prescriptive. It will have like a series of bullet points about what should be included. And so I think there's a lot of talk about what this is going to mean, and you know, people are going to have to change their curriculums and things like that. But actually, national curriculums are not detailed and they're not, you know, they're bullet points of what should be included. Yeah, they're not schemes of work. They're not schemes of work.

SPEAKER_01: 16:18

I think that's where a lot of the confusion that we're hearing sort of anecdotally is. People are thinking they're going to be presented with a curriculum, but like you're saying, it's just going to be the covering kind of because it's not a scheme of work for them to follow or to a series of lesson plans.

SPEAKER_00: 16:34

Yeah. And so it's actually worth looking at maybe the national curriculum sort of style for English or history or geography or subjects that we kind of have a parallel with to see what that might look like. And I think that will relay a lot of people's fears about what changes that might mean to what their current curriculum. And also it's important to say that actually the recommendation says that a national curriculum should be based in the sort of understanding of the national content standard. And so any school that is teaching a curriculum that is based on the national content standard is likely to find similarities with what a proposed national curriculum might look like for RE.

SPEAKER_02: 17:14

And I guess, Louisa, the other point to make about that is schools are wondering what should they do now. One thing that you know we can be fairly confident of, given the response of the panel to religious education, is that RE will take a higher priority. And therefore, if there is 51% of teachers of RE mainly teaching another subject, now is the time to start training them up and giving them a better understanding of not just what to teach in RE, but how to teach RE. That can start now. You're not going to do that overnight. And another reason why I'm quite confident about that is when the government responded to the panel and to the report, they also talked about a variation in what the panel said about the English baccalaureate because the government has announced changes to the Progress 8 measure. And I think every teacher of RE will know what damage the eBAC has done to religious education. So that was a big cheer coming from me when I heard that announcement. So it's going to be much more flexible, Louise. That's the really thing, it's going to be much more flexible. So we can be in the breadth box. Yes. And RE can go back into the humanities option box if that's the way it's arranged in the schools.

SPEAKER_00: 18:19

So just for clarification, so currently Progress 8 has three buckets. So it has sort of English and maths, I think, in the first bucket. The e-back bucket, which is now going to be called Breath, which had geography and history, it had humanities in, but did not have RE. We were in the open bucket, that kind of third bucket alongside sort of music and things like that. We are now being moved into the same bucket as history and geography as the other humanities and counted as a humanities. And that's going to have an impact in terms of choosing GCSEs and things like that. So, as well as as a progress aid measure that will come into force sort of again, or obviously we don't have P8 at the moment. One other thing I do want to clarify at this point is the kind of time scale that we're looking for. You know, you just mentioned there what should schools be doing now, and actually recruiting or training up teachers to teach RE is going to be one of those things. But it's important to remember that any curriculum that is designed will not come into play. I think, is it September 2028? Is that the right?

SPEAKER_02: 19:24

So they're going to publish it in the spring of 2027, and then September 2028, the first teaching of the new national curriculum. And then following on from that in 29, you've got the first teaching of phase one GCSEs, 30 phase two GCSEs, 31 phase one A level, and 32 phase two A level, which is a really useful sort of sequence. It's not going to come in overnight. But for religious education, it's really important because when we talked about that problem with recruiting teachers, and you think how many fewer students study for a GCSE in RE since we got rid of the short course. If we boost the numbers of people taking GCSE, we'll then boost the number of people doing A-level, and that will boost the number of students who can go on to do a degree and so on and so on and so on. So you get like a pipeline being reinvigorated. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01: 20:18

So that is a really important step. Yeah. I think also, Deborah, from what you've just said as well, it's really important to look at primary too, because actually we need to ensure that there's really good training for primary teachers so that those year sixes are going into year seven with the knowledge they need for that secondary curriculum. And I think for me, that's one of the most exciting things about the potential of going into the national curriculum is that when my school feeds onto another school in one of several feeder schools, and we talked about the postcode lottery earlier, with all those different children having different offers of RE, and actually knowing that those children are going to go into year seven, having had the same offer, will mean that progression can go right the way through from primary through secondary, into what Deborah's just said as well.

