Search

This article draws on an empirical research project in which we explore the roles and understandings of knowledge in Religious Education (RE). Plural understandings of knowledge in schools (and society) lead us to concerns about the relationships between knowledge and social justice. We define epistemic literacy as the capability to recognise, and critically use, different types of knowledge. We also clarify that one's own relationship with knowledge(s) is significant and is, therefore, important for students and teachers to develop to respond to the epistemically plural RE curriculum and classroom. Drawing on literacy frameworks to identify the need for non-hierarchical conceptualisations of knowledge that include the expert and everyday (Hannam et al., 2020; Shaw, 2019, Vernon 2020), we acknowledge the need for a particular disposition when approaching knowledge about religion and worldviews. Building on the analysis of our empirical study and subsequent developments of epistemic literacy, we revisit the notion of epistemic justice (Fricker, 2007) and present a theoretical justification for the experiential preparation of teachers that draws on Biesta's (2002) reformed Bildung of encounter and Rawls' "veil of ignorance" (Rawls, 2005).What emerges from these reflections on the future of "Bildung" is, therefore, an image of a learning society conceived as a society in which the real encounters with who and what is other are a constant and continuous possibility.(Biesta, 2002, p. 350)What emerges from these reflections on the future of "Bildung" is, therefore, an image of a learning society conceived as a society in which the real encounters with who and what is other are a constant and continuous possibility.(Biesta, 2002, p. 350)

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.

In this paper, we draw on interim findings of our research project on Religious Education (RE), knowledge and big questions. We have found Miranda Fricker's concept of epistemic injustice useful in our analysis--that is, the notion that a person can be wronged "specifically in their capacity as a knower (Fricker 2007, 1). In interviews with Key Stage 3 pupils (aged 12-14) we found that for many pupils, their capacity to know was hindered by the prioritisation of respect for opinion. Where opinion is considered something not to be questioned, this seems to be a key indicator of epistemic disadvantage while some pupils valued and could employ criticality when considering knowledge claims (including opinions). Epistemic advantage in this way exacerbates epistemic injustice, broadening a gap between the epistemic haves and have-nots. This research is part of a larger project where we attempt to answer the question: 'Does Religious Education have a distinctive contribution to make to the development of epistemic literacy?'. We begin with our account of epistemic literacy underpinned by Young's powerful knowledge (Young and Muller 2010) and contextualise our data with discourses about knowledge and school education. We focus largely on the emergent theme of (respect for) opinions and we argue that the prioritisation of respect in RE is (for some pupils) a barrier to knowledge. We go on to explore why this matters for individuals, society and RE.

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).

Background: Schools and early years settings provide an opportunity to promote healthy and sustainable food, but standards and guidance in England focus predominantly on nutritional quality. The present study estimated greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) of school lunches provided for children attending school nurseries, including comparison between meal options. Methods: Menus, recipes and portion weights for lunches provided for 3–4‐year‐old children attending nine school nurseries were collected daily for one week. GHGE for each food and recipe were calculated using Foodprint functionality of Nutritics software. GHGE were calculated for each menu option (main, vegetarian, jacket potato and sandwich) provided in each school, and for meals with and without meat/fish. Results: In total, 161 lunches including 273 foods were analysed. Median GHGE across all meals was 0.53 kgCO2e (i.e. kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent) per portion, with significantly higher GHGE associated with main meals (0.71 kgCO2e per portion) compared to all other meal types (0.43–0.50 kgCO2e per portion; p < 0.001) which remained after adjustment for meal size and energy density. Red meat‐based meals were highest in GHGE (median 0.98 kgCO2e per portion and 0.34 kgCO2e per 100 g) and meals containing any meat/fish were significantly higher in GHGE (median 0.58 kgCO2e per portion) than vegetarian meals (median 0.49 kgCO2e per portion) (p = 0.014). Meals with higher adherence to the nutrient framework underpinning the early years guidelines had significantly higher GHGE than meals with lower adherence (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The results were comparable to previous estimates of school lunch GHGE and highlight variation by meal option. Consideration of GHGE alongside the nutritional quality of lunches by caterers could support provision of healthy and sustainable lunches. Highlights: Mean greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) across all meal types provided for 3–4‐year‐old children attending school nurseries was 0.61 kgCO2e (i.e. kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent) per portion (SD 0.32) (median 0.53 kgCO2e per portion).When GHGE were compared for different meal types, total GHGE were significantly higher for main meals compared to jacket potato meals, vegetarian meals, and sandwich meals, and this was the case whether compared per portion, per 100 g food or per 100 kcal.Red meat was the greatest contributor to GHGE per portion.There was larger variation in the GHGE of non‐vegetarian meals compared to vegetarian meals (depending on the protein included) and meals containing meat or fish had significantly higher GHGE than vegetarian meals.Meals with medium or high adherence to the nutrient framework underpinning the early years guidelines had significantly higher GHGE than meals with low adherence. [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.

