Cardinal Clancy Centre for Research in the Spiritual, Moral, Religious and Pastoral Dimensions of Education.
Spiritual, Moral and Religious Education is a Flagship area for Research in Australian Catholic University

The Moral and Spiritual Dimension to Education:  Some Reflections on the British Experience

By Graham Rossiter

(G.M. Rossiter, 1996, The Moral and Spiritual Dimension to Education: Some Reflections on the British Experience, Journal of Moral Education, 25, 2, 201-214.)

Part I

Debate About the Spiritual and Moral Dimension to Education in Britain

An Australian press review of the British debate spoke in journalistic terms of "overworked teachers girding themselves for battle in a new crusade for spirituality and moral values in the classroom". [1]    The accompanying headline, "Teachers Told to be Moral Guardians:   Juvenile crime levels prompt push for moral values" does, however cynically, highlight the often ambivalent view of Government.   The Government view stresses the need for schools to do more to improve moral standards and discipline;  and there is usually an unspoken assumption that this will harmonise with higher standards in vocationally oriented competencies through a national curriculum to achieve increased productivity and competitiveness on global markets.   This economic rationalist thinking has resulted in a new language of school reform.

In the United States, the holistic education movement (among others) has called into question the political and cultural assumptions in this reform rhetoric, arguing that "meaningful reform" must link the "cultural, social and spiritual dimensions" of education more strongly with the developing needs of students as persons. [2]    This critique has also been evident in Britain. [3]

What appears to me to be distinctive about the situation in Britain is the much more vigorous, widespread debate about education and spiritual/moral development.   The official documentation on the school's role in promoting the "Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural Development" of pupils (referred to as SMSC), [4] and the statutory requirement that SMSC is one of the four elements for official inspection by the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) seem to have been important catalysts of this debate.   That school provisions for spiritual/moral development are not mandated for inspection in other countries in the same way as they are in Britain could be one reason for the different levels of debate and activity.   There seems to be greater pressure in the British situation to clarify the links between aims, school provisions and outcomes.   In countries where school aims for spiritual and moral development are not inspected, I feel that there is a greater tendency to neglect them;  they may be included in school vision statements without much detail about follow through to the levels of classroom teaching and curriculum evaluation. [5]

My impression, based on limited contact with teachers during study leave in the United Kingdom, is that educators generally support an appropriate role for the school in promoting young people's spiritual and moral development;  but there remains ambiguity about how the expectations in official documentation will translate into practice.   Four prominent influences on this ambiguity seem to be:-

1.  Community expectations:   In the community generally, there still appears to be too great an expectation placed on schools and teachers to solve social problems and to account for young people's personal growth.

2.  Subject specific contributions:   Teachers in most subject areas are not clear about how they can actually contribute to students' spiritual and moral growth in the ordinary classroom context;  they were not trained for this aspect.

3.  Additional aims and expectations:   If teachers feel that provision for spiritual and moral development is to be added as an extra to what they are already trying to do in their subjects, then they may feel overloaded, and the integrity of their subjects compromised, by their teaching being made instrumental to personal goals not intrinsic to their subjects.

4.  Government intentions:   Teachers may consider that Government intentions for the school's role in fostering student spiritual and moral development are skewed in the interests of an economic rationalist view of national progress, and that the rhetoric needs reinterpretation in favour of a more holistic, student centred process.   This latter approach is in their view better for the national interest.

The Inspection of Spiritual and Moral Development in British Schools

What follows is based on a study of the documents available in 1993-94.   My prognosis needs to be reconsidered in the light of the growing corpus of data resulting from Ofsted inspections of SMSC.   I expect that it should take time, reflection and adaptation to get perspective on the most appropriate ways of appraising how relevant and effective are a school's provisions for SMSC.

In its first two years of operation, Ofsted's new machinery of independent inspection has evaluated SMSC in British schools even though there remains controversy about the meaning of spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of young people as far as the school's role is concerned.   The documentation acknowledges that it still struggles with this "considerable problem. ... [working out inspection] criteria in these areas is undeniably a tall order." [6]    However, the working through of these questions will provide a valuable review of the school's role in the spiritual and moral development of young people that should also be useful for education systems in other countries.   Its usefulness would not be limited to educators;   perhaps more significant is its potential relevance to the education of community views about the school's role in SMSC (cf. the problem noted in point 1 above).