SPEAKER_03: 21:04

I also think it's reassuring for teachers, for existing teachers, that it's not change overnight. They haven't got to throw away everything they've done. Becky Frank from the start of the review has talked about evolution, not revolution. And I think actually having this staged process laid out should help people to see that it isn't a terrifying prospect where everything they've ever known is going to disappear. It's actually being able to use the best of what you know and take it into the future so that it can be even better. And I hope teachers, both in primary and secondary schools, that's going to be something that's really encouraging.

SPEAKER_00: 21:44

And so, actually, what I'm also gathering from you is that actually the benefits that being in national curriculum will be. So, whatever that curriculum looks like, I think we all feel quite positive there'll be a consensus in terms of creating a pipeline. So the more people that do RE, the more people there is to train to be RE teachers, therefore the better RE is, therefore, the more people are going to choose to do RE. There's that the consistency between primary and secondary. So there is that journey, and secondary school teachers know what has been taught at primary. I think schools themselves investing in high-quality good RE teachers that can teach that curriculum. Because I think whether this is right or wrong, it does feel as though national curriculum has a bit more weight in schools than non-national curriculum subjects. And actually, even though there's laws protecting RE, the national curriculum seems to protect subjects much more than maybe the law does. And that's, you know, that's our experience as RE teachers. Katie, I'm really interested. Do you think this is going to impact primary teaching generally? So if we have a look at the moment that there's quite a big focus in maybe from five going into year six on preparing them for SATS, do you think RE becoming part of a national curriculum is going to make primary schools have to rethink that a little bit?

SPEAKER_01: 23:04

Once again, it's like, you know, we talked about the postcode lottery for RE in terms of the curriculum offer. I think in primary, it really depends on your school and the leadership and their understanding of the importance of RE. So my school, I'm really lucky my school really value RE and they put a lot of importance on it. And so we wouldn't be in a position whereby we lose RE curriculum time because we have SATs coming up, our year six and have a full offer all the way through. But we know in some schools that that does happen. I think that sometimes there is a paperwork trail in terms of provision and writing curriculums within year groups. And when your subject's not in the national curriculum, it can be lost off the edge as well, like Sarah was saying earlier, it can just drop off the end of the week. I also think it's not necessarily to do with SATS, I think it's also to do with teacher confidence. We know that most primary teachers are getting about two hours of training for RE. So if you've got a subject that you think is a bit tricky, that you've got less training for, you're slightly underconfident and you've got a busy week of content that you've got to teach before SATS, what's going to be the first subject to go, the one you're not feeling confident with? And so actually I think it's a bigger issue than where the subject sits. I think it's also to do with teacher training and with the loss of the bursary and secondary as well. And we know that in primary and we need to really improve that provision that primary school teachers are given. So I would hope that this recommendation would see us looking at teacher training for RE and how we can improve that to improve teacher confidence and understanding of where it should sit in the curriculum in primary schools as well.

SPEAKER_00: 24:41

Brilliant. I just want to clarify one thing. So just in terms of what it's not saying, what it is not saying is that RE will 100% be in the national curriculum. It is a recommendation based on the fact that we can get a consensus of what that curriculum will look like. Is there anything else that we've just got to address in terms of a misconception people might have, i.e., what it's not saying?

SPEAKER_02: 25:06

It doesn't make any recommendation about the right to withdraw from religious education. Yeah. Which I think is an interesting one, because there's quite strong views in both directions on that. Obviously, Wales has withdrawn the right to withdraw from parents, and that's made quite a difference in terms of the whole looking at the curriculum as being critical, objective, and pluralistic. The other thing, so it's not guaranteeing, as you say, that the law will be changed and it's being moved. The pressure is back on the sector to get that consensus. Louisa, can I just add one thing as well about primary? Because of course the reduction in the people doing GCSE that has been enormous. I think it's around 40 odd percent fewer from the peak of when we had short course. And that knocks on, doesn't it, into training primary teachers. So those primary teachers that are coming through now were affected by the removal of the short course. And so far fewer of them have had any qualification or training at Key Stage 4 in religious education in any depth. The knock-on of that, of course, is lack of confidence. And it's no surprise, therefore, when you look at the report that came out for the DFE last year about the working lives of teachers and school leaders, that religious education was way up there for primary teachers in the ones that they felt least confident about and were most likely to ask a teaching assistant to do or most likely not to do at all.

