Position Paper on the Process of Drafting a National Curriculum for Religious Education
Author: Cristo Rodriguez-Casado
Executive Summary
Despite public claims from the education secretary that “genuine consensus has been reached,” the drafting of the proposed National Curriculum for Religious Education was not a consensual, sector‑led process. Stakeholders were asked to endorse documents they were not allowed to keep, mutually discuss, share, scrutinise, or even fully view; dissent was curtailed; access was unequal; and invitations to discuss were framed as invitations to “consent,” creating the appearance of agreement rather than genuine evaluation. The legally recognised RE sector — Agreed Syllabus Conferences and their committees, and the process followed by Agreed Syllabus Conferences — was not meaningfully involved, while a small, non‑democratically selected group shaped the drafts under secrecy and embargo.
Teachers, religious leaders, and REN members repeatedly raised substantive objections, yet these were largely ignored. As Guy Hordern MBE (Member of Birmingham Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education) noted ‘a process this narrow, opaque, and unrepresentative cannot credibly claim to speak for Religious Education as a whole’.
The Department for Education has announced that Religious Education will enter the national curriculum following what the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, described in a Schools Week article as “genuine consensus reached” among sector stakeholders. Teachers across the country may understandably assume that this reflects a broad, open, and rigorous consultation. It does not. The reality experienced by those involved in the reference groups and task‑and‑finish process tells a very different story — one in which neither the content nor the process commanded anything close to genuine consensus.
Issues with the Process
Across multiple meetings, stakeholders were asked to endorse documents they had not been permitted to see in full, retain, or scrutinise independently. Materials were shown briefly on screen, under a selective embargo that required individuals to travel to London simply to view them. As one attendee noted, “The short teacher reference meetings online do not count as significant consultation … There was unnecessary secrecy around the materials.” This secrecy was not incidental; it shaped the entire process.
Differential access meant that some organisations — most notably the REC Board — were able to review full drafts while those members of the sector who were not members of the Board were not. Such asymmetry is incompatible with any credible claim to consensus.
The framing of the consultation further undermined its legitimacy. Invitations asked stakeholders to “consent” to the proposals rather than evaluate them. Written and verbal communications repeatedly used language that directed endorsement rather than encouraged scrutiny. As one participant recorded, “Any claim to ‘genuine consensus’ on this basis is, at best, highly questionable.” Dissenting questions were sometimes curtailed rather than engaged. In one instance, a legitimate query about NATRE guidance was dismissed mid‑conversation, falling below acceptable professional standards.
Taken together, the experience of those involved reveals a process marked by limited transparency, unequal access, restricted scrutiny, and a clear expectation of endorsement regardless of unresolved concerns. As one contributor put it, “This is not how a national programme of study should be shaped. It is how a predetermined vision is ushered through under the veneer of consultation.”
RE should be included as part of the National Curriculum (rather than the basic curriculum) in which case the content would be determined by central government.
On the question of whether RE should be included in the National Curriculum, one of the few surveys of teachers found that there was no consensus at all in the results from members who responded to the Religious Education Council, with half of the respondents disagreeing with the statement.
The REC members who responded to this survey had “widely differing views,” including concerns with “the state determining RE” rather than local teachers and religious leaders and the “impact on freedom of religion or belief.” We at REN share these concerns, which have only deepened further during this sham process.
For these reasons, it is essential that teachers understand the truth behind the public narrative: there was not GENUINE consensus. Teachers and members of the religion and belief community were not unanimous — “Not even close,” as one participant stated. The Religious Education Network therefore records formally that the claim of consensus does not reflect the lived reality of the consultation process. As the drafts move into public consultation, it is vital that the profession is not misled into believing that the sector spoke with one voice. It did not.
Issues with the Content
These procedural concerns were matched by substantive objections to the draft curriculum itself. The proposals embed a “world religions” model long recognised as leading to fragmented coverage and superficial understanding — precisely the weaknesses Ofsted has warned against. They also place the development of a pupil’s “personal worldview” at the centre of the subject, despite public assurances from NATRE that “RE isn’t about converting anyone” and that pupils “are not encouraged or expected to change their own religion or worldview in any way.” As the REN analysis has argued, “One cannot simultaneously claim that RE does not touch a child’s worldview while designing a curriculum whose stated aim is precisely to do so.” This contradiction is not merely conceptual; it is a breach of trust.
The influence of the humanist lobby is also evident, as humanism was named as a non‑religious worldview as indicative content. This is despite the 0.017 percent of the UK (just 10,000 according to the 2021 census) identifying as humanists in the census.
Concerning Content
Paganism was also indicated as a religion to be studied despite concerns about the blurred lines between this and witchcraft, satanism, and other dangerous practices. Safeguarding red flags have been raised. Discernment in this area is severely lacking, with REOnline (a popular resource hub) linking Paganism content with Children of Artemis where you can find a “Spell of the Day” (for example, a spell for panic attacks which tells you to take the phone off the hook, isolate yourself, and recite a pagan spell) or Witchfest VIP membership for 5% off at the bar or 10% off Avalonia Publishing, which sells a book teaching “how to call upon both angelic and demonic powers as necessary.”
