Fulfilling Article 29:1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—the Aims of...

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��4 | doi ��.��63/�87�03�8-��34��63

Religion and Human Rights 9 (�0�4) 3�–59

brill.com/rhrs

Religion Human

Rights

* Oduntan Jawoniyi holds a first class honours degree in theology and religious studies from the University of Wales, Lampeter; a master’s degree with distinction in religious education from the University of Warwick, Coventry; and, a PhD from the Queen’s University, Belfast. His current research interests focus on: (i) the critical intersections between religious educa-tion and children’s rights; and (ii) education law and policy.

Fulfilling Article 29:1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—the Aims of Education—through Religious Education

Oduntan JawoniyiQueen’s University Belfast, UK

Abstract

This article examines whether or not the ubiquitous model of religious education (i.e., non-confessional multifaith religious education (RE)) in state schools in Great Britain is capable of fulfilling the aims of education articulated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). It maintains that to the degree that this RE model aims to promote critical, rational, and cognitive understanding of reli-gion, it seeks to facilitate the development of children’s mental abilities. It also con-tends that to the extent that RE curriculum contents mirror the theistic worldviews and non-theistic ideologies identified within its pluralistic social order, this curricu-lum subject aims to foster children’s development of respect for: human rights and fundamental freedoms; individual identity, affiliation, cultural diversity and pluralism; mutual understanding and peaceful coexistence; and, the natural environment. In these respects, RE in state schools in Great Britain aspires to fulfil the educational aims enunciated in the UNCRC.

Keywords

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) – model of religious education (RE) – state schools – Great Britain

32 jawoniyi

Religion and Human Rights 9 (2014) 31–59

1 Introduction

Currently, rather than seek to nurture the child within a particular faith tra-dition, the ubiquitous model of religious education (i.e., non-confessional multifaith religious education (RE)) in state-funded schools in Great Britain, aims to promote children’s social, moral, cultural and spiritual development.1 It is also geared towards children’s development of intercultural, interfaith and inter-ideological competences,2 hypothesized to engender mutual under-standing, social cohesion and peaceful coexistence.3 Religious education in Great Britain is further underpinned by the need to foster critical, rational and

1 See Michael Grimmitt, Religious Education and Human Development: The Relationship between Studying Religions and Personal, Social and Moral Education (Great Wakering, Essex: McCrimmon, 1987); Robert Jackson, Religious Education: An Interpretive Approach (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1997); Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), The Non-Statutory National Framework for Religious Education (London: QCA, 2004); Birmingham City Council (BCC), The Birmingham Agreed Syllabus for Religious Education (Birmingham: BCC, 2007); Department for Children, Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills (DCELLS), National Exemplar Framework for Religious Education for 3 to 19-year-olds in Wales: Guidance for Local Education Authorities and Agreed Syllabus Conferences (Cardiff: DCELLS, 2008); Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), Religious Education in English Schools: Non-Statutory Guidance (Nottingham: DCSF, 2010).

2 See Micheline Milot, ‘The Religious Dimension in Intercultural Education’, in J. Keast (ed.), Religious Diversity and Intercultural Education (Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, 2007), p. 19; Eleanor Nesbitt, Intercultural Education: Ethnographic and Religious Approaches (Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2004); Warren A. Nord, Does God Make A Difference? Taking Religion Seriously in our Schools and Universities (Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 2010); Council of Europe, The Religious Dimension of Intercultural Education (Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing, 2004).

3 Abdelfattah Amor, The Role of Religious Education in the Pursuit of Tolerance and Non-discrimination (Paper presented at the International Consultative Conference on School Education in relation with Freedom of Religion and Belief, Tolerance and Non-discrimination, Madrid, 23–25 November, 2001), available at <www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/7/b/cfedubasic-doc.htm> accessed on: 12 November 2007; Heinz Streib, ‘Interreligious Negotiations: Case Studies on Students’ Perception of Dealings with Religious Diversity’, in H-G. Heimbrock et al. (eds.), Towards Religious Competence: Diversity as a Challenge in Europe (Münster: Lit Verlag, 2001), pp. 129–149; Heid Leganger-Krogstad, ‘Dialogue Among Young Citizens in a Pluralistic Religious Education Classroom’, in R. Jackson (ed.), International Perspectives on Citizenship, Education and Religious Diversity (London: Routledge/Falmer, 2003), pp. 169–190; QCA, supra note 1; Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe/Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR), Toledo Guiding Principles on Teaching About Religions and Beliefs in Public Schools (Warsaw: OSCE/ODIHR, 2007); DCSF, supra note 1.

33united nations convention on the rights of the child


cognitive understanding of religion.4 This potentially helps to combat religious illiteracy,5 religious fundamentalism and ideological extremism.6 It also helps to engender human rights values and democratic citizenship.7 In order to facil-itate these objectives, religious education curricula in state-funded schools in Great Britain features the major world religions (i.e. Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Sikhism), other religious traditions (includ-ing the Bahá’í faith, Jainism, Zoroastrianism and Rastafarianism), and secular ideologies or philosophies represented within its social order.8 It also features debates on contemporary moral problems and ethical dilemmas (e.g., eutha-nasia, abortion, same-sex marriage, modern warfare, genetic engineering, cli-mate change as well as animal welfare and rights, to mention a few). These are examined from religious and non-religious perspectives. Normatively, religious education teachers, in pedagogical terms, seek to present, represent, and explore religious and non-religious curricula contents with children in a

4 Harry Brighouse, On Education (Abingdon: Routledge, 2006); Paul Vermeer, ‘Meta-Concepts, Thinking Skills and Religious Education’, 34:3 British Journal of Religious Education (2012), pp. 333–347; Oduntan Jawoniyi, ‘Religious Education, Critical Thinking, Rational Autonomy and the Child’s Right to an Open Future’, Religion and Education (forthcoming).

5 Nel Noddings, Educating for Intelligent Belief or Unbelief (New York and London: Teachers College Press, 1993); Diane L Moore, Overcoming Religious Illiteracy: A Cultural Studies Approach to the Study of Religion in Secondary Education (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007); OSCE/ODIHR, supra note 3; Nord, supra note 2; Warren A. Nord and Charles C. Haynes, Taking Religion Seriously Across the Curriculum (Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1998); Warren A. Nord, Religion and American Education: Rethinking a National Dilemma (Chapel Hill & London: University of North Carolina Press, 1995).

6 See Joyce Miller, ‘REsilience, Violent Extremism and Religious Education’, 35:2 British Journal of Religious Education (2013), pp.188–200.

7 Robert Jackson, How School Education in Religion can facilitate the Promotion of Tolerance and Non-discrimination with regard to Freedom of Religion or Belief (Report from the Preparatory Seminar on Teaching for Tolerance and Freedom of Religion or Belief, Oslo, 7–9 December 2002), available at <www.folk.uio.no/leirvik/OsloCoalition/RobertJackson.htm> accessed on: 6 May 2010; Jackson, supra note 3; Liam Gearon, ‘Human Rights and Religious Education’, in Marian de Souza et al. (eds.), International Handbook of the Religious, Moral and Spiritual Dimensions in Education, Vol. 1 (Dordrecht: Springer, 2006), pp. 375–385; Oduntan Jawoniyi, Religious Education in State Schools and Children’s Rights: An Empirical Study (Unpublished PhD Thesis, The Queen’s University, Belfast, 2011).

8 QCA, supra note 1; BCC, supra note 1.

34 jawoniyi


critical, objective, pluralistic, and non-confessional, non-indoctrinatory or non-coercive fashion.9

In spite of the fact that the teaching of religion in state-funded schools in Great Britain is driven by these rationales and pedagogical principles, and despite the fact that religious education is heavily regulated and highly legislated in a fashion that other curriculum subjects are not, this aspect of schools’ curriculum remains extremely contested.10 One common objection to the teaching of religion in state-funded schools concerns the probable vio-lation of human rights, particularly the child’s right to religious freedom and parental right to educate their children in conformity with their religious and philosophical convictions. Evans11 and the current author12 have addressed this objection, maintaining that religion could be taught not only in a fashion which respects, protects and fulfils children’s and parental rights, but also in conformity with international human rights standards.

