Search

Though the promotion of spiritual 'development' is statutory in state-maintained schools in England and Wales, it is neither clear what spirituality is nor how schools might educate in this area. In the literature, one finds an array of divergent conceptions of spirituality and spiritual education. There is, indeed, lack of agreement regarding whether spiritual education has any place in schools other than those of a religious character. Some argue that spirituality is beyond definition. I reject the notion that spirituality, and hence spiritual education, is beyond definition. I defend and develop Michael Hand's 'education in a spiritual activity'. I argue that spirituality concerns connectivity, or relationship, with the transcendent. This relational understanding of spirituality resembles existing accounts of spirituality as relational and underpins an account of spiritual education as relational education – again resembling existing accounts. However, I distinguish between relational education which concerns a wide range of relationships and spiritual education as a subspecies of relational education which specifically concerns relationship with the transcendent. I argue that reserving the term 'spiritual' for relationship with the transcendent would enable teachers and pupils to make the kinds of distinctions which are important in both spiritual education and the wider relational education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There already exists a large knowledge base about teaching and learning related to the origins, diversity and history of life on Earth. We know less about teaching and learning related to wider issues pertinent to both religion and science. In our research with 40 students in six secondary schools in England, we looked at wider issues of student perceptions of religion and science. Our study involved an intervention of six lessons in Science and six in Religious Education (RE). Issues of philosophy, including ethics, were raised in Science lessons. The RE lessons dealt with a variety of contexts that highlighted the question of the relationship(s) between religion and science. In both pre- and post-intervention interviews, we found many instances where students used language that conveyed a misconception of the epistemic distinctions between religion and science. Students referred to 'truth', 'theory' and 'facts' interchangeably when discussing religious and scientific knowledge. We argue that RE needs to attend to epistemic literacy if we are to both avoid epistemological misconceptions and enable students to develop insights into the specific knowledge forms manifested in religion(s). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In England, both Religious Education (RE) and science are mandatory parts of the school curriculum throughout the 5-16 age range. Nevertheless, there remain concerns that, as in many countries, students do not have a good understanding about the scope of each subject nor about how the two subjects relate. This article reports on a study that involved an intervention of six lessons in RE and six in science that were intended to help 13-15 year-old students develop a better appreciation for the relationship(s) between science and religion and a less reductionist understanding of biology. Our focus here is on the understandings that students have about the relationship between science and religion. The intervention was successful in improving the understandings of almost half of the students interviewed, but in these interviews we still found many instances where students showed misunderstandings of the nature of both religious and scientific knowledge. We argue that RE needs to attend to questions regarding the nature of knowledge if students are to develop better understandings of the scope of religions and how they arrive at their knowledge claims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has been suggested common schools might have something to learn from spiritual education in Steiner schools. This arguably assumes practice in Steiner schools to be compatible with the aims of spiritual education in common schools. I question this by considering whether the former is confessional, as the latter should not be. I begin by highlighting how my concern about the potentially confessional nature of Steiner spiritual education arose. I argue for a nuanced understanding of confessional education, which distinguishes between 'weak' and 'strong' confessional education, as well as between confessional education as intentional and as defined by outcome. I then argue that spiritual education in common schools should prepare pupils for spirituality, without being confessional. I consider whether Steiner schools are confessional by drawing upon findings from research conducted at six Steiner schools. I conclude that spiritual education in Steiner schools is weakly confessional in an intentional sense. I further conclude that practices which might contribute to preparation for spirituality and which can be implemented in a non-confessional manner are worthy of consideration for transfer to common schools. Common schools committed to preparation for spirituality as an educational aim could learn from spiritual education in Steiner schools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]