The difficulties that Ofsted faces in the inspection of SMSC in schools relate to its concern for four interrelated tasks, each of which is problematic enough in itself.

1.  Determining what constitutes spiritual, moral, social and cultural development in young people.

2.  Determining what is the school's appropriate role in fostering this development through its personal relationships, organisation, ethos and curriculum.

3.  Finding and applying criteria for evaluating the school's provisions for SMSC that do not involve measurement of student outcomes.   That is: looking to see what exists in documentation, policies, structures, curriculum and teaching practice that is oriented towards SMSC.

4.  Determining what observations and measures of student personal development itself will be used for the evaluation of schools' SMSC provisions.

Ofsted's concern to engage in the fourth task will have ethical difficulty because it involves judgment of students' personal attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviour.

The Evaluation of Student Behaviour and Values

I have disquiet about how student behaviour and values may be used as indicators of schools' performance in promoting SMSC.

The first page of the Ofsted 1994 discussion paper, Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural Development, uses the word "behaviour" or "behave" six times. [7]    This gives a first impression that one of the main intentions for the SMSC elements in education will be to promote good discipline and student behaviour.   This same impression was given by the earlier foundation document Spiritual and Moral Development (1993) from the National Curriculum Council, one of the first official statements to articulate what the 1992 Schools Act meant by SMSC. [8]    Further, in Ofsted's 1993 revised Framework for inspection and Guidance for inspectors, the SMSC material is located under the heading "Pupils' Personal Development and Behaviour". [9]

To be fair to these materials, their reference to behaviour is located within concern for a positive network of personal relationships in the school community;  the educative role of this network complements that of the curriculum.   It makes sense to articulate the explicit values that a school community hopes will guide its personal interactions;   discipline and respectful behaviour are relevant.   Similarly, what teachers do to check behavioural and disciplinary problems can have important personal value for students.

So, appraisal of a school's discipline policy and practices are pertinent to an evaluation of its provisions for SMSC.   Sense of community and friendly atmosphere are just as relevant to SMSC but these, while at times they can be quite tangible, are not by nature open to reliable measurement.   As the Ofsted document notes, the "occasional visitor will be struck by the quality of the reception, the way in which staff and pupils address visitors'. [10]    However, this need not be read as a guide for assessment by personal impression.

The inspection documentation is ambivalent about measuring behavioural outcomes in SMSC and using this for evaluative purposes.   In the light of the complexity of personal development, it seems to move in the direction of evaluating the school's provisions for SMSC rather than student personal development in itself. [11]    It raises questions about the ethics of evaluating student spiritual development:   As regards "The difficulty of inspecting pupils' 'spiritual development' ... The very attempt to form judgments appears to place the educational evaluator in the position almost of an inquisitor:  by definition, therefore, if spiritual development is about a unique inner life it is not easy to inspect.   Clearly, forming assessments of individuals' spiritual health is not the function of the inspector, nor would he or she have the means or evidence on which to make them." [12]    But the same document considered that it is "undeniably of crucial importance to take account of how pupils are responding to what is provided."   So there is a move back to inspectors' looking for "evidence ... [through students] demonstrating such qualities as:-  knowledge ....;  understanding ...;   beliefs which are held personally, and the ability to give some account of these and to derive values from them ....;  behaviour and attitudes which derive from such knowledge and understanding and from personal conviction, ....;  personal response to questions about the purpose of life .... [13]

Elsewhere, the Inspection Schedule warns that "some families and cultures would regard detailed discussion of such matters with pupils as offensive" [14]    But again the response to the ethical issue is ambivalent;  inspectors are asked to be careful.

This ambivalence is ground for concern that, because the guidelines speak of observed student responses to a school's provisions for SMSC as inspection data, student behaviour and values (and other personal data) may become a measure of a school's performance or worth.   Regretfully, too much emphasis may be placed on the criterion of student behaviour in the general public's evaluation of a school.   While not discounting the school's role in encouraging good behaviour, educators need to point out the school's limited responsibility.   While it may be able to have a good influence on student behaviour, too many variables enter between its educational provisions and student behaviour to make the latter a useful (if ethical) measure of the school's effectiveness.   A school with excellent provisions for SMSC may have some poor student behaviour that tends to give a negative impression;   while a school with poor provision for SMSC may appear satisfactory because of the good impression given by the behaviour of its students.