This article takes this subject matter one step further. It addresses one cru-cially important question: is the ubiquitous model of religious education, as currently theorised and practiced, in state-funded schools in Great Britain capable of facilitating the actualisation of the aims of education articulated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)? In response, this article argues that to all intents and purposes, religious educa-tion in state-funded schools in Great Britain seeks to foster the development of children’s personalities and mental abilities. It also aspires to engender chil-dren’s development of respect for: human rights and fundamental freedoms; individual identity, affiliation, cultural diversity and pluralism; mutual under-standing and peaceful coexistence; and, the natural environment. In these respects, religious education in state-funded schools in Great Britain is geared towards fulfilling and actualising the UNCRC’s educational aims. The aim of

9 See Oduntan Jawoniyi, ‘Children’s Rights and Religious Education in State Funded Schools: An International Human Rights Perspective’, 16:2 The International Journal of Human Rights (2012), pp. 337–357. Whilst these curriculum aims and psychological principles, arguably, underpin the delivery of religious education in many (albeit, not all) independent schools in Great Britain, the focus of this article is on schools in the state-funded sector.

10 Carolyn Evans, ‘Religious Education in Public Schools: An International Human Rights Perspective’, 8:3 Human Rights Law Review (2008), pp. 449–473 at p. 450; James Conroy and Stephen McKinney, ‘Religious and Spiritual Education’, in P. Peterson, et al. (eds.), International Encyclopaedia of Education (Elsevier: London, 2010) 189–193; Jawoniyi, ibid., p. 338.

11 Evans, supra note 10.12 Jawoniyi, supra note 9.



this article, and hence, its contribution to contemporary debates on whether or not religion should (or continue to) be taught in state-funded schools in Great Britain and in other liberal democracies is, therefore, to show that the ubiquitous model of religious education in state-funded schools in Great Britain has the capacity to fulfil the educational aims articulated in Article 29:1 of the UNCRC.13 In what follows, this article examines the aims of education enunciated in the UNCRC. Next, it deploys three vignettes in explicating how religious education in Great Britain aspires to fulfil these educational aims. In conclusion, this article posits that by seeking to facilitate the actualisation of the UNCRC’s educational aims, the penchant for non-confessional multifaith religious education to not only bolster the values and ideals of human rights and fundamental freedoms but also foster education for democratic citizen-ship is demonstrated.

2 Article 29:1 of the UNCRC: The Aims of Education

The UNCRC provides:

States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to: (a) the development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential; (b) the development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations; (c) the development of respect for the child’s parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is liv-ing, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own; (d) the preparation of the child for respon-sible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance,

13 It should be noted that Article 29:1(a–e) of the UNCRC is an expression or a statement of the aspirations of the United Nations concerning what the outcomes of the child’s education should be. Correspondingly, this article is concerned, quintessentially, with the issue of whether or not religious education in state-funded schools in Great Britain seeks to respect, protect and fulfil these aspirations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child. Verifying whether or not religious education actually succeeds or fails to make children become: (a) critical thinkers; (b) respectful of human rights and fundamental freedoms; (c) respectful of diversity and pluralism; (d) appreciative of her/his identity and affiliation whilst exhibiting respect for diversity and pluralism; and, (e) respectful of the natural environment, would require separate psychosocial study, the scope of which is beyond the remit of this article.

36 jawoniyi


equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin; (e) the development of respect for the natural environment.14

The above extract is a statement of the aims of education to which every child, under the provisions of the UNCRC, is legally entitled. It suggests that State Parties to the UNCRC expect that education would be driven towards empow-ering children to develop clearly specified skills, attitudes and competencies. This being the case, curriculum subjects in schools (formal or informal; private or public) in States which have signed up to the UNCRC ought to contribute, in one way or another, to the actualization of these aims of, or rationales for, edu-cation. Article 29:1 of the UNCRC is, therefore, crucially important not only in respect of the fact that it brings to the fore the right to education contained in Article 28 of the UNCRC, but also because it accentuates the qualitative impe-tus of this right, underlining the need for education to be child-focused, child-friendly, and empowering.15 Article 29:1 is of ‘far-reaching importance’ because in enunciating the aims of education to which children have a fundamental right, it simultaneously seeks to protect, respect and fulfil the Convention’s core value: the inherent human dignity in each child and children’s equal and inalienable rights.16

Within the parameters of children’s developmental needs and varied evolv-ing capacities, the aims of education—which are set out in five subsections of Article 29:1—are geared towards the actualization of children’s human dignity and the realization of their fundamental human rights.17 Thus, edu-cation should imbue children with life-skills and life-experiences by expedit-ing their holistic development, by facilitating their full potentials (physical, mental and/or intellectual), and, by bolstering their self-esteem and self-confidence.18 Further, education should help the child to not only absorb and develop respect for human rights values, but also adopt human rights based approaches to societal changes and challenges. These, apparently, are linked to

14 Article 29:1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, 1577 UNTS 3.

15 United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), CRC General Comment No. 1: The Aims of Education (Article 29:1), 17 April 2001, CRC/GC/2001/1, para 2, avail-able at <www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/%28symbol%29/CRC.GC.2001.1.En> accessed on: 11 September 2010.

16 Ibid., paras. 1 & 11.17 CRC, supra note 15, para 1.18 Article 29.1(a) of the UNCRC. See also CRC, supra note 15, paras 1, 2 & 9.



issues such as, but not limited to, globalization, multiculturalism, intercultur-alism and technological advancements.19

Additionally, education should not only advance the child’s sense of per-sonal identity and affiliation, but also help her/him to respect cultural diversity and pluralism.20 It should also be geared towards the promotion of the child’s enculturation or socialization with others.21 States parties acknowledge the incompatibility of, and conflicts (both potential and real) between, the various ethnicities, socio-linguistic groups, socio-religious traditions and socio-cul-tural values identified with different civilizations across the world. Conscious of how these differences have historically sequestered peoples of different cul-tures, religions, ideologies, and nationalities, and children’s inherent capability to bridge these differences, States parties, in Article 29:1(c–d), emphasize the need for the child’s education to be holistic, balanced, unbigoted, reconcilia-tory and dialogical both in its approach and in its thrust. Potentially, this not only helps the child, proactively and effectively, to respect racial, ethnic, reli-gious, social, cultural, linguistic and other forms of differences, it also facili-tates the amelioration, if not the elimination, of linguistic, ethno-religious and socio-cultural discrimination, xenophobia, and other forms of discrimination and intolerance in different parts of the postmodern world.22 Equally mind-ful of humanity’s role in environmental sustenance and/or degradation, and the importance of the knowledge and understanding of global, contemporary environmental issues in the child’s education, States parties further accentu-ate, in Article 29:1(e), the need for education to facilitate the child’s interaction with her/his environment.23

Functionally, Article 29:1 articulates the interconnectedness of the entire Convention,24 underlining how the aims of education which it enunciates not only uphold all the other rights of the child but also espouse the principles of human rights (inclusive of their indivisibility) and the ideologies of human rights education, including education about international humanitarian law.25 It also emphasizes the child’s best interests.26 With a view to enabling each child to develop in accordance with her/his evolving capacity, Article 29:1

19 Article 29:1(b) of the UNCRC.20 Article 29.1(c) of the UNCRC.21 Article 29.1(d) of the UNCRC.22 CRC, supra note 15, paras 1–4; 10–11 & 13.23 Ibid. paras 1 & 13.24 Ibid. paras 6–7.25 Ibid. paras 8, 14–16.26 Ibid. paras 9–11.