SPEAKER_00: 26:34

And do you think that the proposals that have been recommended is going to support that? How is it going to impact kind of teacher confidence and training and things like that? What's the connection between those two things?

SPEAKER_02: 26:48

Well, the training is really important, is it? And the same goes actually to resources. Publishers have got a real challenge trying to support 152 different local agreed syllabus when they're trying to think about the finances and the market of selling a product is difficult. So if there's a national curriculum, although it won't go into massive detail, it will provide some structure behind resourcing. Likewise, training of teachers, both primary teachers and secondary teachers, there will be a structure, a common structure. So wherever somebody goes to teach, they'll have a grounding in things that will appear everywhere, at least everywhere in schools without a religious character.

SPEAKER_00: 27:28

So I want to pick up on something you just said about the right to withdraw, and I just want to kind of show that there are different opinions about this, and we do have to come to a consensus. On one side, I think people are very nervous to lose that parents have the right to withdraw their child from RE in classrooms, but they still have to provide RE for their child. So even if they're not doing it formally in school, that child still needs to get RE from their parents. So that's the agreement. On one hand, if we want parity with other national curriculum subjects, then actually the right to withdraw needs to be removed because no other subject has that. But on the other hand, what are people's reasons for wanting to keep it? What's the arguments on the other side?

SPEAKER_02: 28:13

So perhaps we should go from the top really with this, Louisa. So yes, there is a parental right of withdraw, or if students are 18, they can withdraw themselves. But the other side of that is that there isn't really an obligation for a parent to provide anything instead, nor an obligation for them to provide RE, even though that was the original intent, it was a conscience clause. So that when RE was much more Christianity focused, people could withdraw if it wasn't their faith. So you can see that conscience clause was the objection. I've just finished analysing the data for the Natre survey and a trend that started two or three years ago of schools using the right of withdrawal, which of course they don't have. Schools do not have the right of withdrawal, but they've used it to withdraw children, particularly children with special education needs, from religious education, so that those children don't get their entitlement. So that's a worrying trend. And this year as well, this latest survey, the number of withdrawals has gone up really, really fast. They don't have to give a reason to parents, and most of them don't actually, but it has been used, and some of those reasons are not compatible with equalities legislation or fundamental British values or any of those kind of things. But we can do nothing about it. One solution to that might be that rather than to try the very difficult process of trying to remove a right, which is not an easy thing to get through legislation, is to actually update the guidance. Because the guidance hasn't been updated, the right to withdraw is in the 2010 guidance, but it hasn't been updated for 15 years. So the guidance might really help address that issue, and I hope it does.

SPEAKER_00: 29:57

Yeah, because I think some of it is going to be based on a misunderstanding of what RE is, because I think RE has changed quite significantly, particularly over the last five or so years. And I think that there's still maybe legislation is based on maybe historical ways of doing RE. And actually, if we look at the purpose of RE in the modern world, and I want to come onto that in a second, that actually maybe just being a bit tighter on the stipulations for withdrawing might be a better option than to get rid of it completely. Because I don't, as you say, I don't think that's going to be possible. There's just a couple of other things that I do want to just touch on, and then I really want to think about why RE is so important and just kind of end on that, sort of why RE is so important in the 21st century. Something else it doesn't really mention is what's going to happen to SACRAES. So the Standing Advisory Council for RE, they are the people that support locally agreed syllabuses within a local area. There's no recommendation, am I right, of what's going to happen to SACRASE?

