Briefing Note for the Chief Executive Officer, the Tasmanian Qualifications Authority

OFFICE OF THE TASMANIAN BRIEFING NOTE NO: 16/14 QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY BRIEFING NOTE FOR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE TASMANIAN QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY SUBJECT: Religion in Society TQA level 2, size value 15 PURPOSE: To seek accreditation of the proposed course. BACKGROUND: The course Religion and Philosophy – Foundation was accredited on 3 November 2009 for a period of 5 years. At it meeting of 5 June 2013 (Item 2.3) the Authority decided that a system or school might choose to revise the course for accreditation consideration. No specifications were prepared to guide such work. On 19 November 2013 we received a ‘Notice of intent to develop a course...’ from Susan Bunkum of Guilford Young College. The Office was able to offer the writer some limited support. We published a draft for general comment on behalf of the writer in the period 31 March to 14 April 2014. The writer undertook refinements to the document in light of comments received and suggestions by the Office regarding alignment of learning outcomes, content and criteria/standards. The proponent’s cover letter and supporting materials are given at Attachment A. As part of the accreditation process an exposure draft of the proposed course was published for public comment in the period 11 to 25 June 2014. Two comments were received. Patrick McManus (Head of Faculty - Religious Education, St. Patrick's College) wrote to endorse the course and thank its writer. Russell Cooper wrote to question the suitability of the course for accreditation (See Attachment B and Issue #1 below). The course has been analysed against the Senior Secondary Course Accreditation Criteria (See Attachment C and Issue #2 below). In response to issues noted in the analyses: • the Quality Assurance section has been modified • the Access section has been removed • typographic errors have been removed • minor changes to wording have been made to enhance clarity. CURRENT SITUATION: The following course document is ready for accreditation consideration (Attachment D): New course: Replacing: Religion in Society TQA level 2, Religion and Philosophy – size value 15 Foundation TQA level 2, size value 15 ISSUES: 1. Mr Cooper’s response (Attachment B) raised the issue of the suitability of the proposed course as part of the accredited suite of Tasmanian senior secondary courses. It is noted that the course: • does not prescribe study of any specific religious tradition and requires study of more than one religion/ religious tradition. An addition to the Course Requirements section of the proposed document has been made to enhance clarity regarding this requirement: “In this course learners MUST study at least two (2) world religions from the list: Judaism; Christianity; Islam; Hinduism; and Buddhism. Other religions may also be studied. NOTE: In this course document the term ‘religious traditions’ is used to mean ‘religions’, not groups or divisions within the listed world religions.” • is not a catechetics or ‘faith in action’ course • has a clear focus on the interactions/interrelationships between religious traditions and society. The latter feature justifies the place of the proposed course in the Tasmanian senior secondary curriculum, within the Society and Culture category: religious traditions have shaped social institutions (e.g. law); are a basis for social norms and mores; have influenced art, literature and architecture; and religious issues and ideas have shaped the historical narrative of society. See also the Rationale provided by the proponent at Attachment A. 2. The analysis of the course recommended a check be made between the proposed course and Making Moral Decisions TQA 2 in regard to possible overlap. It was found that the area of learning in the proposed course, ‘examine religious responses to the question of how to live an ethical life’ is very similar to content in the Making Moral Decisions course. However, as this is one of seven areas of learning in one of four modules the degree of overlap is minimal. VIEWS: Not known. RECOMMENDATIONS: That the course be accredited for use from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2019. That the course be assigned a robustness level of 3. That the course be assigned the following characteristics for the TCE: Course: TCE Contribution: Religion in Society TQA level 2, level/credit points towards size value 15 participation and achievement standard for PA or higher 15 credit points at TQA 2 TCE contribution: ‘Everyday Adult’ standard for SA award of higher Reading and Writing PREPARED BY: Dr Mike Jenkins Liaison and Development Officer Date: 7 August 2014 APPROVED BY CEO: Acting under delegation from the Tasmanian Qualifications Authority to accredit senior secondary courses. Delegation to the CEO of the power to make accreditation decisions under Section 26 is limited to those cases which meet the conditions below: Delegation Conditions Comment The course proposed clearly The proposed course meets the fits all the criteria for Authority’s Senior Secondary accreditation established