38 jawoniyi


accentuates the need for adequate balance to be struck between the physical, emotional, mental or intellectual, social, moral, cultural and spiritual dimen-sions of the child’s education. It further endorses and fosters ethical values enshrined throughout the Convention.27 Quintessentially, the educational philosophy contained in Article 29:1 is geared towards facilitating children’s competencies in participating fully and responsibly in a free society. That is to say, education, ultimately, should foster the development of democratic citi-zenship amongst children.

3 Fulfilling the UNCRC’s Educational Aims through Religious Education

In the preceding sections, the rationale for religious education in state-funded schools in Great Britain was highlighted before examining the aims of educa-tion articulated in the UNCRC. The fact that education to which every child is legally entitled should help her/him to acquire clearly identified skills and attitudes is not in question. What needs ascertaining is the capacity of reli-gious education, as a curriculum subject, to equip children with competencies and dispositions enunciated in Article 29:1 of the UNCRC. In what follows, this article presents three vignettes which it subsequently deploys in explicating how religious education seeks to facilitate the actualisation of the UNCRC’s aims of education.

3.1 Vignette OneIt is the end of the autumn term, Year 10 children (aged 14–15) in an inner city Birmingham school in England, UK were informed they would be studying the concept of, or belief in, ‘afterlife’ or ‘life after death’ during the first few weeks of the forthcoming spring term. In conformity with domestic education law,28 and in consonance with current curriculum practice,29 this topic, like any other in religious education classrooms, is to be examined critically, ratio-nally, pluralistically, and non-confessionally. Mr Taylor, the specialist religious education teacher, asked the children to investigate, over the holidays, this topic using internet search engines and relevant databases. He further encour-aged the children to hold informal conversations or interviews with friends and families belonging to any religious traditions or none, and who are willing

27 Ibid. para 13.28 UK Government, Education Reform Act (London: HSMO, 1988), Section 8:3.29 QCA, supra note 1; BBC, supra note 1; DCSF, supra note 1; DCELLS, supra note 1.



to discuss ‘afterlife’ or ‘life after death’ from their respective religious or are-ligious perspectives. The children had previously deployed these methods in investigating peoples’ worldviews on issues like the Origins of the World, abor-tion, genetic engineering, euthanasia, capital punishment, and deployment of unmanned drones in modern warfare, to mention a few. They are, therefore, used to this type of homework or assignment.

Over the spring term, Mr Taylor explored with the children the concept of ‘afterlife’ or belief in ‘life after death’ from Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Bahá’í, Jain, Rastafarian, Zoroastrian, humanist, and philosophi-cal perspectives, ensuring that all the worldviews (both religious and non-religious) represented in the classroom were included. In fact, one of the children had the opportunity to interview a neighbour who identified her-self as a Celtic pagan. This enabled the children to also examine ‘afterlife’ in Celtic paganism. In a critical, rational, pluralistic, and non-confessional man-ner, children synthesised, analysed, and evaluated doctrines such as dualism, rebirth, reincarnation, transmigration, immortality of the soul, purgatory, heaven or paradise, and hell. They also identified convergences and contradic-tions within and between different worldviews/ideologies (both religious and nonreligious). More importantly, children considered how belief (or indeed disbelief) in ‘afterlife’ or ‘life after death’ informs people’s disposition toward existential questions (e.g. what is the purpose, meaning, or essence of life; and, how should humans live their lives?). They also investigated whether and how these beliefs influence people’s demeanour and shape personal and/or collec-tive identities. Given the inextricable link between ideological pluralism and competing truth-claims, Mr Taylor and the children consciously chose to not only sidestep the truthfulness or falsity of the competing truth-claims, but also deploy epistemic egalitarianism (ascribing the same epistemic status to com-peting views) and epistemic neutrality (adopting an impartial attitude towards conflicting views) in the relativistic, pluralistic and equitable examination of competing truth-claims concerning ‘afterlife’.30

3.2 Vignette TwoIt was a summer afternoon in a suburban Cardiff school in Wales, UK. Ms Jones, the religious education teacher, walked into Year 11 classroom, comprising 25 children (aged 16–17) who came from diverse cultural, ethnic, religious and nonreligious backgrounds. Once the children had settled down, Ms Jones pro-jected unto the interactive whiteboard, situated in front of the classroom, a story which goes thus:

30 See Jawoniyi, supra note 4.

40 jawoniyi


In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug which the doctors thought might save her life. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discov-ered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about $1,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, ‘No, I discov-ered the drug and I’m going to make money from it’. So, having tried every legal means, Heinz got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife?31

After inviting the children to read and digest this story, Ms Jones asked them to identify the moral dilemma at the heart of the Kohlberg story. To help the children sharpen their thoughts, she asked them to consider a number of asso-ciated questions. These include, but not limited to, the following: If you were Heinz, would you steal the drug to save your wife’s life? If you were dying of cancer but were strong enough, would you steal the drug to save your own life? If you were a magistrate or a high court judge and Heinz was brought before you for sentencing, would you send him to jail for stealing, or let him go free? Why? And, is it right for the druggist to charge that much when there was no law actually setting a limit to the price? Why? After allowing the chil-dren to individually brainstorm for around 5 minutes, Ms Jones divided the class into three groups, vis-à-vis: children who thought Heinz’s action has no justifications, whatsoever (Group 1); those who felt Heinz’s action, under cer-tain circumstances, could be justified (Group 2); and, children who, initially, could not decide whether Heinz’s action was right or wrong because they felt that Heinz’s action, in some respects, was permissible, and in others, indefen-sible (Group 3). Children in each group were given another 10 minutes to dis-cuss and synthesise their thoughts. Having conquered their initial indecisions, Ms Jones allowed Group 3 children to join Group 1 or 2, as they deemed fit. She also gave room for anyone wanting to change their position to swap group. Once the children had positioned themselves, mentally, on both sides of the

31 Lawrence Kohlberg, The Philosophy of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice. Essays on Moral Development, Vol. 1, 1st edn. (San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1981).



argument, there ensued a vigorous and intense classroom debate. Drawing heavily upon moral and ethical codes, religious and non-religious worldviews, human rights principles, and moral philosophical theories—which they previ-ously studied in religious education classrooms—children, as if in a law court, civilly engaged in arguments and counterarguments, motions and countermo-tions, concerning Heinz’s action.

3.3 Vignette ThreeIt was a dull and freezing spring afternoon sometime in March 2013. There was around 10–15 centimetres of snow across most parts of the United Kingdom. For days, temperatures struggled to rise above zero. Roads were impassable. Flights, sporting and other events had to be cancelled. Year 9 students in an inner city Glasgow school in Scotland, like their contemporaries elsewhere across the United Kingdom, have never seen anything like it before, particularly during springtime. As these children filed into the designated religious educa-tion classroom where Mr McGregor, the religious education teacher, had been waiting, they talked about the weather. Incidentally, the four previous religious education lessons, drawing from scientific and religious sources, focused on environmentalism. Children have, over the past one month, therefore, been examining themes including but not limited to: the ecosystem; humankind and the natural environment; climate change and global warming. And, in this concluding lesson on environmentalism, Mr McGregor wanted the children to draw on their existing knowledge and understanding of the subject matter in debating a moral dilemma which focuses on the interface between immedi-ate economic benefits and environmental degradation. He, therefore, handed over to every child in the religious education classroom a one-page document containing a story which reads:

An indigenous human population residing in a rainforest community in a developing country live well below the poverty threshold. In fact, an adult within this community lives on approximately $0.90 per day. The pristine rainforest where they live, from time immemorial, remains a home to a wide variety and rich species of trees, plants, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and aquatic creatures, hardly ever found elsewhere in the world. Repeated geological surveys of the rainforest also show that it is extremely rich in natural resources, especially crude oil. Recently, two foreign investors (a wood merchant, and a crude oil mogul) pro-posed to pay the rainforest community the sum of $5m, each, not only for the purpose of tree logging and wood processing but also for crude oil extraction. Apart from ejecting substantial amount of money into the

42 jawoniyi


naturally rich but economically impoverished community, the proposed businesses would create job opportunities for the indigenous commu-nity whose inhabitants could suddenly start to live on approximately $10 per day. Conversely, however, deforestation not only damages the natural habitat, and exterminates rare species of plants and animals, but also cul-minates in soil erosion, biodiversity loss, aridity, and bio-sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Similarly, crude oil extraction and mining could wreak havoc on the pristine rainforest. Members of the rainforest community are planning to meet to consider whether or not the immedi-ate economic benefits of the proposed businesses should take priority over and above environmental concerns! To make an informed decision, they sent a letter to Year 9 students of this inner city Glasgow school seeking to know how the rainforest community ought to deal with these financially tempting proposals.