Then there is the ethical concern:  Is it appropriate to judge aspects of student personal development -- their behaviour, attitudes etc?   Teachers' making interim judgments of student behaviour in informal/formal ways to guide disciplinary action, counselling or advice seems to be a natural part of the school's role;  it is located within the school's educative personal relationship with the student, and it is subject to ethical constraints.   But making formal judgments of student behaviour for the purpose of evaluating the school's SMSC interventions seems ethically questionable because it can compromise students' privacy, freedom and integrity.   This would be more the case where data about more personal aspects (attitudes, values and beliefs) were sought.

If it is accepted that evaluation of schools' SMSC provisions should not use ethically questionable procedures, other sorts of relevant data will be needed.   To consider this further, it will be helpful firstly to look more closely at how the school might be expected to promote personal change in students.

The Relationship Between Education and Personal Change:   Educational Hopes Rather than Educational Aims

A fundamental issue underlying the debate about the inspection of SMSC, is the relationship between the school's educational interventions and personal change in students.

There are grounds for confidence in linking cognitive and skills outcomes in students with their school education.   Hence there is validity and reliability in using such outcome measurements for evaluating the school's educational provisions.   Official curriculum documentation affirms that personal development is also a central objective of education.   But, when it comes to personal change -- change in aesthetic sensitivity, emotions, attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviour -- the nature of the change is so complex and it is influenced by so many non-school factors, that it is not realistic to postulate simple causal links between the school's interventions and student personal development.   Also there is a significant problem in defining what constitutes 'development' itself;  and consequently there is a problem in how students (and observers) would know whether or not development had occurred.

All of this suggests that as far as the non-cognitive aspects of personal development are concerned, it is rather pointless looking for valid, reliable, as well as ethical, measures of a school's influence.   It may be necessary to limit evaluative measurement in all subjects to the cognitive and skills domains.   Just because some subjects may have more significant potential for promoting personal development does not mean that a more personal mode of evaluation is necessary.

While taking full account of the ethical and privacy issues, there remains a question about the appropriateness of seeking voluntary (and anonymous if the students prefer this), information from pupils about their evaluation of SMSC provisions.   In this instance, educators could ask the help of pupils in their cooperative appraisal of the relevance of the school's efforts to promote SMSC;  it would give pupils a voice to comment about improving the relevance of courses in a context dissociated from student assessment.   They would have the opportunity to indicate whether they saw SMSC provisions "pointed in the right direction."   They would not need to give details of how they felt the programs had influenced them personally.   Such a procedure would stress the difference between student assessment and course evaluation.

On a different point, it is of interest to note here the pertinence of student assessment, reporting and credentialling to the perceived value of the subject -- and ultimately to its potential for promoting SMSC.   For some educators, subjects like personal/social education and religion are thought not to be amenable to assessment, reporting and curriculum evaluation;  possibly because they are considered to be too personal, or too low-key, or not a full subject.   This inevitably seems to have a negative influence on pupils' and parents' esteem for the subject -- it is just not one of the 'real' subjects that count.  (See later on the Psychology of the Learning Environment).

There is a need for a school to have clear policy about the place of assessment/credentialling and curriculum evaluation with respect to its curricular provisions for SMSC;  this should be particularly clear about the place of assessment of individual student performance;  and it needs to be realistic about the school's capacity to foster spiritual and moral development in more than their cognitive and skills aspects.   Such policy needs to have the moral support of educators, parents and students.   The inspection policy for SMSC should keep within the same framework.

In summary, I suggest that an inspection policy for SMSC should take account of the following issues/tasks (1-3 summarise points made above):-

1.  The importance of personal development aims for education:   Student SMSC can be promoted in different ways by school structures, ethos, discipline and classroom curriculum.   The need for inspection of SMSC can be explained in terms of educational accountability and school improvement.

2.  The natural limitations in the processes of student assessment and curriculum evaluation:   Assessment and curriculum evaluation are generally restricted to the measurement of cognitive and skills outcomes.   Because students' own SMSC development is complex and personal, inspection will not attempt to measure it.

3.  Consultation with students:   To help enhance a school's provisions for promoting student personal development, along with other considerations, it will be useful and ethical to consult with students periodically to check their voluntary (and anonymous) appraisal of the relevance of these provisions -- that is, whether they consider that these provisions can occasion their personal development.   This does not require judgment of their state of personal development.