Needless to say, the worldview framing influencing the drafts makes space to move away from understanding the historic and contemporary significance of Christianity and other influential religions to seeing every point of view as a worldview. This framing of RE means that under this drafting the rich traditions of our nation and the traditions of the world will be moved aside for things like “ethical veganism.” Most children receive one hour a week’s teaching of RE. What is the best use of that time?
Contested Conceptual Framing
The draft materials also reveal a creeping dominance of sociological framing — such as the claim that “traditions are dynamic and constantly changing” — which misrepresents religious traditions on their own terms and risks reducing them to sociocultural artefacts. As Esme Partridge (author at Theos think tank) warns in her article on worldviews, this approach “risks imposing a certain worldview onto the classroom,” assuming an ideology of relativism rather than neutrality. Daniel Moulin (University Associate Professor in Philosophy and World Religions Education, Cambridge) in his article on the Curriculum and Assessment Review similarly cautions that the worldviews framework may “appear pluralistic”; it is actually an “imposition” which is “exclusionary of some religious positions.” Worse than just excluding certain beliefs, it actually imposes “a naive epistemological relativism” — the idea that all knowledge and truth claims are relative.
These concerns were raised repeatedly by Cristo Rodriguez (REN co‑ordinator, Farmington Scholar and Trust‑Wide Religious Education Subject Leader at the David Ross Education Trust) both in person and via written correspondence. Many others in the reference groups did the same, yet the process offered little space for meaningful debate or mutual discussion in groups.
According to the Curriculum and Assessment Review, the chair of the Task and Finish Group should be “independent.” REN finds the claim of independence difficult to maintain when the Chair (Dr Vanessa Ogden) was involved in promotional campaigns for a specific and highly contested approach to RE called Religion and Worldviews, featuring in promotional videos for Culham St Gabriels Trust, who themselves champion religion and worldviews education. Upon finishing her role as chair of the Task and Finish group, Dr Ogden moved to a position at the DfE.
Pushing back against this contested and weakened vision for RE, Cristo argued for and submitted drafts for framing RE in knowledge‑rich disciplinary terms with robust references to the academic disciplines of theology, philosophy and religious studies. The REN developed documents in collaboration with Julie Arliss at the Independent Schools Religious Studies Association (ISRSA/REN Draft). Julie Arliss was not invited to the meetings, and Cristo was not permitted to hand drafts to other members of the reference groups.
Concerns about Cohesion
The impetus behind the drafts is the noble aim of social cohesion. Dr Ogden repeatedly claims RE is about nation‑building and schools are the crucible of civilisation. However, an approach to RE which prioritises the intercultural competencies of respect and tolerance is often at odds with academic knowledge. Research consistently shows that academic knowledge of religions and belief systems leads to a stronger foundation for social cohesion (Ofsted, 2021 — see endnote).
Further Concerns: The Sector
The consultation process that led to the proposed National Curriculum for Religious Education repeatedly misdefined who “the sector” actually is. Despite the call from the Curriculum and Assessment Review for a “sector‑led” approach to drafting the curriculum, it has been led by a non‑democratically selected minority.
Although public statements have suggested broad professional agreement, the legally recognised RE sector — SACREs and Agreed Syllabus Conferences and their committees — was not meaningfully involved, nor afforded the access or deliberative space required by established ASC standards. Instead, a narrow group of organisations received privileged access to drafts, while most stakeholders were restricted to brief, embargoed viewings. Meetings were too short, dissenting questions were curtailed, and invitations framed as requests to “consent” created the appearance of consensus rather than genuine evaluation.
The longstanding legal process followed by a local Agreed Syllabus Conference will be abolished or amended with the effect of abolition. Local religious leaders will have no opportunity to come together with teachers to support local curriculum, thus reducing opportunities for genuine cohesion and diminishing religious voices in RE.
Dr Ogden has explicitly stated that the Agreed Sylabus Conferences which are grounded in law would need to be abolisted. These conferences guaranteed interaction between religious and non religious groups and the process ensured a cohesion in and of itself. Such a huge change warrants more than a three month limited consutation.
This falls far below the open, balanced, and representative procedures that define an ASC. As Dr Marius Felderhof and Guy Hordern MBE have recently argued, such a process cannot credibly claim to speak for the whole of the Religious Education sector.
Current Context
The Education Secretary has declared there is genuine consensus on the drafts. However this is not the case. The Education Secretary has said there will be a public consultation in September. This must be delayed so that alternative positions can be put forward for it to be a meaningful consultation.
Recommendations
The whole of the RE sector, including teachers, should question why their voice was not consulted rigorously.
MPs should scrutinise the process and its integrity and whether it follows the same legal process as that followed by locally Agreed Syllabus Conferences.
Religious leaders should ask why their input into locally determined RE will be banned. Politicians should ask whether they want more centralisation in education.
Legal groups should be investigating how this process could bypass the laws pertaining to how RE is currently determined by locally Agreed Syllabus Conferences
For any consultation to be meaningful genuine opportunity to dissent and have a meaningful process as well as sufficient time (see Gunning Principles) and so we recommend that alternative drafts are considered such as the ISRSA/REN Draft