Drawing on children’s knowledge of environmentalism, and contemporary moral/ethical dilemmas as well as their understanding of the intersections between religion and ecology/environmentalism which they acquired through the school’s religious education programme, children intensely debated how the rainforest community in question ought to deal with these business proposals.

3.4 Promoting the Development of the Child’s Personality and Mental Abilities

The first of the five aims of education enunciated in the UNCRC is ‘the devel-opment of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential’.32 This educational aim presupposes that education should, first and foremost, seek to fully or wholly develop the child as a person before helping her/him to develop skills and competencies requisite for attain-ing democratic citizenship. It, therefore, implies that the provision contained in Article 29:1(a) of the UNCRC serves as a bedrock/foundation for the provi-sions articulated in Article 29:1(b–e). Certain talents and abilities (e.g. music, drama and kinetics) are, at best, developed through certain curriculum sub-jects (e.g. music education, drama education, and physical education). And, although the occasional deployment of, for example, music and drama in reli-gious education potentially helps in developing aspects of musical, dramatic, and kinetic skills, the focus here is on the capacity of religious education to promote the development of the child’s personality and mental abilities.

32 Article 29:1(a) of the UNCRC.



Personality has been defined as ‘a dynamic and organized set of charac-teristics possessed by a person that uniquely influences her or his cognitions, motivations, and behaviours in various situations’.33 It has also been defined as ‘behaviors, styles of thought, speech, perception, and interpersonal interac-tions that are consistently characteristic of an individual’.34 Maas and Spinath corroboratively define personality as the ‘characteristic patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviours over time and across situations’.35 Personality under-pins individual behaviour and uniqueness.36 Unique behaviours which define a personality are, in turn, informed by ideologies upheld by the individual. These ideologies may be religious and/or nonreligious. In other words, ideolo-gies which not only accentuate an individual’s thoughts, feelings, actions and interactions, but also uniquely define her or his personality, are underpinned by either religious beliefs or secular worldviews.

The need to promote the development of each child’s personality, as the three vignettes demonstrate, explains why theistic and non-theistic ideologies and worldviews (including those represented in religious education classrooms) were taken into account not only in engaging with existential questions, but also in examining moral and ethical dilemmas. Thus, be it Hindu or Buddhist children who uphold the karmic ideology, or Christian or Muslim children who espouse the doctrine of the final judgement, or indeed nonreligious children who (together with religious children) embrace the Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity, non-confessional multifaith religious education takes an epistemic egalitarian approach, and adopts the principle of epistemic neutrality. These enable children, impartially, to explore ideologies and worldviews undergird-ing individual personality. In other words, whether or not children’s personali-ties are inextricably bound up with theistic, agnostic or atheistic worldviews, this model of religious education uniquely provides a platform through which children from all backgrounds pluralistically and objectively examine and cri-tique ideologies underpinning their respective personalities. To enable every

33 Richard M. Ryckman, Theories of Personality, 7th edn (Stamford, CT: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning, 2000), p. 5.

34 Albert Ellis et al. Personality Theories: Critical Perspectives (Los Angeles & London: Sage, 2009), p. 10.

35 Heike Maas and Frank M Spinath, ‘Personality and Coping with Professional Demands: A Behavioral Genetics Analysis’, 17:3 Journal of Occupational Health Psychology (2012), pp. 376–385.

36 Gordon W. Allport, Pattern and Growth in Personality (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1961). See also Bernardo J. Carducci, The Psychology of Personality: Viewpoints, Research, and Applications, 2nd edn (Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2009).

44 jawoniyi


child, rationally and cognitively, to explore ideologies underpinning her or his personality is to facilitate the development of the child’s personality.

Further, the teaching of religion in state-funded schools in Great Britain also helps to promote the child’s mental abilities. This is because the prevalent model of religious education in Great Britain, amongst other things, involves thoughtful and insightful examination of the interrelatedness of, and internal tensions within and between, religious and nonreligious ideologies, world-views and practices. It also not only entails differentiating/distinguishing between facts and opinions or subjective beliefs, but also features probing into diverse religious and nonreligious perspectives on existential questions and ethical dilemmas. As the above vignettes demonstrate, children analysed reli-gious and nonreligious worldviews about afterlife, theft and environmentalism. They also considered the implications of such worldviews for existential ques-tions (e.g. what is the purpose/meaning/essence of life?), highlighting similari-ties and dissimilarities within and between diverse worldviews. Children also not only gathered evidence, assessed arguments, viewpoints and worldviews, discriminated amongst authorities, but also constructed counterarguments.37

In religious education classrooms, debates and discussions of this nature arguably help children to develop skills requisite for analysing assertions, evaluating claims, reviewing propositions, identifying and considering both sides of an argument, differentiating between facts and fallacies, and draw-ing inferences through inductive or deductive reasoning. It also enables chil-dren to develop attitudes or dispositions which include, but not limited to: intellectual curiosity or inquisitiveness (i.e. the desire to be well-informed or the propensity to seek reason); respect for, and willingness to entertain, oth-ers’ viewpoints (i.e. open-mindedness); flexibility; and, intellectual virtues like intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual sense of justice, intellectual perseverance, intellectual fair-mindedness, intellectual confi-dence in reason, intellectual courage, intellectual empathy, and intellectual autonomy.38 The capacity of religious education, as a curriculum subject in schools, to facilitate the development of children’s intellectual abilities can-not be underestimated. Elsewhere, I have argued that exposing children to different worldviews (religious and secular), and engaging them in critical, comparative and analytical study of different religious and indeed diverse non-religious worldviews ostensibly facilitates the development of children’s

37 See Jawoniyi, supra note 7.38 Richard Paul and Linda Elder, Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional

and Personal Life, 2nd edn (New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc., 2013), p. 25.



mental and intellectual abilities.39 More importantly, to help children develop the abovementioned skills and attitudes, arguably, is to facilitate children’s development of critical thinking.

3.5 Fostering Children’s Respect for Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

‘The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations’40 is the sec-ond of the five aims of education articulated in the UNCRC. It is with a view to actualising this educational aim, which in the Non-Statutory Framework for Religious Education (NFRE) is inextricably linked to the ideals of human rights, social justice and citizenship, that this document (i.e. the NFRE) emphasises the need for children to explore ‘what religions and beliefs say about human rights . . . social justice, and citizenship’41 as well as ‘how religions and beliefs respond to global issues of human rights, fairness [and] social justice’.42 The NFRE further maintains that children should be equipped to recognise theirs and others rights, especially in the light of their learning about religion.43 Pursuant to these, religious education programmes in state-funded schools in Great Britain seek to facilitate this educational aim not only by delivering this curriculum subject in a pluralistic fashion, but also through regular classroom discussions and debates.

