Having said that, delegates also recognised that living well together cannot be solely taught as a discrete subject; there is a particular place for quality religious education, personal, social, health and economic education, citizenship and British values teaching, and a corresponding need for development of resources and expertise in this area. But these subjects cannot solve the issue in isolation. A greater grasp of world history, for example, is a necessary precursor to understanding the complexities of modern geopolitics.
As with the question of ‘when’, the question of ‘where’ living well together should be taught was given a wide-ranging answer. In the words of one delegate: ‘It should suffuse the school.’ The conference suggested that all teachers across the curriculum must have the skills to facilitate children discussing their differences and commonalities. They argued for Department for Education investment in these skills so that teachers feel confident to spot opportunities to promote discussion of interfaith issues.
It was also suggested that living well together must be promoted by school leadership, the school ethos and shared values. Delegates argued that it was important to create appropriate time and space for things to happen. They suggested that fostering living well together requires a sustained and natural approach, not just an intervention. This therefore requires Ofsted to recognise that this is a long-term and committed process.
Delegates at the London day conference suggested that teaching living well together must be a whole school issue. This means training, because it would be best taught by theologically literate teachers, in conjunction with inspirational faith visitors. Having the ‘right’ visitors was argued to be of crucial importance, and it was also recognised that both parents and children could contribute to mutual self-understanding. There was a suggestion of the need for local co-ordination and commissioning of effective interfaith educators.
A number of strategies for teaching living well together were suggested, notably that teaching should be experiential, not just theoretical. This could be classroom based and also include visits. Teachers must be skilled at managing dialogue well and not closing down discussion. They should confidently and compassionately challenge the assumptions and prejudices of all participants. Teachers must be confident enough to risk discussion of difficult areas and enable children to discuss and question. Classroom-based learning might include meeting with inspirational faith leaders who embody respect for others. Going out into the community, for social action projects such as Sewa Day, Mitzvah Day or Sadaqa Day, was also an important component. Celebrating festivals and differing lifestyles, either through visitors coming to school or through class trips, was another key component. Finally, exchanges with other schools or links with different places of worship and community action would be valuable.
Three further Living Well Together conferences were conducted in 2016. One in March 2016, held in Leicester, involved pupils from both Year 6 and Years 12 and 13. Two further conferences were held in November 2016, one in Leicester for pupils in Years 12 and 13 and one in Southwell for pupils in Year 6. The feedback from the conferences was broadly similar to that noted above. These additional conferences allowed for further refining of the framework employed to facilitate discussion, and confirmed the organisers’ hunch that a framework is necessary for ensuring good outcomes. The conferences involving pupils in Year 6 (aged 10 and 11) demonstrated that young pupils are perfectly capable of having mature conversations about difference with complete strangers. Finally, the popularity of the conferences is an indication that there is a real interest within school communities for help in having discussions about how we live well together with our differences.
CASE STUDY 2.2: TRAINING FOR
PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANISATIONS
RIAZ RAVAT
I am the deputy director of the St Philip’s Centre, heading up the corporate training arm of the organisation. Since the early days of the Centre, the charity has delivered a range of religious literacy training to many public sector bodies including the police and local authorities. More sporadic courses have been run for others such as Leicestershire Fire & Rescue Service, Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group and for city schools’ religious education leads via Leicester City Council.
However, our training for all new police recruits at Leicestershire Police (formerly Leicestershire Constabulary) has continued for a much longer period. Despite the peaks and troughs of recruitment cycles, we have remained a staple part of the force’s induction diet. In the early days, delegates undertook a foundation degree in community policing via De Montfort University. More recently, participants complete the same qualification albeit via an internally accredited offer.
Many hundreds of police officers have sampled the St Philip’s Centre experience. All our public sector training courses are rooted in authenticity and encounter. The St Philip’s Centre is the responsible body but works in partnership with colleagues from the faith communities to deliver the quality ‘product’. Excellence and quality means that when delegates wish to learn about Hindus, they meet a Hindu. When they learn about Judaism, they meet a Jew. It is more robust and credible to meet and learn directly. It is also made clear to delegates that they are meeting one person who lives and breathes that particular faith and is active in their community. However, it is also made clear that they are one voice amongst many. Our training participants are also not ‘punished via PowerPoint’. In a world of virtual communications, our approach is one of face-to-face encounter.
A typical training day would include a ‘Facts of Faiths Game’, where the large group is split into teams and take part in a competitive card game exercise. The winning team is awarded a prize! This is followed by an overview of ‘Religions & Beliefs in the UK’, including data from the Census/Office for National Statistics. The next stage is the ‘round robin’ session where participants are split back into their teams and spend approximately 20 minutes with a faith practitioner on a rotational basis. They answer anonymous questions written by delegates earlier on in the day. Rather than imparting information to those attending, the ‘round robin’ directly poses questions related to world issues or workplace challenges. So, for example, rather than a question about how many times in a day Muslims pray, the question is likely to be: ‘How can I as a line manager facilitate appropriate time off for prayer whilst ensuring business needs are fully met without compromising other aspects of the company?’
A session titled ‘Case Studies’ will involve groups assessing a potential or real-life example of a difficulty where solutions and, more importantly, approaches need to be assessed. In the case of the police, this will include how to respond in case of an attack on a place of worship and the resulting rumour mill about the alleged perpetrators. Finally, the day ends with a visit to a place of worship so that the day is brought together in a different setting where hospitality and welcome are the order of the day. This is also an opportunity to learn in more detail from another religion belief.
This recipe has worked very successfully for many years. When I began working at the St Philip’s Centre, some of the public sector courses had a strongly academic flavour, where the reality on the ground was often missing. In addition, plenary sessions often led to hesitancy from the floor to ask questions or indeed an over-dominance of replies from questions posed to one faith over another. There is a method to our training offer, and repeated evaluations show very high levels of satisfaction. However, the challenge is that whilst many have taken on the introductory-level programme, many public sector institutions have not freed up staff to undertake the intermediate level. This is, 6 to 12 months on, a programme to identify how practice has been shaped or where new examples are shared for mutual assessment. Part of this is down to budgets but also to organisational cultures where the bare minimum is delivered.
Understanding and providing services for diverse communities in a challenging context cannot be achieved in one day. This is why the approach taken by the army through the Seventh Brigade and the 158 Regiment