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.

Background: Baby‐led weaning (BLW) centres on making the baby an active partner, rather than a passive recipient of complementary feeding. Key features of BLW include self‐feeding foods in their natural form, eating with the rest of the family and consuming family foods. This differs from traditional weaning (TW) where parents initially spoon feed purees, alongside finger foods, before graduating to more textured food. Previous research, however, has suggested parents may not fully adhere to one weaning style. The present study aimed to explore how the meaning and interpretation of BLW may contribute to the weaning style used. Methods: Messages and responses posted on three UK parenting forums, and relating to complementary feeding, were analysed using an interpretive thematic approach. Results: The characterisation of BLW by parents was varied, although they described BLW having an ethos which included trusting the baby, role modelling, developing confidence with food and sharing the social aspects of mealtimes. BLW also offered an alternative to those actively seeking something different or a default for those whose baby refused purees or spoon feeding. BLW felt like a natural progression, with low parental effort for some, and a source of anxiety, stress, choking risk and mess for others. Many parents struggled to find a process (what to eat and when) within BLW that they could follow. Finger foods were used synonymously with BLW, but many mixed/blurred aspects of both TW and BLW. Conclusions: The interpretation of BLW varies considerably between parents and a broader definition of BLW may be required, along with guidance on the process and purpose of BLW. Key points: Parents commonly described baby‐led weaning (BLW) as having an 'ethos' that included trusting the baby, role modelling, developing confidence with food and sharing the social aspects of mealtimes.For those who had a positive experience of BLW, it was a natural progression to solid food.For those who had a negative experience or avoided BLW, it was a source of anxiety, stress, choking risk and mess.Some parents turned to BLW as a default, when their baby refused purees or spoon feeding.Many parents struggled to find a process (what to eat and when) within BLW, that they could follow.Continued signposting to guidance, along with consistent messaging around the purpose of weaning is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A baby‐led approach to weaning (BLW) encompasses self‐feeding and self‐selecting graspable foods, offering an alternative to traditional weaning (TW). This cross‐sectional study explored adherence to characteristics of BLW and differences in food group exposure and nutrient intake between babies following either TW or BLW. Methods: Nutritional data were collected via multiple‐pass 24‐h recall, following parental completion of an online survey. Results: Infants were grouped according to age (6–8 months; TW [n = 36] and BLW [n = 24]) and (9–12 months; TW [n = 24] and BLW [n = 12]). BLW babies were more likely to be breast fed (p = 0.002), consumed a higher percentage of foods also consumed by their mother (p = 0.008) and were fed less purees (p < 0.001) at 6–8 months. TW babies were spoon fed more (p ≤ 0.001) at all ages. Amongst babies aged 6–8 months, total intake (from complementary food plus milk) of iron (p = 0.021), zinc (p = 0.048), iodine (p = 0.031), vitamin B12 (p = 0.002) and vitamin D (p = 0.042) and both vitamin B12 (p = 0.027) and vitamin D (p = 0.035) from complementary food alone was higher in babies following TW. Compared to TW, BLW babies aged 6–8 months had a higher percentage energy intake from fat (p = 0.043) and saturated fat (p = 0.026) from their milk. No differences in nutrient intake were observed amongst infants aged 9–12 months. Few differences were observed between groups in their number of exposures to specific food groups. Conclusions: TW infants had higher intakes of key micronutrients at 6–8 months, although there were few differences in nutritional intake at 9–12 months or food group exposure between babies following TW or BLW. BLW appears to be socially desirable. Guidance for parents is required, along with larger, longer‐term studies, which explore the potential impact of BLW in later childhood. Highlights: Babies following baby‐led weaning (BLW) were more likely to be breast fed, consumed a higher percentage of foods also consumed by their mother, were fed fewer purees and were less likely to be spoon fed at 6–8 months, than babies following traditional weaning (TW). This is consistent with both previous research and the general ethos of BLW.More parents self‐reported following BLW than were identified more objectively by researchers, with over 55% of TW parents reporting following BLW. This may indicate that the ethos or key tenets of BLW are misunderstood or that BLW is socially desirable amongst parents in this study.Intakes of key nutrients (iron, zinc, iodine, vitamin B12 and vitamin D) were higher amongst babies aged 6–8 months following TW compared to those following BLW. Intakes of vitamin B12 and vitamin D were higher from complementary food alone (when not including nutrients from milk).Fewer differences in nutrient intake or the way in which babies were fed were observed amongst babies aged 9–12 months, than amongst babies aged 6–8 months, indicating that older babies were more likely to have transitioned towards self‐feeding and the family diet, regardless of weaning style.As expected, younger TW infants had more exposures to iron‐fortified infant cereal and commercially produced baby foods but overall, food group exposure varied little between groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectiveTo compare the key differences between school lunches and packed lunches as eaten in eleven secondary schools in England, 21 months after the food-based standards for school lunch became mandatory, but before the introduction of nutrient-based standards.DesignData on 358 school lunches and 139 packed lunches were collected in May and June 2008 from pupils attending secondary schools in Sheffield, Manchester, Leicester City and Essex. Fieldwork was conducted over five consecutive school days at each school. Fieldworkers randomly selected five pupils taking a school lunch and five pupils bringing a packed lunch each day. All food and drink items chosen by pupils were weighed and recorded. Leftovers were also weighed.SettingEleven state-maintained, co-educational secondary schools from four local authorities in England.SubjectsFour hundred and ninety-seven pupils aged 11–16 years.ResultsPupils taking school lunches, on average, had significantly higher intakes of energy, protein, carbohydrate, NSP, vitamin C, folate, Fe and Zn than pupils bringing a packed lunch to school. Mean intakes of protein, fat and vitamin C from both types of lunch met the nutrient-based standards and school lunches also met standards for carbohydrate, NSP and energy.ConclusionsNutrient intakes from school lunches were more favourable than those from packed lunches, but typically failed to meet nutrient-based standards for school food. A combination of continued improvements to school food, educating pupils to make healthier choices and policies to encourage pupils to eat at school or bring healthier packed lunches is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