The pluralistic nature of religious education in state-funded schools in Great Britain, as the above vignettes demonstrate, implies that children study the major World Religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism). It also means that children examine other faith traditions (e.g. the Bahá’í faith, Jainism, Rastafarianism, and Zoroastrianism), New Age ide-ologies, and secular philosophies. Children also analyse the similarities and dissimilarities between and within different ideologies and worldviews. And, apart from exploring ethical dilemmas and moral issues/problems from the perspectives of diverse religious traditions, alternative (i.e. non-religious and/or humanistic) viewpoints are open to critical evaluation. Thus, in vignette one, for example, the examination of ‘afterlife’ (including the corresponding exis-tential questions) from religious and nonreligious lenses enables children to

39 Jawoniyi, supra note 9, p. 351.40 Article 29:1(b) of the UNCRC.41 QCA, supra note 1, p. 29.42 Ibid., p. 27.43 Ibid. Cf. DCSF, supra note 1, pp. 34–35, 41; DCELLS, supra note 1, pp. 8, 28–29.

46 jawoniyi


realise that even within their own classroom, some tenaciously belief in trans-migration, some in reincarnation, some in the doctrine of eternal judgment, whilst others espouse the notion that belief in ‘life after death’ is a fantasy. Also, the expression of diverse opinions on the ethical dilemmas which vignettes two and three raise exposes children to the reality that, in the real world, different people (including the children themselves) uphold different beliefs, ideologies and worldviews, and are legally entitled to do so.

Further, incessant classroom debates which enable children to articulate and critique the multiplicity of religious and nonreligious worldviews about ultimate questions and ethical dilemmas (as the three vignettes demonstrate) tantamount to training or equipping them to exercise their individual rights whilst respecting others’ fundamental rights. Two individual rights readily come to mind here. The first is the right to freedom of conscience, thought, and belief.44 The second is the right to freedom of opinion and expression.45 It, therefore, seems plausible to contend that classroom debates and similar other discussions often transform religious education classrooms into miniature lib-eral democratic social orders where its citizens (in this case, school children) not only exercise theirs but also respect others’ right to freedom of conscience, thought and belief as well as the right to freedom of expression. This, therefore, shows that religious education, as a curriculum subject in schools, potentially plays a crucially important role of helping to build a culture of human rights amongst children. It also demonstrates the capacity of religious education to facilitate children’s acquisition of skills and attitudes requisite for promoting, defending and applying human rights principles in their daily lives.

By transforming various religious and non-religious worldviews, ideologies and beliefs into resources for advancing and developing human rights knowl-edge, skills and values amongst school children, religious education aspires to enable children: (i) exercise their rights within the society; (ii) play an active

44 See Article 14:1 of the UNCRC; Article 9:1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, 213 UNTS 222; ETS 5 (ECHR); Article 18:1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR); Article 12 of the American Convention on Human Rights 1969 1144 UNTS 123; 9 ILM 99 (ACHR); Article 9 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child 1999, OAU Doc.CAB/LEG/24.9/49 (ACRWC); Article 8 of the African [Banjul] Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights 1981, OAU Doc.CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (African Charter); and, Article 30 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights 1997, adopted by the League of Arab States, reprinted in 18 Human Rights Law Journal 151 (Arab Charter).

45 See Articles 12 and 13 of the UNCRC; Article 10 of the ECHR; Article 19:1–2 of the ICCPR; Article 13 of the ACHR; Article 7 of the ACRWC; Article 9 of the African Charter; Article 5:1 of the Arab Charter.



part in democratic life; (iii) develop attitudes of tolerance, mutual respect and understanding; and, (iv) co-exist, peaceably, with the religious, nonreli-gious, ethnic and cultural ‘other’. That is to say, religious education not only seeks to promote a thriving culture of human rights, but also aspires to fos-ter democratic citizenship whilst endorsing tolerance. The DCSF appositely observes that religious education ‘subject matter gives particular opportu-nities to promote an ethos of respect for others, challenges stereotypes and build understanding of other cultures and beliefs. This contributes to promot-ing a positive and inclusive school ethos that champions democratic values and human rights’.46 To this end, religious education fulfils an important aim of, or rationale for, education—the development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms—enshrined not only in the UNCRC but also in other international human rights standards.47 This curriculum goal, therefore, echoes the assertion of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child which, in General Comment No. 1, maintains that ‘education to which every child has a right is one designed to provide the child with life skills, to strengthen the child’s capacity to enjoy the full range of human rights and to promote a culture which is infused by appropriate human rights values’.48 It also resonates with the Toledo Guiding Principles which maintains, ‘knowledge about religions and beliefs can reinforce appreciation for everyone’s right to freedom of religion or belief, foster democratic citizenship, promote under-standing of social diversity and, at the same time, enhance social cohesion’.49

The foregoing demonstrates that in spite of religion’s paradoxical roles in protecting and violating human rights,50 teaching ‘about religions and beliefs is most effective when combined with efforts to instil respect for the rights of others, even when there is disagreement about religions or beliefs’.51 It, there-fore, not only reverberates Gearon’s claim that religious education has the capacity to ‘address and promote all “generations” of human rights: civil and political; social, cultural and economic’,52 but also accentuates his call for a

46 DCSF, supra note 1, p. 8.47 See Article 29:1(b) of the UNCRC. Cf. Article 26:2 of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights 1948, UNTS G.A. res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810 (UDHR); Article 13:1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966, 993 UNTS 3 (ICESCR).

48 CRC, supra note 15, para. 2.49 OSCE/ODIHR, supra note 3, p. 13.50 Natan Lerner, Religion, Beliefs, and International Human Rights (Maryknoll, New York:

Orbis Books, 2000), p. 1. Cf. Gearon, supra note 7, p. 379.51 OSCE/ODIHR, supra note 3, p 14.52 Gearon, supra note 7, p. 378.

48 jawoniyi


‘heightened awareness of human rights education within religious education’.53 One major outcome of the capacity of religious education to promote human rights education (specifically children’s development of attitude of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms) is that it not only complements and engenders citizenship education but also fosters democratic citizenship. Jackson appositely observes:

religious education has a great deal to offer citizenship education, for example in offering sophisticated analyses of ‘religion’ in relation to concepts such as ethnicity, community and nationality, and in provid-ing a range of skills relevant to understanding social plurality. Moreover, religious education has some distinct contributions to offer the debates about the parameters of citizenship and, specifically, the tensions between perceptions of national and global citizenship.54

It therefore seems plausible to maintain that religious education acts as a powerful vehicle through which schools could actualize the aspirations of the ongoing United Nations World Programme for Human Rights Education (which the United Nations General Assembly, upon the termination of the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education [1995–2004], proclaimed in 2005). The indispensability of an education whose contents is firmly rooted in human rights values and which quintessentially inculcates human rights cultures in children cannot be overemphasized. This is especially so, given that children, as the Committee on the Rights of the Child further posits, require ‘a balanced, human rights-friendly response to the challenges that accompany a period of fundamental change driven by globalization, new technologies and related phenomena’.55 ‘Such challenges’, the Committee on the Rights of the Child equally maintains, ‘include the tensions between, inter alia, the global and the local; the individual and the collective; tradition and modernity; long-term and short-term considerations; competition and equality of opportunity; the expansion of knowledge and the capacity to assimilate it; and, the spiritual and the material’.56

53 Ibid.54 Robert Jackson, ‘Citizenship as a Replacement for Religious Education or RE as

Complementary to Citizenship Education’, in R. Jackson (ed.), supra note 3, p. 75. Cf. Robert Jackson, Rethinking Religious Education and Plurality: Issues in Diversity and Pedagogy (London & New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2004), p. 126.

55 CRC, supra note 15, para 3.56 Ibid.



3.6 Promoting the Child’s sense of Identity and Affiliation, and Children’s Respect for Diversity and Pluralism

The need for education to promote the child’s sense of identity and affiliation as well as foster her/his development of respect for diversity and pluralism is another vitally important aim of education articulated in the UNCRC.57 The UNCRC, therefore, expects that education to which every child is legally enti-tled should help her/him to relish who s/he is, and respect who others are. At the heart of this educational aim is the issue of ‘identity’. Frequently deployed in everyday conversation, the term ‘identity’ is a powerful construct which enigmatically defies a precise and overarching definition, explaining why from Socrates to Freud, the question of why identity, paradoxically, is characterised by sameness and difference has been one of the fundamental questions fre-quently examined in philosophical, mathematical, legal, sociological, political, and psychological debates.