4.  Distinction between educational aims and hopes for student SMSC:   Aims are the objectives that the school should be reasonably capable of achieving -- in knowledge, understanding and skills.   Whereas hopes are the more complex, not easily or appropriately measured personal goals of education.   Hopes for rounded personal development are important in education because of its respect for the uniqueness and integrity of each individual.   What the school may offer in this regard may merge inextricably with personal development contributions from a number of influences and agencies from outside the school. [15]    What a school does about its aims is open to evaluation, but it should not be judged on whether or not its hopes come true (especially during the period of formal inspection).

5.  Clarification of the school's distinctive contribution to the human development of pupils:   An estimate can be made of the most appropriate contribution that the school can make to pupils' full human development through its curriculum and teaching (in addition to a role for its personal environment).

As regards task 5, I propose that the role of the formal school curriculum in promoting SMSC is mainly in helping students become well informed and to learn to think about the issues related to personal development.   This seems to me the most appropriate classroom context for planned aesthetic, emotional, and other personal experiences -- which need to respect individuals freedom and privacy and avoid emotional manipulation. (It is beyond the scope of this article to explore the appropriate place for these last mentioned aspects of personal experience.)

This proposal is prone to misinterpretation by some who feel that it is a backward step to a rationalist approach that neglects the affective/personal dimension.   Rather, it suggests that an overall cognitive contextual emphasis is fundamental to classroom education and within that context the experiential and personal dimensions are most appropriate and effective. [16]    It also tries to redress the problem of too great a reliance on the idea that personal change in classrooms is best achieved through discussion methods or 'personal sharing'.   (This problem contributes to the poor regard for Personal and Social Education classes;  the attempts to make the lessons 'personal' have often been counterproductive.   See below on the Psychology of the Learning Environment)

Now to apply these proposals to the Ofsted documentation:   In the checklist for SMSC, it asks "... what is the balance to be struck between the instilling of knowledge and understanding and the promotion of attitudes .... between instruction and education?" [17]    This sort of thinking, often a part of public expectations of schooling, gives the impression that teaching knowledge, understanding and skills are a first level in education;  and then, with different intentions and appropriate teaching procedures, it is possible to 'change educational gears' and induce personal change -- in attitudes, values, behaviour etc -- as if there are well established 'affective' or 'personal' teaching procedures that are more pertinent and effective for bringing about personal change than so-called 'cognitive' methods.   The implied assumption is not realistic.   It seems to presume an automatic causal link between teaching intentions/interventions on one hand and student personal change on the other.   This fails to take account of the complexity and unpredictability of the way personal change occurs and it exaggerates the efficacy of the classroom in this regard.   It also neglects the potential of knowledge, understanding and skill development for catalysing personal change.

While there has always been the hope that schools can promote the more personal aspects of human development, and while no doubt this does happen to a significant degree, there is a need for realism and humility in the estimation of the school's potential in this regard.   This could mean a statement of intent like the following:   Schools, through the educational opportunities they provide, will endeavour to help students become well informed about various aspects of spiritual, moral, social and cultural development;   with the hope that this may occasion their personal growth.

Part II

Approaches to Personal Learning in the School Curriculum (Spiritual and Moral Dimensions)

The Ofsted documentation seems to give more attention to 'environmental' influences on SMSC than to the role of the curriculum.   While the Inspection Handbook has a section on "Subject contributions to pupils' spiritual, moral, social and cultural development" [18] , it is tentative and needs further development.   What follows attempts to give perspective to some ways in which classroom teaching can promote hopes for spiritual and moral development.   Three are proposed, all of which stem from principles 4 and 5 above.   Similarly, all three presume that the spiritual/moral contribution is intrinsic to the normal educational process and is not added or superimposed.

Two of the three approaches focus on the study of personal subject matter;   the third on learning skills that have personal relevance.   They are not proposed as 'new' but as articulating what good practice is already doing.   It would seem valuable in the current British debate to restate a case for their role in SMSC.   They try to highlight what teachers can routinely offer to promote spiritual and moral development without trying to artificially inject a personal element.   They are intended to give teachers across the curriculum some basic confidence that they can contribute to student spiritual and moral development in limited but important ways.   These approaches do not claim to exhaust the possibilities for personal learning in the classroom, but they can be a useful starting point.   Aesthetic, emotional and other experiential dimensions to classroom learning require more attention than can be given here;   their comparative absence from the picture in this instance should not be taken as neglect of their relevance;  but as suggested earlier, these dimensions are most appropriate and effective when situated within an open, inquiring study.   Also the multicultural perspective on personal development is an important one that is not addressed here.