SPEAKER_03: 31:07

There's nothing specific, but I think there's good reason to be optimistic about the future of SACRAS because SACRA's actually, freed from the responsibility of convening an agreed syllabus conference, will have more capacity to do things that really can support schools. And I think if there were a stronger link with the work of the RE hubs, SACRAS could be a really great body for building community cohesion, for identifying those people in their local communities from different faiths and beliefs who can actually give that lived experience to schools and who can actually really do the job of supporting and monitoring the subject. So I think you know we should be putting forward that sacres they have the potential as long as they are sufficiently well resourced, because some sacros we know are really struggling, their local authorities are not giving them any funding. So there's got to be some resourcing in order to make that happen. But if some resourcing's there, even at a fairly low level, although I'd like to say it higher, it is amazing what sacres can do. I chair a sacray, so I have a vested interest here because I think they can be great, and I've seen my sacray actually really move in different ways in the last three or four years. So yeah, let's give sacros a big cheer and say, let's get them doing more that's going to really help those teachers in schools and bring the experience of people from different faiths and beliefs to those children.

SPEAKER_00: 32:38

Yeah, that's really good.

SPEAKER_01: 32:40

I d I what Sarah is saying, but I Sarah, I really like what you're saying, and I also think that what you that word you use monitoring is really, really important because, like you, I'm part of the Sacra, I'm a vice chair of a sacray, and the people within that group are such an amazing resource for schools in terms of the voices that we can bring into the classroom and diverse voices for children to hear about a diverse range of lived experience. But also, Sarah mentioned that word monitoring. One of the roles of the SACRE is to um monitor schools, and so actually I think there's a lot that SACRAs could be doing to support, to bring those voices in, but also to kind of go back to that monitoring role and look at it as well and be a support for the local authority without this kind of huge beast of a curriculum to have to put together and offer to local area.

SPEAKER_00: 33:32

Deborah, I'm going to come back to you, but just Sarah, I think it's something that's just worth pointing out before I move on to you, Deborah, which is the fact that there is an inconsistency of funding for SAC race. So some have zero money, some have thousands of pounds to do their work. But actually, what we have inside of those are incredible local people with local interests, local knowledge from faith groups, from other worldviews, and using their expertise and their passion for the subject, I think is going to be vital for making any kind of national curriculum sort of manageable and successful. Deborah.

SPEAKER_02: 34:07

So two things on that. I think first of all, the voices of those people that serve on SACRA's and degree syllabus conferences in bringing lived experience into the classroom, they're vital. And as both Sarah and Katie have said, to have them with the burden of developing a syllabus, I think is probably unnecessary. Although some of them love doing it, so it is worth saying that. But the other thing I draw your attention to is that one of the recommendations of the Commission on RE in 2018 was to sort of extend the role of SACRAs to make them more involved in their local community. And I don't know, but the four sacros that I support, they come and meet each other, and they've sat the previous evening, maybe on an interfaith and belief forum, and it's the same people. So providing a role for them in terms of community cohesion, social cohesion, I think would be absolutely excellent. Also, that that recommendation looks at the makeup of sacros, got those four committees, and bringing more voices on. So, for example, the voices of young people, the voices of governors. So it's a real opportunity, I think, to have a look. Well, they were born in 1944. Perhaps we could look at them slightly differently. A bit of time has passed since they were born.

SPEAKER_00: 35:18

I think it's really interesting because I think this conversation now is going to empower people that are listening to have those conversations. If SACRAs are worried about their future with the changes that are being proposed, I think this is actually going to elevate them and I think this is going to use them more effectively and more efficiently to actually make really powerful change. I think that's really important. There's this kind of throwaway comment in the final report, which I don't want to spend too much time on, but I think it's just worth maybe having a quick discussion about the change of name. I'm happy to lay my cards on the table and say I kind of feel it's not the point. And I kind of feel it's a red herring. I don't feel it's necessary, although I really understand why people do, because they want to reflect the changes and they want to get rid of all the kind of misconceptions and preconceptions of the subject. What are the conversations people are having? What are the issues? What do we need to be aware about?