ObjectiveTo describe the lunchtime choices and nutritional intake of primary-school-aged children in England 4 months after the introduction of interim food-based standards for school lunches.DesignCross-sectional 2 d weighed food records collected in January and February 2007.SettingSix primary schools in Sheffield, England.SubjectsOne hundred and twenty-three pupils aged 8–10 years.ResultsVegetables (81 % v. 8 %) and cakes and biscuits (43 % v. 23 %) were chosen more frequently by pupils consuming a school lunch, while fruit (40 % v. 36 %), meat products (18 % v. 14 %), confectionery (72 % v. 0 %), savoury snacks (69 % v. 0 %) and drinks not meeting the school food standards (40 % v. 0 %) were chosen more often by pupils eating a packed lunch. Mean energy intake was lower in the school lunch group compared with the packed lunch group (1402 (sd 573) v. 2192 (sd 619), P = 0·005). Nutrient density (per MJ energy) was significantly better in school meals for key nutrients including protein (9·8 (sd 2·7) v. 6·3 (sd 1·9) g), fat (7·4 (sd 2·7) v. 10·6 (sd 2·8) g), NSP (2·8 (sd 1·3) v. 1·1 (sd 0·4) g), vitamin A (151·3 (sd 192·8) v. 69·1 (sd 55·6) μg), folate (29·6 (sd 11·6) v. 17·0 (sd 7·0) μg), iron (1·3 (sd 0·3) v. 0·9 (sd 0·3) mg) and zinc (1·1 (sd 0·4) v. 0·7 (sd 0·3) mg).ConclusionsSchools were largely compliant with the interim food-based standards for school meals 4 months after their introduction. Within the context of the new standards, children taking a school lunch are more likely to eat a more nutritious lunch, in terms of less high-fat/salt/sugar foods and nutrient density. The introduction of nutrient-based standards is warranted. Efforts to improve the lunchtime intake of children taking a packed lunch are also required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]