A.)     Direct Study of Personal Subject Matter:      If the claim of the curriculum to promote spiritual and moral development is to have credibility, then it would need to include a learning area (or subjects) that looks directly and specifically at questions of human meaning, purpose and value -- subjects or subject combinations from Philosophy, Ethics, Religion, Personal Development.   Not only should such a study (or studies) be part of the official curriculum (National Curriculum) and have equality with other subjects, it should have a philosophical centrality in the curriculum because of the primacy that questions about human meaning and values should have in school education.   This is the study area that by definition gives students the opportunity to evaluate their education, to put it into some perspective, to see how it relates to the rest of their lives. [19]    The inclusion of such a study will not automatically fulfil all hopes for a personal dimension to education;  while some elaboration is offered below, considerable attention needs to be given to ways of addressing the factors that enhance or inhibit this strategy -- and to possible compromise situations if the above arrangement is not structurally possible in the present system.   Religious Education is one subject that already has a place in the 'Basic' curriculum if not in the National Curriculum.   I have reservations about its current emphasis (mainly descriptive) as not being relevant enough for the spirituality of today's youth.   Also, I think that if students, especially in the senior years, had a choice, they would prefer a combination subject that included philosophy, ethics and religion.

B.)          'Indirect' Study of personal/social/spiritual/moral Issues:     It would be artificial and inappropriate to try to limit the study of personal issues to particular subjects like those noted in A above.   So, in addition, there is a need for all school subjects to be able to examine such issues when and where they arise;  they can be addressed in ways that are informative and empowering for students without subverting the standard aims and processes of the host subjects.   If these issues are ignored at the time, there may be a subtle suggestion that the curriculum is not sufficiently concerned with young people's spiritual and moral development.   Planning to give relevant attention to issues can help avoid the extremes of a curriculum that is either issue-starved or issue-suffocated.

C.)          A Personal/Spiritual Dimension to all Curriculum Learning Areas:          All areas of curriculum should be able to help students learn general skills that will contribute in some way to their personal growth;  for example, skills of analysis, evaluation, interpretation, appraisal of arguments etc.   In addition, each learning area should be able to articulate a distinctive contribution that it can make to the personal integration of student's school learning.

Some elaboration of these strategies now follows.

A.      The Need for a Philosophically Central Area in the Curriculum that Provides for a Study of Values and Questions of Meaning

Subjects that include elements of religion, philosophy, ethics and personal development can provide students with the opportunity to study questions of meaning and value with the same rigour as expected in traditional subjects.   Such studies provide some corrective to any trend in the curriculum which glorifies the 'market-oriented' subjects or ignores values education.

Educators cannot presume that questions of value and meaning will be adequately explored within a general curriculum that does not program in a specific study of these issues.   While it will always be important to try to address moral and spiritual issues in all subjects, this is not a desirable alternative to a subject area where these issues are the main focus of study.   School education needs both strategies.

In addition, a values-centred subject provides a place where the purpose and value of students' education itself can be examined and debated;  it is in a pivotal position in the curriculum where students can try to evaluate and integrate into their lives their diverse school experiences and learnings.   Educators will argue that offering such a subject is no simple solution to the problem of devising a holistic curriculum.   But it is a good beginning.

While not discounting the way in which subjects like these can help students be informed about current social problems, they need not be thought of narrowly as a sort of educational prophylactic to solve society's problems.   They can provide an established, credible subject area that can serve as a natural forum for studying such matters, as part of a wider, study of philosophy of life and of the answers to human questions that religion, philosophers, psychologists, sociologists etc. have offered.

This idea is not new.   There already are subjects like this in place in schools -- Religious Education, and Personal and Social Education.   However, despite the support of statutory requirements, the good work being done, and no matter how prominent they appear in the school's prospectus or mission statement, they are more like 'fringe dwellers' than central subjects in the curriculum;  they are stressful for teachers who often perceive them as educational health hazards.   Questions are often raised about their relevance, effectiveness, and poor image in the eyes of students, parents and school staff.