SPEAKER_01: 36:15

I think that this conversation's been around for a long time. Lots of people debating whether we should change the name or not. And back in 2018, when the core report was published, that was one of the recommendations to consider it. And I think at the time there were lots of discussions that were going on there, and my feelings were very much like we need to work out what RE is. Changing the name is not going to change the issues that we've got. So actually, for me, the recommendation to find a way to get a consensus for RE to join the national curriculum is what the RE community really needs to be working on at the moment and the content of that. And I think then changing the name, in my opinion, just distracts from that issue. Yeah. So we need to do that work first. And then when we've got that consensus, if we get that consensus, I hope we do, then we can consider whether the name needs to change. But it to me it's a non-issue, really.

SPEAKER_00: 37:05

Yeah. Okay. Sarah, Deborah, anything else do you want to add to that?

SPEAKER_02: 37:08

I don't think it'll make any difference, Louisa. I think it's indeed a completely red herring. Teachers will do what they will do. So if you think about it, it's been called religious education in the curriculum since 1988. Currently, at Key Stage 3, according to the unpublished 2025 Nature Survey, just under 40% call it religious education at Key Stage 3. Another 27% call it religion, philosophy, and ethics, any combination of those three terms. So that's another 27%. And there's others that call it other variations. At Key Stage 4, guess what? It's called religious studies because that's what the GCSE is called. They make up about half. And then after that, another 25% RE. So what this data shows, because it's all over the place, the teachers will do what teachers will do, and they will call it what they want to call it.

SPEAKER_00: 37:54

Is it Shakespeare? I might be completely wrong here. It said a rose by any other name still smells so sweet. I've kind of like in my head going, bad RE is going to be bad RE, whatever it's called. You know, changing its name isn't going to magically make it okay. And actually, as Katie says, we have to spend our energy and our passion thinking about what it is, not what it's called. And I think it's almost like sometimes the sort of parenting mistake, isn't it? We spend a lot of time choosing our name for our kids. And actually, it's more important that we think about how we're going to parent them. You know, I kind of feel that maybe this is the wrong debate to have now because I think there's more important things. The other thing I want to talk about, and I think this is really, really important. Over the last couple of years, we have seen the subject knowledge enhancement courses taken away, and we're now seeing the bursary being taken away. What is our call to the DFE in terms of the SKE and the Bursary in light of these proposals? Bring them back. Okay, you've heard it here.

SPEAKER_03: 38:57

Yeah. But really well trained and equipped teachers of RE. Yeah. Nothing we put in a national curriculum is going to be effective. The subject completely depends on having really well-trained, confident teachers. And none of the publications, nothing that we develop, even with the best intentions, will really change the situation if we don't have those people in the classroom.

SPEAKER_00: 39:23

Yeah. And I think that actually, if we're talking about let's not change the name, let's put our energy into something that's really going to have impactful change, campaigning to get the subject knowledge enhancement and the bursaries back, I think is going to be a really good use of our time.

SPEAKER_02: 39:38

Can I just add to that? Because I think the other message to the DFE on this is bursaries work to boost recruitment for religious education. We've had bursaries just for two years. We had a gap from them before that. So for the last two years, the data shouts at you 40% more people were recruited for religious education in the years that the bursary were there. So what do they think is going to happen when they take it away? And even with that boost, we were still only recruiting this year just around 50% of our target. So it's a disaster. So they've got to do more, not do less. That's the first thing. Second thing is it only costs 1% of the bursary budget to actually put bursaries in RE. Most of the funding is going into the big bursary ticket holders, which are you know your physics and the maths, they get£29,000, so that costs a lot. So if you're going to be successful with the national curriculum for RE, we've got to have the qualified teachers. And there's another factor that I think echoes with the curriculum assessment review, and that is when we have bursaries, the diversity of the people who apply goes up. Religious education already recruits really significant numbers of people from diverse backgrounds. And I think that too, if you have a bursary, we get an even wider diverse group. So I think that's another really important factor when you're arguing with the DFE, given that they have equalities duties themselves.

SPEAKER_00: 41:00

And guys, just as we close, is there kind of anything that you just want to sort of say your kind of final thoughts?