by Course Accreditation Criteria. the Authority. See Attached Reports. Accreditation of the proposed On 5 June 2013 (Item 2.3) the course is consistent with Authority decided that a Authority policy decisions, system or school might choose including the need to to revise the course for streamline the number of accreditation consideration. courses. An assessment of risk to the The CEO and the Chair of the Authority’s reputation of a Authority met on 25 August decision to accredit the course 2014. is agreed in consultation with the Chair of the Authority to be It was agreed that low. accreditation of the proposed course was low risk. Course accreditation will only The recommendation is for a be carried out by delegation positive decision (i.e. when the decision is positive accreditation). (all refusals will be made by the Authority meeting) and in full compliance with Authority policy decisions Proposals for new courses, The proposed course replaces unless previously decided by an existing one. It is not a ‘new’ the Authority, whether or not course. fully compliant in all other respects, will fall outside the delegation Cases where there is not N/A agreement that the risk to the Authority’s reputation is low would fall outside the delegation. Signed by Dr Reg Allen Dr Reg Allen CEO, Tasmanian Qualifications Authority Date: 25 August 2014 Acting under delegation from the Tasmanian Qualifications Authority to accredit senior secondary courses. Attachments: A: Accreditation Submission B: Comment on Exposure Draft C: TQA Senior Secondary Course Analysis Report D: Proposed Course ATTACHMENT A: Accreditation Submission 1.0 Rationale Preamble Religion, whether as an agent of stability or instability, of progress or retrogression, of peace or conflict, or simply of diverse kinds of change everywhere in the world, will long continue to be a critical factor for individual, social and political life around the world, and we need to understand it (Graham, 2013, p. 2/7). This statement which identifies as an imperative, the need to understand the phenomenon of religion as influential in society, captures ‘in a nutshell’ the essence of the argument that I make as part of this submission that the course, Religion in Society, be accredited. The statement was made by William Albert Graham, Jr., an influential American academic who has spent a significant proportion of his career investigating religion. He is noted for his scholarship in the field of Middle Eastern studies and has held the positions of Albertson Professor of Middle Eastern Studies and Dean of Harvard Divinity School. There are probably few scholars in the field of Religion Studies who are as eminently qualified to speak about the need for courses in this area as Graham (2013) who asserts that “religion is a key element in every culture and in every phase of history and … I do feel there is reason to study religion today, just as there will be, if anything, even greater reason to do so in the century ahead” (p. 1/7). Graham (2013) bases his argument ‘for’ religion studies on what he sees as the reality of the world of the twenty-first century – a world in which it is becoming increasingly obvious that “social and individual life everywhere is inextricably tied up with religious issues, religious thinking, and religious action, and these thus deserve our attention” (p. 2/7). Perhaps, Graham’s (2013) most compelling argument in support of the accreditation of a course such as Religion in Society, is his claim that while most people may think that they understand their own ‘brand’ of religion, on the whole, “religion remains one of the least well understood sectors of life for the majority of persons in any and every society” (p. 2/7). Consequently, Graham (2013) argues that “we still desperately need instruction, at all levels of our educational system, that teaches future citizens about religion as a global and human, not a sectarian and parochial, reality” (p. 3/7). Many other scholars would concur with Graham’s perspective. Huston Smith, for example, devoted a whole text, Why Religion Matters (2000), as a response to what he perceived to be a condition of the world as it approached the twenty-first century – a world which he believed to be marked not just by crises in the environment, economics and politics, but also by population explosion, a widening gap between rich and poor, and importantly, from Smith’s perspective a metaphysical crisis (p. 17). Sociologists, Annette Schnabel and Mikael Hjerm (2014) assert that religion is inscribed into “political institutions” and “cultural frameworks” and “influences individual perceptions, attitudes and actions” (p. 2/26). They argue that it is imperative to teach about ‘religion’ as that which has shaped, and continues to shape, aspects of our world today. Consistent with the arguments ‘for’ education about religion proffered by scholars and academics, a report prepared by the American Academy of Religion’s Taskforce (2010) after their investigation into the role of religious education in American state schools identified “widespread illiteracy regarding religion” as a major problem for inevitably such a lack “fuels prejudice and antagonism” (p.

Load more