All of this does not sound encouraging and it makes the noble things said above about strategy A now seem somewhat hollow.   The very subjects areas specifically designed to be personal and relevant are having their personalism and relevance subverted.   No pertinent consideration of the educational value of such subjects can ignore this problem.   Three factors are very influential -- School structures, and what can be called "National Curriculum Mythology" and the "Psychology of the Learning Environment".

National Curriculum Mythology:  Undermining the Personal Subjects        
There is a type of National Curriculum mythology that motivates thinking about what ought to be included and how it is to be monitored.   School effectiveness will be profiled in terms of student performance in key competencies which are important for employment, technological progress and the nation's economic productivity and competitiveness on world markets.   Values, religion, ethics, personal development etc. are said to be important, but perhaps not important or relevant enough to the prevailing economic rationalist view to warrant a competitive place in the National Curriculum.   The following may also have influenced the situation:-  fear that these areas would be too controversial in the national curriculum in a multicultural, pluralist society;  statutory requirements were regarded as sufficient support for the place that Religion already has in schools;  it would be too difficult to change legislation and Local Area Authority administration of Religion if it was put into the National Curriculum;   these areas were regarded as not really capable of sustaining rigorous academic study;  the track record of Religious Education as an academic subject in schools was not thought to be encouraging.

It is not surprising then that ethics, philosophy and religion were not seriously considered for the National Curriculum.   While not in opposition to the idea of education of the whole person in which spiritual and moral development have a place, those responsible for the national curriculum may see these aspects of human development as difficult to define, complex in nature and process, influenced by many non-school factors, controversial, and, above all, problematic for the measure of outcomes.

The resultant position of religion in the curriculum, despite being a statutory requirement, was thus marginalised.   This contributes to problems with student and parental perceptions of the subject as discussed below;  and to the structural problems with Religious Education as reported in Ofsted's own documents. [20]

School Structures and the 'Psychology of the Learning Environment':   Subverting the Personal Dimension of the Curriculum.       Certain subjects are seen by students to have high status and importance in the curriculum.   Even if they do not like studying them, most students pay at least some attention to what is being taught, and in general try to understand the basics just on the off chance that "it may come in handy for a job".

Also, when subjects are fully accredited (and examinable either by continuous or summative assessment) for Years 10-12, and when they count towards university entrance, students are more inclined to perceive these subjects as important and correspondingly they are more ready to work at them.   Students' attitude to subjects becomes problematic when they do not have 'credibility' and 'mark status'.  The point is well illustrated by the history of subjects like non-elective art and music, personal development and religion.   It even has parallels in tertiary education.   (A colleague who lectures in Legal ethics at a major Australian university has noted the relative disinterest of students in this admirable, compulsory, but non-examinable unit:  "This is the subject when the paper planes come out!")   This same problem has also been one of the major hurdles to be overcome in developing more equitable curricula in the post-compulsory years where the bias has traditionally been in favour of university-oriented students.

To a great extent, student attitudes towards the study of personal/social subjects at school mirror society's attitudes.   For example, the study of religion in both state and church-related schools is not regarded by many as a necessary or valuable pursuit, certainly not one that could make a difference when getting a job;  neither is it seen by most as making a major contribution to their quality of life.   Though interestingly, most of the same students will say that religion as such is important -- the sort of nominal religion that is better to have than not to have, just in case!

If school structures and community opinion are not supportive of the purposes and value of personal subjects, then they will subvert their value in the curriculum.   Hence, to make the study of religion, ethics, philosophy or personal development a valuable and effective exercise in the school, it needs to have well defined and highly visible support structures to help show its value to students and parents.

I am not suggesting that the values-related subjects will only be acceptable when and if they are fully accredited, or that accreditation will solve most if not all the problems.   However, any attempt to implement such studies that does not take into account the psychology of the classroom learning environment runs the risk of being quickly marginalised.

It goes without saying that efforts are needed to address other factors that influence student expectations such as:-  a comprehensive sequential program;  appropriate content for students;  enlightened, relevant student texts;  and well trained, competent, professionally committed teachers.   One of the problems with Religious Education and Personal and Social Education has been too great a reliance on group discussion (and other 'low-key') methods;  this mistakenly overrates the significance of these methods for bringing about personal change in line with non-directive Rogerian group psychology.   For example, the Ofsted Report on Religious Education (1994) notes:

     At Key Stage 4 and in sixth forms, basic RE, where it was provided, was usually confined to listening and talking rather than reading and writing.   Content was usually appropriate and of interest to pupils, although on occasion it depended almost entirely on video recordings.   Only in a few schools was learning in RE at these stages linked with certification, such as Records of Achievement or general studies.   Learning in examination classes was usually sound. [21]

The argument here is not a statement of unquestioned support for the system of examination or assessment geared learning.   But it is an acknowledgment of the realities within schools and community that have the potential to undermine any program that does not keep these issues in mind and does not attempt to address them.