On the one hand, identity is construed in terms of ‘the sense of self, of per-sonhood, of what kind of person one is’,58 or with respect to ‘a set of attri-butes, beliefs, desires, or principles of action that a person thinks distinguish her [or him] in socially relevant ways’.59 On the other hand, drawing on its Latin root, idem (i.e. same), from which the word ‘identical’ also derives, the term identity implies that ‘not only are we identical with ourselves (that is, the same being from birth to death) but identical with others [sharing] com-mon identities’.60 It is in respect of the latter that Erikson appositely observes, ‘[t]he term ‘identity’ expresses such a mutual relation in that it connotes both a persistent sameness within oneself (selfsameness) and a persistent sharing of some kind of essential characteristics with others’.61 Sökefeld corroboratively construes identity as ‘the collection of characteristics we use (often implicitly and unconsciously) to categorize persons (both others and ourselves) . . . iden-tity expresses a relation of sameness, sameness with a collection of attributes’.62

With regards to the foregoing, the task of education, therefore, is to enable the individual child to not only understand the characteristic features under-pinning her/his identity, but also appreciate the fact that those essential

57 See Article 29:1(c) of the UNCRC.58 Nicholas Abercrombie et al., Dictionary of Sociology, 5th edn (London: Penguin Books,

2006), p. 190.59 James D. Fearon, What is Identity? (1999), available at <www.stanford.edu/~jfearon/

papers/iden1v2.pdf> accessed on: 20 August 2013, p. 11.60 Stephanie Lawler, Identity: Sociological Perspectives (Cambridge: Polity, 2008), p. 2.61 Erik H. Erikson, Identity and Life-cycle (New York: Norton, 1980), p. 109.62 Martin Sökefeld, ‘Reconsidering Identity’, 96:2 Anthropos (2001), pp. 527–544, at p. 532.

50 jawoniyi


characteristics are simultaneously the same as, and different from, those of others. Considering the connection between identity63 and ideology,64 and the place of schools in inculcating, in children, the sense of who they and others are,65 it seems plausible to suggest that the ubiquitous model of religious edu-cation in Great Britain naturally lends itself to this venture. In Vignette One, for example, the religious education teacher explored with the children, the notion of ‘afterlife’ from Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Bahá’í, Jain, Zoroastrian, humanist, pagan, and philosophical perspectives, ascertaining the inclusion of all the worldviews or ideologies represented in the classroom. Given the link between identity and ideology or how different identities are underpinned and shaped by different ideologies, it seems plausible to suggest that apart from helping children to understand the concept of ‘afterlife’ from diverse perspectives, the teaching and learning processes described in Vignette One seek to promote each child’s sense of identity. It also aims to facilitate children’s development of respect for diversity and pluralism. The same is also true of the classroom scenarios described in Vignette Two and Vignette Three. In other words, the examination of existential questions and moral dilemmas from various religious and nonreligious ideological perspectives implies that religious education provides a platform through which children understand and appreciate attributes, beliefs, and principles underpinning their individ-ual identity and those of others. More broadly, religious education utilises the diversity of religion and beliefs in forging links with diverse local groups (e.g. through educational visits to local places of worship, inviting local religious or humanist leaders into religious education classrooms, highlighting seasonal secular and religious events e.g. Black History Month, Darwin Day, Christmas, Rosh Hashanah (i.e. the Jewish New Year), Eid al-Fitr (i.e. Feast of Breaking the Fast, etc.). Religious education also deploys religious and ideological diversity and pluralism in critically exploring the impacts of diversity and pluralism on national life and world issues. Hence, it serves as a crucially important vehicle

63 Identity could be personal, private, public, collective, social, cultural, religious, class, gender, ethnic or national.

64 Ideology could be religious (e.g. Christian, Muslim or Jewish ideologies) or nonreligious (e.g. Marxism–Leninism). See, for example, Knud S. Larsen et al., ‘Ideology and Identity: A National Outlook’ 32:2 Journal of Peace Research (1995), pp. 165–179. Cf. Sinisa Malešević, Identity as Ideology: Understanding Ethnicity and Nationalism (Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006); Robert D. Hinshelwood, ‘Ideology and Identity: A Psychoanalytical Investigation of a Social Phenomenon’, 14:2 Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society (2009), pp. 131–148.

65 See Stanley William Rothstein, Identity and Ideology: Sociocultural Theories of Schooling (New York; London: Greenwood Press, 1991).



for examining the critical intersections between worldviews, identities, diver-sity and pluralism at the local, national and global levels.

It is in respect of the foregoing that the QCA maintains, ‘religious educa-tion encourages pupils to develop their sense of identity and belonging [in the same way that it] enables pupils to develop respect for and sensitivity to oth-ers, in particular those whose faiths and beliefs are different from their own’.66 Corroboratively, the DCSF not only posits that religious education ‘contributes to . . . fostering a sense of self-awareness, belonging and identity that manifests itself in positive participation in school and community life’,67 but also affirms that religious education ‘provides a positive context within which the diversity of cultures, beliefs and values can be celebrated and explored’.68 Emphasizing the need for education to foster children’s respect for diversity, Baker writes:

Children deserve an education that will help them be respectful and appreciative of the diversity around them . . . [w]hat children learn about the wide variety of people in the world around them will significantly influence the way they grow and what kind of adults they will become. It will determine whether they develop into confident, secure members of society who respect and appreciate diversity or into adults who view others with hostility and fear because of ignorance.69

Given, on the one hand, the connection between identity and ideology, and, on the other hand, the link between identity and contemporary conflicts many of which revolve around ethnic, religious, social, cultural, and political ideologies, the importance of this aim of education, and indeed, rationale for religious education, cannot be underestimated, especially in the 21st century CE. This is especially so when one calls to mind ethno-religious and/or ethno-political conflicts in Northern Ireland, the Middle East (e.g. Israel and Palestine), the Balkans (e.g. Bosnia and Kosovo), and parts of Africa (e.g. Northern Nigeria and Sudan), to mention a few. Also, the spate of global terrorist attacks (e.g. 9/11 Airliner Attacks in the USA), the inter-racial conflicts witnessed during the Apartheid era in South Africa, and the spate of race riots in the UK (e.g. Notting Hill, 1958; Moss Side, Brixton and Toxteth, 1981; Dewsbury, 1989; Bradford and Oldham, 2001, and Birmingham, 2005) all accentuate the importance of

66 QCA, supra note 1, p. 7.67 DCSF, supra note 1, p. 26.68 Ibid., p. 8.69 Gwendolyn Baker, ‘Teaching Children to Respect Diversity’, 71:1 Childhood Education

(1994), pp. 33–35.

