Positioning of Estonian religious education in the

There are several ways of describing and organising religious education.

Usually different forms of religious education are distinguished as ‘confessio-nal’ and ‘non-confessio‘confessio-nal’ (or ‘interreligious’) (e.g. Schreiner, 2000, 7; Wil-laime, 2007; also Jackson, 2008b). Peter Schreiner distinguishes the religious studies approach from the denominational approach (Schreiner, 2002, 91–93).

In the following, I attempt to position Estonian religious education in a wider context. In doing this I will not give an overview about representative models of religious education as taught in different countries, but rather focus on the difficulties of classifying models of religious education. I will highlight some of the most controversial examples from different countries in Europe, including examples of those where a clear distinction between different types of religious education is easier and others where it is difficult or impossible to make a distinction between different types.

The distinction can be made according to the law and policy statements at the national level – policy being determined by educational or religious bodies.

The second distinction could be made according to aims of and the third to contents of the subject, as described in syllabus. The fourth division is ac-cording to a school level and deals with who takes the subject. It is therefore important to pay attention to the basis on which this distinction is made.

Distinction according to the legislation

The distinction is often made according to legislation: who is responsible for the development of syllabi and textbooks, contents of the teaching, the training and appointing of educators – the religious communities or educational bodies?

‘Confessional religious education’ is organised by and responsibility is given to religious bodies. There is the big variety of possible solutions under the umbrella of this label, church or churches having the authoritative role of supervision, sometimes combined with educational authorities, about contents of the subject and appointing teachers of religious education. ‘Confessional

religious education’ may teach the ‘religion of state’ (e.g. in Spain, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Rumania) the ‘religion of the sponsor’ (e.g. Holland, in which the religion of the group sponsoring the school is taught) and in other countries’

confessional schools, ‘the religion the student belongs to’ (e.g. Finland, Croatia, Germany, Latvia, Alsace).

In ‘non-confessional’ approaches, which includes the ‘religious studies’

approach, to religious education, religious bodies have no role in public edu-cation, or occasionally a limited role (as in local Agreed Syllabus conferences in England, in which syllabuses are designed jointly by teachers, local politicians and religious bodies, but to non-confessional aims). Thus, there is a range of possible accommodations to this model. In some countries there is no distinc-tive subject for religious studies (as in France, Montenegro, Macedonia and Albania). Knowledge about religions can be dealt with in courses on history, literature or as a dimension of intercultural education or citizenship education.

In other countries (e.g. Sweden, Denmark, Norway), religious education is provided exclusively by the state’s educational bodies. Although in some cases (e.g. Iceland) religious bodies may be used as advisers, the educational bodies have the responsibility and the last word in composing the subject.

From the perspective of who decides the contents and approaches of religious education, Estonia is similar to the ‘non-confessional’ or ‘study of religions’ models. In Estonia religious education is organised by the state’s Ministry of Education and Research, and the religious bodies have only a limited advisory function (see chapter 2.2.2).

Distinction according to the aims

There are some shortcomings with distinguishing religious education only on legislative grounds. Many authors (e.g. Diez de Velasco, 2008; Josza, 2008;

Alberts, 2007; Crawford&Rossiter, 2006) have criticised the rigid division of confessional and non-confessional religious education according to the respon-sible bodies. They have tried to suggest other variables for distinguishing different models. The most important is that such a distinction does not tell anything about the aims and the contents of the subject. This brings to the level of syllabuses for religious education. Speaking about the aims, a distinction is sometimes made among three aims of religious education: teaching ‘into’,

‘about’ and ‘from’ religion (Grimmitt, 2000; Hull, 2001). Teaching ‘into’ refers to bringing students closer to the corresponding religion and to educate them from the perspective of that religion. Instruction stems from an insider’s perspective and the teachers are expected to be representatives of that religion.

This aim is appropriate only in the context of confessional religious education, although the other two aims can be also present.

Teaching ‘about’ religion promotes religious literacy, comprehension of different religious traditions, interpretation and sometimes reflexivity. It requires knowing about and understanding the beliefs, values and practices of different religions, and how religion affects individuals and communities.

Religion is taught from the outside, from a descriptive and historical, often

non-religious perspective. Learning ‘from’ religion is sometimes part of this model (as in England) and aims at students’ personal, spiritual and moral development, at reflecting and building their own responses to religious traditions, but this element is not intended to inculcate religious faith.