SPEAKER_03: 41:06

I'd like to say that actually this is a key moment for the RE subject community. You know, it's amazing that actually this is being given to the sector to say it's up to you to make it work. We have had disagreements from different factions in the past, and I've often said that it's a model that we don't want to see reflected in the classroom. When we're trying to teach children and young people to listen to each other and disagree well, actually, we haven't always demonstrated that as a community, but now we have got to pull together if we want change. And actually, the RE Council did a survey of its members, and there was consensus that they wanted change. What kind of change did vary to some degree, but we're not happy with how things are at the moment. If we want to improve them, we've got to do it together.

SPEAKER_00: 42:00

And I think it's so interesting, Sarah. That's exactly what I was thinking today. We are now being given the opportunity to model the exact skills that we're asking our students to learn, which is about empathy, compassion, listening to people, being open-minded, diverse plurality, all of these ideas to actually find consensus. And I think this is such a unique opportunity for us to demonstrate the skills that we're trying to teach our students. It's a really good point. Deborah, any final thoughts from you?

SPEAKER_02: 42:31

Yes, I suppose I just wanted to draw attention to one of my favorite lines from the report, really. And they're reporting on the evidence that they received. And they said this we have heard that RE provides a space for pupils to learn about human mutuality and reciprocity, that it develops their capacity to understand one another, and that it supports strong, secure, and confident communities with good relationships. And that is such a great message for today.

SPEAKER_00: 42:57

Yeah, I mean, we've used the word sort of community cohesion or social cohesion quite a lot. And I don't think we should underestimate this. We have a subject that helps society to work, and we need society to work. You know, we all benefit if we have a community that's that's cohesive. And I think you're absolutely right. I think that the role that RE plays within that is absolutely vital. Katie, final thoughts from you.

SPEAKER_01: 43:24

I think we've waited a long time for this door to be open for us, and it's a really, really excited time. And I think we need to use this time and this opportunity to come together to do something and have those conversations. On Sunday, last week, my friend had a little baby boy. She's an RE teacher too, teachers in primary school. And we said to each other on Wednesday, Wouldn't it be amazing if that when he goes to school he was learning under a national curriculum and that him and all his peers were getting the same offer across the country. And that's the challenge, isn't it? We're not here to do it for ourselves or anybody else. We're here to do this for teachers and pupils to make sure that the offer is equal across the country and that all children get high quality religious education so we can live well together.

SPEAKER_00: 44:10

Katie, it's so interesting. I had this sort of a similar process. My first 12 hours after this announcement, it was all about, oh, this is so great for the RE community, it's so great for the subject. And then suddenly this sort of penny dropped. I was like, no, no, no, this is what's best for young people. And it's so important to understand why this is so important for young people. I want to end on this because actually I always start my controversially start my episode saying that RE is boring. But actually, if you read the report, it really lays out quite clearly how and why RE is so important for young people in the modern time. It supports moral, cultural, and intellectual development. This is not teaching people to be religious. This is teaching people how to think. And I think that's really important. It encourages understanding of diverse worldviews. Our children can travel the world and to be able to foster empathy and compassion and curiosity about the world around them is such a gift to give our young people. But also it helps them as individuals explore their own personal worldviews and understand who they are and what they think about some of life's biggest questions. But it also prepares them for, as we said near the beginning, onward study. Skills of critical thinking is essential if you're going to go into the workplace, if you're going to go into further study at A levels or further on doing your degree. Whatever subject you do, you need to have critical thinking. But actually, this is about justice. This is about social justice. This is about equity and this is about fairness to ensure that all children receive high-quality RE. And actually, therefore, this is an exciting time for the RE community. And I just want to thank you, ladies, for coming together to give us the opportunity to talk about this and to help our community understand what is at stake and what the potential is for really, really positive, long-lasting change. So thank you so much, Sarah, Katie, and Deborah. This podcast is supported by ReimaginingEducation at reimaginingeducation.uk. My name is Louisa Jane Smith, and this has been the RE Podcast. The podcast for those of you who think RE is boring, but it is not. It is part of what's going to make this country incredible and what's going to empower our young people to move through this world in a way that excites and encourages and creates community cohesion. But thank you so much for listening to us bore the life out of you.