52 jawoniyi


children’s development of self-awareness as well as intercultural, interracial, inter-ideological, and interreligious competencies.70

The significance of this educational aim is further accentuated by the mass migration of people around the world. This phenomenon has transformed into pluralistic milieus, many neighbourhoods, communities, and societ-ies which around half-a-century ago were more or less ethnically, culturally and religiously homogeneous or less diverse. One of the implications of this transformation is that many schools (like the neighbourhoods, communities and societies they serve) which historically were ethnically, culturally and reli-giously virtually homogeneous have been transformed into multicultural and multi-religious schools. This transformation is not without its attendant prob-lems, especially given, as Schreiner argues:

Living together with the ‘Other’ is a difficult task. As human beings we are not well prepared to love and appreciate those who are different from us except members of our family or of the close community to which we belong. In social science we speak of ‘in-group amity’ and ‘out-group enmity’ as two codes of morals. In daily interaction, we make a subtle dis-tinction between ‘us’ and the ‘others’, often on the basis of easily learned binary classifications such as friend/foe or kin/non-kin.71

One major issue confronting today’s societies and schools experiencing increasingly plurality of identities (characterised by diverse ethnicities, cul-tures, religions and even secular ideologies) is how to cope with differences and potential conflicts arising from ethnic, cultural, religious and ideologi-cal differences. In other words, how can ethnically, culturally, religiously and ideologically pluralistic societies and schools recognize, celebrate and value difference, whilst simultaneously promoting the formation of children’s iden-tity (ethnic, cultural, religious and ideological) and facilitating or endorsing cultural cohesion and integration within the wider society? It is in respect of this that States parties recognise that educating the child about her/his and others ethnicities, cultures, religions and ideologies plays a crucially important role not only in promoting every child’s sense of identity and affiliation, but also in fostering her/his development of respect for diversity and pluralism. It is also as a sequel to this that the prevalent model of religious education in state-funded schools in Great Britain features and exposes children to the

70 Jawoniyi, supra note 7.71 Peter Schreiner, ‘A ‘Safe Space’ to Foster Self-Expression’, in J. Keast (ed.), supra note 2,

pp. 57–8.



various, varied and variegated worldviews underpinning diverse ethnic, cul-tural, religious and secular identities identified within its social order. This helps not only in providing children with intercultural, interreligious, and inter-ideological education, but also in helping them to develop intercultural and interfaith or inter-ideological competencies.

3.7 Fostering Mutual Understanding and Peaceful CoexistenceThe need for education to facilitate children’s development of attitudes of understanding, peace, tolerance and non-discrimination remains one of the vitally important aims of education articulated in the UNCRC72 and other international human rights frameworks.73 ‘Religio-cultural differences and intolerance have, in different parts of the world . . . not only exacerbated inter-religious conflicts, but also aggravated civil unrests and the oppression of eth-nic minorities’,74 argues the present author, who further maintains that ‘liberal, pluralistic, democratic states potentially benefit from citizens who acknowl-edge, respect and show tolerance towards diverse religio-cultural ideologies and secular worldviews’.75 In order to accomplish the latter (i.e., mutual under-standing, peace, tolerance and non-discrimination) with a view to eliminating the former (i.e. interreligious conflicts, civil unrests and oppression of ethnic minorities), this educational aim has become one of the aims, aspirations, and foci of the prevalent model of religious education identified in state-funded schools in Great Britain.

It has already been noted that the prevalent model of religious education in state-funded schools in Great Britain: exposes children to the core values, belief systems and ethos of the different living faiths and diverse secular ide-ologies; enables them to evaluate their beliefs and disbeliefs; and, facilitates their analytical and sympathetic understanding of, and respect for, other peoples’ worldviews. Hence, it not only seeks to foster children’s respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, but also aims to promote the child’s sense of identity and affiliation, engendering also children’s development of respect for diversity and pluralism. The aspiration is that these should help to foster mutual understanding, tolerance, and peaceful coexistence. It is in connection with this that Weisse describes religious education as ‘a field for learning tolerance and interreligious understanding, for learning to see

72 See Article 29:1(d) of the UNCRC. 73 See Article 13:1 of the ICESCR; Article 26:2 of the UDHR.74 Oduntan Jawoniyi, ‘Rethinking the Religious Education Curricula in Nigerian Schools’,

22:2 Journal for the Study of Religion (2009), pp. 63–86, at p. 73.75 Ibid.

54 jawoniyi


differences without using them to discriminate against others [and] for laying the foundations of harmony and overcoming racism in society’.76 He further observes ‘we can learn in religious education that cultural and religious dif-ferences do not have to lead to discrimination, but that mutual understand-ing of different backgrounds can lead to a clearer formulation of one’s own position and promote . . . ‘differentiated citizenship’.’77 Jackson also maintains that religious education, as obtainable in some education systems (e.g. the UK), has ‘the potential to address forms of racism that focus on religion and culture’.78 Similarly, Diez de Velasco noted that multifaith religious education is a potential laboratory for peace education.79 These assertions hinges on the fact that religious education, as the above vignettes demonstrate, not only seeks to enable children to identify their respective epistemological directions, but also, in a dialogical manner, facilitates their acquisition and development of skills requisite: (i) for listening empathetically to one another’s religious and nonreligious worldviews; (ii) for comparing and contrasting theirs’ and others’ viewpoints; and, (iii) for recognizing and respecting differences.

In maintaining that the ubiquitous model of religious education in state-funded schools in Great Britain aspires to facilitate children’s development of attitudes of peace, tolerance and non-discrimination, it is imperative to note that ‘knowledge and understanding of religions and religious pluralism in multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-cultural societies does not automati-cally result in “tolerance” and “respect” for the worldviews of the “Other” ”.80 Jackson expresses the same view. Maintaining that there ‘are some very well informed racists and bigots as well as specialists in propaganda and “spin” [who] are aware that lies and misinformation can increase tolerance, sympathy

76 Wolfram Weisse, ‘Difference without discrimination: religious education as a field of learning for social understanding’, in R. Jackson (ed.), International Perspectives on Citizenship, Education and Religious Diversity (London: Routledge/Falmer, 2003), pp. 191–208, at p. 192.

77 Ibid., at 205.78 Robert Jackson, ‘European Institutions and the Contribution of Studies in Religious

Diversity to Education for Democratic Citizenship’, in R. Jackson et al. (eds.), Religion and Education in Europe: Developments, Contexts and Debates (New York, Munchen, Münster & Berlin: Waxmann, 2007), pp. 27–55, at p. 45.

79 Diez de Velasco, ‘Religion, Identity and Education for Peace: Beyond the Dichotomies: Confessional/Non Confessional and Global/Local’, 29:1 British Journal of Religious Education (2007), pp. 77–87.

80 Patricia Malone, ‘Religious Education and Prejudice among Students taking the Course Studies of Religion’, 21:1 British Journal of Religious Education (1998), pp. 7–19, at p. 17.



and respect’,81 Jackson further posits that ‘knowledge and understanding are necessary but not sufficient conditions for the genuine removal of prejudice’.82 Nonetheless, it is crucially important to emphasize that ‘ignorance increases the likelihood of misunderstanding, stereotyping, and conflict’.83 Moreover, ‘[i]gnorance of other ‘foreign’ religions’, as Weisse reports, ‘provides a basis for assumptions, falsification, manipulation and hatred’.84 Whilst ‘acting against stereotypes and prejudices is not simply a matter of providing more knowledge’,85 ‘[o]bjective awareness of the religious [or nonreligious] dimen-sion of individual and social existence needs to serve a different goal, namely recognition of others’.86 In other words, fostering tolerance is not simply a matter of ‘knowing’ that other people are culturally, ethnically, religiously and ideologically different. More importantly, it is about developing attitudes of respect toward the cultural, ethnic, religious and ideological ‘Other’ in such a manner that makes them feel both ‘accepted and recognized for who they are’.87

3.8 Promoting Children’s Respect for the Natural EnvironmentThe need for education to facilitate children’s development of respect for the natural environment is the fifth aim of education articulated in the UNCRC.88 It is also one of the foci of Locally Agreed Syllabuses and the Non-statutory National Framework for Religious Education. This explains why religious educa-tion classrooms, as Vignette Three aptly demonstrates, serve as platforms for educating children about the natural environment. Whilst it seems reasonable to assume that this aspect of the child’s education (i.e. environmental educa-tion) is better dealt with in other curriculum subjects (e.g. geography or envi-ronmental science), Tucker and Grim appositely observe:

For many years science, engineering, policy, and law alone were con-sidered indispensable for understanding and resolving environmental problems. We now have abundant knowledge from these disciplines

81 Robert Jackson, ‘Intercultural Education and Religious Education: A Changing Rela-tionship’, in Dennis Bates et al. (eds.), Education, Religion and Society (London & New York: Routledge, 2006), pp. 49–61 at p. 54.