“In the first two kinds of religious education, ‘learning religion’ and ‘learning about religion’, religion is taught for its own sake, whether as an object of faith to which the children are summoned, or as an object worthy of critical study.

However, in the third kind, ‘learning from religion’ the central focus switches to the children as learners.” (Hull, 2001, 5)

One can assume that the aims of non-confessional religious education vary from more content oriented ‘teaching about’ (e.g. in Norway) to more reflexive and child-oriented ‘teaching from’ in which experience and identity of the students is at the centre of teaching and learning (e.g. in Sweden) and have elements of

‘teaching into tolerance’. Some endeavours to develop curricular materials from a non-confessional comparative religious perspective could be found also oversees, in California, Iowa and Massachusetts in the USA (Hackett, 2007, vi) in Montreal in Canada (Ouellet, 2006) and in South Africa (Chidester, 2003).

Still, there is no clear-cut distinction between the aims and organisation of religious education. As Peter Schreiner comments: “This rough differentiation is idealistic because a good religious education should include elements from all these perspectives” (Schreiner, 2007, 9). It should be noted that not only confessional religious education can be biased. Some non-confessionally or-ganised religious education can contain bias and introduce students to an anti-religious worldview by focusing mainly on the negative impacts and potential misuse of religions.

Estonia is similar to the ‘non-confessional’ models with less emphasis on developmental aspects, having rather a content-oriented focus or mainly

‘teaching about’ different world religions (Valk, 2000).

Distinction according to the contents

Talking about the contents of religious education the simple answer would be that in ‘confessional’ religious education students mainly learn one specific religious tradition and in ‘non-confessional’ religious education they learn several religions without aiming to nurture the students into any specific religious tradition. But in a plural world more and more countries with a ‘con-fessional’ approach incorporate ‘teaching about’ different religions more or less into their syllabuses. In those countries which have non-confessional forms of religious education there is debate about how many religions should be covered, and at what ages students should learn about them. Dan-Paul Josza (2007) distinguishes different models of religious education, based rather on contents and philosophy of religious education.

He argues that different models can be and are present within the same legislative framework. He considers the contents of the subject and groups

religious education models according to it, not so much to approaches ‘into’ –

‘about’ – ‘from’. In ‘confessional’ religious education Josza discusses the con-tents of religious education in more detail, as there are many forms of religious education which contain different religions, but in a different proportion (Josza, 2007). He concludes that if the proportional representation of different religions is only a quantitative one “without making a ‘qualitative’ difference between the religions per se, and especially without the aim to introduce the pupils into a specific religion” then the approach is ‘non-confessional’. In a ‘confessional’

approach the focus on one religion is above all ‘qualitative’, even if ac-companied in general also by a ‘quantitative’ focus. If one religion is presented from a ‘qualitative’ point of view differently from the others, generally “with the impetus at least to bring that specific religion more nearer to the pupils, in most of the cases to introduce them to that religion”, he would count it as a

‘confessional’.

On the level of contents, according to the syllabus of religious education in Estonia, one can follow a greater emphasis on Christianity, because of the country’s culture and history. In the revised syllabus more emphasis has been put on different religious and secular traditions. In any case, there is a quanti-tative difference, not a qualiquanti-tative one. The critical and analytical approach to any of studied religions is seen as a prerequisite.

Distinction according to the participants

As discussed above, the political-organisational framework and the aims of religious education have only a loose connection. Beside the responsible body and syllabus there is one further aspect, those who attend the lesson. There are some examples, where the state is responsible for the subject, even though it is directed towards students of one religion (usually Christians or Muslims) and to provide knowledge about that religion, as in case of special religious education for Muslim children in North-Rhine-Westphalia in Germany (Josza, 2008). By the definition given above it would count still as ‘non-confessional’ religious education. On the contrary, the Hamburg model of ‘Religionsunterricht für alle’

would be classified as ‘confessional’ because it is organised by the Protestant Church, although it is designed to be attended by all students and to provide knowledge and to learn from a non-confessional perspective different religions (Knauth, 2008).