B.      Indirect Study of Personal/Social Issues

While A above proposes a central place in the curriculum where questions of values and meaning are the formal content for study, it would be too narrow to try to channel all reference to values/spiritual/moral issues exclusively into such subjects -- as if they could adequately handle the school's role in values education and in promoting personal development.   The companion strategy -- scope for addressing relevant moral/spiritual issues in all subjects -- is also needed.   This strategy is proposed in the Ofsted Handbook (see endnote 18).

This approach is usually threatening to teachers, at least initially.   They may feel that values education is trying to take over their subject.   What is needed is flexibility to acknowledge and explore briefly the moral/spiritual issues that arise naturally within the subject in question without compromising the integrity of the subject matter.   For example, in drama and literature, questions of conscience and ethics can be identified, articulated and discussed to some extent without turning the study into a morality lesson -- or worse, into a sermon!   As school subjects are becoming more issue-oriented, it is now becoming easier to identify particular issues that are to be addressed directly, rather than just when and if they happen to be raised in students' questions;  examples here would be environmental and bioethical problems in the study of geography and science.   Subject departments could program in the study of relevant issues with some overall school coordination.

That a school sees it as important for all curriculum areas to give some attention to relevant moral and spiritual issues says something about its fundamental understanding of the nature and purposes of education.   This would be a key aspect to a holistic curriculum.

C.      A Personal/Spiritual Dimension to all Curriculum Learning Areas

          (The Dimensions of Meaning, Value and Purpose in the General Curriculum)

Along with strategies A and B above, there is a way in which all subjects can make a distinctive contribution to values education and to the spiritual/moral development of students.

With a curriculum theory that is student-centred, it is not appropriate to presume that a subject should have a place in the school curriculum simply because it represents a traditional academic discipline, imparts specific knowledge and skills or develops a set of key employment-related competencies.   Rather, the justification of its place could require an explanation of how it contributes in both general and distinctive ways to the personal development of students. [22]

Complementing the way these issues are discussed in the literature of curriculum theory, a further approach can be proposed:  that each subject or learning area articulates for students how it can be valuable for them in the larger context of their own lives, trying to alert them to the meaning of their learning.

This approach has two aspects:-

1.  Showing how the subject contributes to general skills for personal/spiritual development  Eg. collecting and analysing data;  identifying and evaluating arguments, and learning how to articulate an informed point of view with logic and with supporting evidence;  empathising with the situation and point of view of others;  identifying moral and political issues;  differentiating emotional and reasoned responses to issues;  identifying conflict and its sources with reflection on possibilities for non-violent conflict resolution;  speculating on short term and long term human consequences of particular actions;  reflecting on implications for quality of life and respect for the environment;  showing how events in the past can help illuminate and interpret what is happening at present.  (to name some of the general personal skills that schooling can help promote).

2.  Showing how learning from this subject contributes in a distinctive way to students' understanding of life;   this learning has a spiritual or purpose dimension in the way it adds to the range of an individual's access to physical and cultural inheritance.   Even if the contribution is simple and limited, it can still have some ultimate value and meaning in equipping students to respond to life.   Eg.  learning a foreign language enhances the capacity to enter into another culture and literature;  health education can be a prerequisite to a life-long sensitivity to health issues;  from a study of geology and biology can come a capacity to 'read' the ecology of any environment;  religious studies can contribute an understanding of the ways religious beliefs influence behaviour and how people interpret the dilemmas of human existence such as life, joy, pain and death.

Every now and again teachers could attempt to alert students to the long term meaning of their current learning, even if this seems to fall on uninterested ears.   Whether they agree with it or not at this stage, it is important for students to know that the teacher has reasons why this study is valuable for their personal development.

Endnotes

[22] .         See for example M.H. Grimmitt, 1983,  What Can Religious Education Contribute to the Curriculum, in G.M. Castles and G.M. Rossiter (Eds.)  Curriculum Theory and Religious Education, Sydney, Australian Association for Religious Education.

Click image here to return to Research staff page

---