82 Ibid., at p. 54.83 OSCE/ODIHR, supra note 1, p. 9.84 Weisse, supra note 76, p. 206. 85 Abdallah-Pretceille, ‘The Religious Dimension of Intercultural Education: Challenges and

Realities’, in Council of Europe, supra note 2, pp. 51–60, at p. 55.86 Milot, supra note 2, p. 92.87 Ibid.88 Article 29:1(e) of the UNCRC.

56 jawoniyi


about environmental issues, but still not sufficient will to change human behavior. Thus, there is a growing realization that religion, spirituality, ethics, and values can make important contributions to address complex environmental issues.89

The need to turn to religion, and hence religious education, is informed by the fact that religion contains symbolic language which not only evokes nature’s processes, but also reflects nature’s rhythms, providing also insights into how human beings historically interacted with the ecosystems, and how such inter-actions have moulded cosmological narratives. Moreover, religious ideas and practices have always contributed to cultural attitudes towards, and shaped human interactions with, nature.90 Similarly, religion not only provides a spiri-tual bond between humans and the natural environment, but also underpins humans’ sacrosanct duty to care for the environment.91

The pluralistic nature of religious education in state-funded schools in Great Britain implies that claims based on scientific findings or postulations as well as religious beliefs are frequently deployed in educating children about the natural environment. In other words, the ubiquitous model of religious education in Great Britain exposes children to a multi-perspective environ-mental education. This features contemporary scientific findings on, for example, environmental degradation, global warming, and the sustainability of the ecosystems. It also incorporates religious (especially creationist) beliefs identified within some theistic religions (e.g. the Abrahamic faiths) and eco-friendly worldviews associated with some Eastern, neo-pagan, and indig-enous or aboriginal peoples’ religious traditions. With reference to scientific claims about environmentalism, children, for example, learn about: the eco-systems and its degradation; the extinction of wildlife; and, how the creation of greenhouse gases not only culminates in global warming, but also weakens the Ozone layer. In terms of religious claims about the natural environment, children, for example, learn about how theistic religions emphasize creation-ism, espouse the principle of stewardship, and accentuate the tripartite rela-tionship between the creator, humankind, and other creatures, whereby the

89 Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim, World Religions and Ecology: Asian Religions (2009), available at: <fore.research.yale.edu/files/Tucker_Grim_Religions_and_Ecology .pdf> accessed on: 22 August 2013], p. 1.

90 Sunanchai Ontakharai et al., ‘Religious Outlook and Students’ Attitudes toward the Environment’, 29:3 Journal of Beliefs & Values: Studies in Religion & Education (2008), pp. 305–311.

91 Tucker and Grim, supra note 89 at 1.



creator imposed the moral responsibility of trusteeship of the earth upon human beings.92 In both cases, children often learn about the practical ways in which individuals could respect and care for the natural environment, consid-ering also issues relating to environmental ethics and dilemmas.

The foregoing implies that the prevalent model of religious education in state-funded schools in Great Britain draws upon scientific and religious knowledge in propelling children to develop an ethic for caring for, and con-serving, the natural environment. The importance of this aspect of the child’s education cannot be overemphasised. Flowers not only argues that ‘children can play an active role in protecting and improving the environment’, but also maintains that ‘at the personal level [children] can evaluate and change their own lifestyle and how it affects the environment’.93 The need to achieve these explains why education about the natural environment remains a part and parcel of religious education in state-funded schools in Great Britain.

In addition to inculcating children with environmental educational values, children’s learning in religious education arguably raises children’s awareness about the inextricable links between environmental rights and other rights of the individual. This is because the notion that all creatures, as part of the ecosystem—a combination of the physical (e.g. rocks and mountains) and biological (e.g. plants, animals and human beings) constituents of an environ-ment—are functionally mutually dependent, implies that the environment impacts upon every facet of human life, including human rights. Flowers argues:

The environment impacts on people’s human rights both positively and negatively. It plays an essential role in ensuring human life, providing the raw materials for our food, industry and development. However, environ-mental hazards, such as excess radiation or contaminated drinking water, can also threaten the fundamental right to life. People exposed to pollu-tion of the soil, air or food and water supplies may be subject to human rights violations as well as bad health, genetic damage, loss of livelihood and even death.94

The crux of Flowers’ assertion is that salvaging or damaging of the natural environment improves or degrades human lives in the same manner that it

92 Genesis 2: 15. Cf. Surah 30:30; 55:3–13.93 Nancy Flowers, Compasito: Manual on Human Rights Education for Children, 2nd edn

(Budapest: Council of Europe, 2009), p. 229.94 Ibid., p. 228.

58 jawoniyi


protects or violates individual’s fundamental human rights. Recognizing the interdependency of the natural environment, human beings, and human rights, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment affirms, ‘man’s environment, the natural and the man-made, are essential to his well-being and to the enjoyment of basic human rights—even the right to life itself ’.95 It, therefore, seems plausible to suggest that if children must enjoy their basic rights, including the right to life, it is crucially important (given the inextri-cability of human life and the natural environment) that they acquire the knowledge and understanding of environmental issues as a first step towards becoming grounded in environmental rights issues. This is because ‘many fun-damental human rights have significant environmental dimensions: the right to health, to safe and healthy working conditions, to adequate housing and food, to work and to an adequate standard of living’.96 To this end, inculcating environmental educational values in children not only helps to engender their development of respect for the natural environment, but also serves as a gate-way for children’s exploration of the interface between environmental rights and other fundamental human rights (e.g. right to life and the right to health). In these respects, religious education, as a curriculum subject, further contrib-utes its own quota toward the actualization of Article 29:1(d) of the UNCRC.

4 Conclusion

The major issue that this article has been addressing is whether or not the ubiquitous model of religious education (i.e. non-confessional, multifaith reli-gious education) in state-funded schools in Great Britain has the capacity to fulfil the educational aims articulated in the UNCRC. As a preamble, this arti-cle first outlined the contemporary rationale for religious education in state-funded schools in Great Britain. It also highlighted how religious education, in pedagogical terms, is delivered. Having identified a common objection to the teaching of religion in state-funded schools—objection which already has been tackled elsewhere in the literature—this article stated its aim, provided an exegesis of the UNCRC’s educational aims before exploring the capacity of the ubiquitous model of religious education in Great Britain schools to equip

95 United Nations, Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, 5–16 June 1972, UN.Doc. A/CONF.48/14), para 1, available at: <www.un-documents.net/unchedec.htm> accessed on: 11 September 2010.

96 Flowers, supra note 93, p. 228.



children with the competencies and dispositions encapsulated in the aims of education enunciated in Article 29:1 of the UNCRC.

The subject’s espousal of religious diversity and ideological pluralism as well as its deployment of epistemic egalitarianism and epistemic neutrality implies that quite often, children critically, rationally, analytically, sympatheti-cally, dialogically, civilly, and non-coercively engage with competing (religious and secular) truth claims in religious education classrooms. This serves as a crucially important vehicle not only for engendering the development of chil-dren’s critical thinking and mental abilities, but also for promoting children’s development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, personal identity and affiliation, cultural diversity and pluralism, mutual understand-ing, and peaceful coexistence. Similarly, the examination of ecological and environmental issues in religious education lessons from the perspectives of science and religion, and from the viewpoint of the interconnectedness between the natural environment, human beings, and human rights, arguably helps not only in assisting children to develop attitudes and value systems which influence environmentally ethical behaviours, but also in developing an ecologically sustainable society. The foregoing indisputably helps to not only inculcate in children the principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms, but also educate them for democratic citizenship. To this end, it seems plausible to conclude that the prevalent model of religious education in state-funded schools in Great Britain not only contributes to other aspects of the school’s curriculum, vis-à-vis, critical thinking, human rights education, citizenship education, intercultural education, multicultural education, peace education, and environmental education, but also, and more importantly, ful-fils the aims of education articulated in Article 29:1 of the UNCRC.

Fulfilling Article 29:1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—the Aims of...

Documents

Transcript of Fulfilling Article 29:1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—the Aims of...