Josza develops a model of religious education also according to the target group. In the religious education model of the ‘confessional religious education’

he distinguishes ‘explicit confessional religious education’ from ‘general confessional religious education’. ‘Explicit confessional religious education’ is designed only for the students affiliated with that religious tradition. ‘General confessional religious education’ is designed for all students regardless of their religious affiliation. A model of ‘non-confessional religious education’ with students being separated according to their religion is termed ‘separative non-confessional religious education’. The model where students are not separated

according to their religion is called ‘general non-confessional religious edu-cation’ or simply ‘non-confessional religious eduedu-cation’.

There is a difficulty with the scheme. Let us imagine two classes with the exactly same syllabus, a teacher and the approach. The students in one class come from a similar religious or secular background and in another class there are two children with a different religious background. Should religious education been classified in one class as ‘general’ and in other as ‘separative’?

Although Estonian religious education definitely falls into the ‘non-confessional’ model of religious education, the appropriate ‘cluster’ for the Estonian case is missing also in Josza’s scheme. As the students are not sepa-rated in Estonia according to their religion, but according to their own or their parents’ will, it would not count as ‘separative non-confessional’ religious education in Josza’s sense. The extension of the category to include the Es-tonian case in either the ‘separative’ or the ‘general’ model would not do justice to either of them, as the students come from diverse religious or secular back-grounds. Moreover, Estonian religious education is not inclusive, as not all the students from a particular class are represented; some of the students who attend religious education feel sometimes quite segregated because of that (see chapter 4). My suggestion is to add a category of ‘elective non-confessional religious education’ to label the model practised in Estonia.

Wanda Alberts introduces the term ‘integrative religious education’ and insists that one of the characteristics of such a subject is its non-separative educational framework which requires the concept for dealing with diversity in the classroom:

“The term ‘integrative religious education’ is used as an analytical category re-ferring to a particular form of religious education in which the children of a class are not separated (…) but learn together about different religions.”

(Alberts, 1, 2007)

In defining such a model she takes for granted the responsibility of the edu-cational body and adds two distinctive characteristics about students who parti-cipate – all students – and about the subject matter – which includes various religions – without taking the perspective of any religion as a framework.

Religious education in Estonia is inconsistent in its form and aims. Although religious education in Estonia represents religious studies approach and students who study it come from diverse religious and secular backgrounds, it cannot be classified as integrative as Alberts describes it. Such a misfit could be one of the reasons why Kodelja and Bassler classified religious education in Estonia as an optional confessional religious education (Kodelja&Bassler, 2004, 17) The separation is not done as in ‘confessional religious education’ according to religious affiliation of a child, but the subject is still separative, as not all the children attend it and they are separated according to their motivation to attend an additional lesson. There are a few schools in Estonia, which practise

integrative religious education in the way Alberts describes it and this is done illegally, as the law stipulates that the subject must be optional.

Thus there is no simple contrast between ‘confessional’ and ‘non-confes-sional’ religious education. As presented in the discussion above, the distinction about confessional and non-confessional religious education could be made on the basis of system, aims, content and of what actually happens in religious education from the students’ perspective. The system can be confessional, as in most parts of Germany but the aims not so, as in Hamburg. The aims might be non-confessional but the content confined to one religion. There are several forms of confessional religious education, from conservative religious education with strict focus on a single religion and (hidden or more explicit) syllabus to bring children nearer to one religion to very liberal forms of confessional religious education with open and child-centred aims and striving for non-discrimination and sympathetic teaching about other religions. Similarly some forms of non-confessional religious education tend to reduce religion to a cultural or historical phenomenon, whereas others see religious education as providing a safe space for respectful dialogue between religious and non-reli-gious points of view. The students, who attend relinon-reli-gious education, be it confessional or non-confessional, can belong to one religion, one denomination or philosophy or be of different religious and non-religious backgrounds. In the non-confessional framework of aims, participants might find that their own understanding of religion has grown and their faith is deepened. The aims might be confessional but the child might be turned off religion in the process.

Religious education in Estonia is non-confessional by its system, aims and contents; also according to participants it should be called non-confessional. Its

‘compulsory’ optional status does not correspond to the nature of the subject but shows more prejudices and incompatibility with reality and the needs of schools. Some upper secondary level schools have decided that religious studies are an important part of education and have a mandatory course on world religions under different names. Such a situation does not permit regulation of or supervision of its contents. This shows a rather ambivalent position and cognitive resonance of the legislation and practical solutions. The changes made in syllabi for religious education have done little to improve knowledge and skills for peaceful co-existence because the subject of religious education has a marginal position in Estonian education.