dialogue among young citizens in a pluralistic re classroom the norwegian discussion

Dialogue Among Young Citizens in a Pluralistic RE

Classroom

The Norwegian Discussion

Dialogue in REIn a national school system based on the principle of ‘one school for all’

What is the particular role of RE in dialogue among pupils with different religious background, worldviews and beliefs?

What type of ideal picture or concept of the dialogue is found in different positions in the Norwegian discussion about RE?

Ideal picture of the dialogue Voluntary religious

committed verbal dialogue among adults

Open experimental

(diapractice) ”unfinished”

ongoing process verbally restricted among children in a given setting

’One school for all’ Comprehensive school for 98.3 % of

all children local school (mirrors the local

culture) all children integrated streaming not allowed permanent differentiation or

segregation not allowed equal opportunities no formal assessment before age

13

RE as a test question Up to 1997: division of children due

to religious background. 94,7 % Christian knowledge 4,4 % Worldviews (Life Stances) 0,9 % no RE in schools

From 1997: KRL common subject (with partly exemption only)

RE – as part of life in schoolDiapractice and dialogue National school system build to

serve citizenship as a main aim School life is dominated by

diapractice - (co-operation): living together with difference (Lissi Rasmussen)

Religious education cannot be limited to RE as a school subject

Diapractice...

School and classroom as given social structures

demanding differences in practice independent of objective degree of plurality

diapractice where the verbal dialogue is a minor part: children play, sing, make music, dance, make food, eat, have physical education and sports, have drama and role play, take part in student council, do creative arts …

Necessary dialogue emerges from the necessity of

living together in a society (Oddbjørn Leirvik)

the verbal dialogue that goes along with diapractice

making common celebrations and ethical practice possible, understandable and transparent

Dialogue in RE as a subject The Official Norwegian Report: the

principles in KRL is titled: Identity and dialogue

as mutual interdependent entities that form a continuum, with an emphasis on identity development in the first years of education and on

the dialogue in the later years theory about the dialogue in RE is a combination

of the one from the theological, monoreligious academic tradition and the one from the academic, multireligious study of religions

Dialogue in the official reader

Practical dialogue skill structured dialogue

a dialogue that occurs where the teacher sets the rules and decides the perspective to present the view of others

dialogue in the role as pupil comparison - a prerequisite for the

dialogue

Dialogue so far: Diapractice – co-operation Necessary dialogue –

everyday conversation to get to understand one another

informal personal exchange of ideas

Structured dialogue – empathic work with other religions and

beliefs representing other views comparison face to face communication

Spiritual dialogue – the personal encounter that makes change

Concepts of dialogue in the debate: Oddbjørn Leirvik: ”Interreligious dialogue

in a Norwegian context” frustrated about the lack of dialogical

intentions in the syllabus main focus is on development of identity

in primary education, and that the dialogue is postponed until the lower secondary stage

system-oriented approach, few system-ascending theme-oriented approaches

lack of interest for “between religions” Exception: dialogue about ethics

Leirvik’s ideal picture? dialogue between committed adult

representatives voluntary, verbal dialogue dialogue of religions - between

systems (political and academic interest)

frustration: Theology and Religious Studies as separate academic traditions

the necessary dialogue seems not important, asks for the spiritual dialogue in schools

Tove Nicolaisen: “the invisible (backstage) dialogue +

narration theory” Dialogue in the general part

=>dialogue as a working method bigger room for ethical dialogue,

parents: not less dangerous necessary dialogue, structured,

philosophical and some times spontaneous spiritual

philosophical dialogue has its limits: “the best argument”

teachers task to turn the dialogue into an informed dialogue

Nicolaisen:

dialogical room within the narratives: all children are both insiders and outsiders because all narratives have three dimensions: the anthropological common the religious the specific religious

system-ascension part of teacher training and classroom practice

Not interreligious dialogue, but KRL-dialogue

Nicolaisen’s ideal picture? dialogue between children:

informal spontaneous open-ended process in a given

setting system-ascending on an individual

level not interreligious dialogue -room

the secular child something specific: KRL-dialogue

Aspects of the dialogue concept: Action side Diapractice - co-operation Necessary dialogue

everyday conversation to get to understand one another informal personal exchange of ideas

Dialogue as a working method in KRL Structured dialogue – (in the role as pupil)

empathic work with other religions and beliefs representing other views comparison face to face communication

Philosophical dialogue Spiritual dialogue – the personal encounter that

makes change Verbal side

The function of dialogue in the classroom is not primarily to serve as dialogue between institutions nor between religions. System-ascending co-operation between academic traditions is a task for universities and colleges.

The dialogue in the classroom has as its main task to operate on an interpersonal level, to serve the purpose of building identity and empower for citizenship in a pluralistic global world.