Notes on Contributors

^{1 1} This article provides a detailed reconstruction of the processes leading to the formation of the widely influential Birmingham Agreed Syllabus of Religious Instruction (1975). This is contextualised within one of the most significant periods in the history of race relations in the United Kingdom. The authors discuss how this syllabus, and other landmark reforms in religious education (RE) in English schools from the late 1960s, responded to ethnic diversity by promoting supposedly culturally pluralist, multi-faith approaches to RE, which were subsequently perceived as eroding the Christian foundations of British/English national identity. They argue that the vilification of these curriculum reforms by culturally conservative critics was in fact based on an erroneous assessment of the extent to which these renounced the Christian hegemony of RE. They also critique the assumption that the religious clauses of the 1988 Education Reform Act represented a simple transition from culturally pluralist to assimilationist policies for the subject.     

Notes on Contributors

In this paper, one policy response to the problem of classed school choice experiences in England is examined. ‘Choice Advisers’ are employed by government to provide advice and information to working class and disadvantaged parents with the aim of ‘empowering’ them to exercise school choice and aspire to ‘better’ schools for their children. However, Advisers have been subjectified by contradictions inherent in policy, expected to solve the problems of school choice in a context of significant structural limits to choice for working-class parents. Interviews with choice Advisers show that difficulties of the job in addition to insecure working conditions within local authorities have led to depoliticised, contradictory advice and Advisers bearing the brunt of policy both in terms of overwork and the venting of parental frustrations. Agency, both for parents and for Advisers themselves, is described as being something possessed by individuals rather than collectives, so there is little sense overall that underlying inequalities within the education system might be challenged.     

Cultural sensitivity: American and British teacher trainees compared ‐ a response to Thomas Deering

How effectively are teacher trainees prepared for teaching ethnic minority pupils? What part does practical teaching experience play in developing the cultural sensitivity of trainees? Do American and British trainees differ in their levels of cultural sensitivity and, if so, what are the causal factors involved? This article is a critical response to Deering, who has identified these as his research questions. While welcoming the attention given to an important subject, we question the appropriateness of Deering's research procedure and challenge his interpretation and discussion of the findings.