There was an article published in the January-February 2015 issue of Religious Education, written by Yonah H. Matemba, “Mismatches Between Legislative Policy and School Practice in Religious Education: The Scottish Case.” (Vol. 110, No. 1: 70-94. DOI:10.1080/00344087.2015.989097).
Graeme Nixon has written “Scottish religious and moral education” as a response to this article. Although the journal does not ordinarily publish rejoinders, the Religious Education Association’s desire to invite ongoing conversation about matters provoked by scholarship in our journal led the REA to publish (with the author’s permission) Prof. Nixon’s article on the REA website here. Please read his response to the original article, and we encourage you to participate in ongoing constructive conversation in the comments area of this page.
I would like to thank the editors of Religious Education for providing this forum for a scholarly debate that may arise from articles that are published in the journal.
I have read with great interest Dr Graeme Nixon’s response to and criticism of my paper “Mismatches between legislative policy and practice in religious education: the Scottish case,” Religious Education, 110(1), pp. 70-94 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00344087.2015.989097).
Dr Nixon raises a number of points which grossly misrepresents my paper and the conclusions I have made based on a large empirical study of Sottish Religious Education. In due course I will provide a fuller response and refutation to many of things he has said, including his misunderstanding of my use of the term ‘neo-confessionalism’ and the erroneous claim he makes that I am somewhat a ‘confessionalist’ in my disposition towards contemporary Scottish Religious Education.
In my reply I will also say something about philosophy and Religious Education, and further clarify my views on the uncontested philosophication of Scottish RE (mainly in secondary schools). I will argue that philosophy is not unique (should not be treated as such and thus no need for nomenclature change) but that it is one of many pedagogical approaches that teachers can use in Religious Education.
I would like to thank the editors of Religious Education for providing this forum for a scholarly debate that may arise from articles that are published in the journal.
I have read with great interest Dr Graeme Nixon’s response to and criticism of my paper “Mismatches between legislative policy and practice in religious education: the Scottish case,” Religious Education, 110(1), pp. 70-94 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00344087.2015.989097).
Dr Nixon raises a number of points which grossly misrepresents my paper and the conclusions I have made based on a large empirical study of Sottish Religious Education. In due course I will provide a fuller response and refutation to many of things he has said, including his misunderstanding of my use of the term ‘neo-confessionalism’ and the erroneous claim he makes that I am somewhat a ‘confessionalist’ in my disposition towards contemporary Scottish Religious Education.
In my reply I will also say something about philosophy and Religious Education, and further clarify my views on the uncontested philosophication of Scottish RE (mainly in secondary schools). I will argue that philosophy is not unique (should not be treated as such and thus no need for nomenclature change) but that it is one of many pedagogical approaches that teachers can use in Religious Education.
I would like to thank the editors of Religious Education for providing this forum for a scholarly debate that may arise from articles that are published in the journal.
I have read with great interest Dr Graeme Nixon’s response to and criticism of my paper “Mismatches between legislative policy and practice in religious education: the Scottish case,” Religious Education, 110(1), pp. 70-94 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00344087.2015.989097).
Dr Nixon raises a number of points which grossly misrepresents my paper and the conclusions I have made based on a large empirical study of Sottish Religious Education. In due course I will provide a fuller response and refutation to many of things he has said, including his misunderstanding of my use of the term ‘neo-confessionalism’ and the erroneous claim he makes that I am somewhat a ‘confessionalist’ in my disposition towards contemporary Scottish Religious Education.
In my reply I will also say something about philosophy and Religious Education, and further clarify my views on the uncontested philosophication of Scottish RE (mainly in secondary schools). I will argue that philosophy is not unique (should not be treated as such and thus no need for nomenclature change) but that it is one of many pedagogical approaches that teachers can use in Religious Education.
I would like to thank the editors of Religious Education for providing this forum for a scholarly debate that may arise from articles that are published in the journal.
I have read with great interest Dr Graeme Nixon’s response to and criticism of my paper “Mismatches between legislative policy and practice in religious education: the Scottish case,” Religious Education, 110(1), pp. 70-94 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00344087.2015.989097).
Dr Nixon raises a number of points which grossly misrepresents my paper and the conclusions I have made based on a large empirical study of Sottish Religious Education. In due course I will provide a fuller response and refutation to many of things he has said, including his misunderstanding of my use of the term ‘neo-confessionalism’ and the erroneous claim he makes that I am somewhat a ‘confessionalist’ in my disposition towards contemporary Scottish Religious Education.
In my reply I will also say something about philosophy and Religious Education, and further clarify my views on the uncontested philosophication of Scottish RE (mainly in secondary schools). I will argue that philosophy is not unique (should not be treated as such and thus no need for nomenclature change) but that it is one of many pedagogical approaches that teachers can use in Religious Education.