When the conversation about religious literacy really began a decade and a half ago, the main assertations made by Stephen Prothero and Diane Moore were that (1) Americans lacked religious literacy, and (2) increased religious literacy would have positive impacts on society. Much has been written about religious literacy in the intervening years, providing a more nuanced and contextual understanding of what it is, why it matters, and how to achieve it, but there has been considerably less exploration of the actual impacts of religious literacy education. Alice Chan’s Teaching Religious Literacy to Combat Religious Bullying: Insights from North American Secondary Schools begins to fill this gap. Investigating the question, “Can religious literacy courses effectively address religious bullying?” (5), this book examines two unique religion courses in Modesto, California, and Quebec, Canada, and the perceptions and experiences of religious bullying in each of these cities.
The two courses examined in this work hold the distinction of being the only required courses about religion for primary or secondary school students in North America. The ninth grade World Geography and World Religions (WGWR) course has been a graduation requirement for students in the Modesto City Schools District since 2000. Over the course of nine weeks, students learn about the First Amendment, followed by the study of seven religions. In Quebec, the Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) course is required at almost every grade level. Established in 2008, the ERC has a particular emphasis on Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, and Native spiritualities, which must be taught every year, while other traditions are taught approximately every other year. Both courses have strengths and weaknesses, many resulting from their particular contexts and origins, which Chan discusses in great detail. The weaknesses are important to consider and are accounted for in the analysis, but, given that the majority of the school systems across North America do not offer—let alone require—any type of religious studies course, it makes sense to give considerable weight to the strengths and potential benefits of these courses.
Chan’s overview of the bullying literature narrows in on a specific form of bias-based bullying—religious bullying —with compelling detail and nuance. This complex phenomenon occurs “(1) across belief groups, (2) among members of the same belief group, and (3) from those who are religiously unaffiliated towards those who have religious affiliation and vice versa” (35) and can take physical, psychological, verbal, social, and online forms, with short-term and long-term effects. Like religious literacy, the importance of paying attention to religious bullying appears obvious once pointed out, but both are all too often overlooked among many other educational concerns in multicultural societies. Further, these issues—religious bullying and religious literacy—are far more complex than we might initially assume.
A substantial discussion of four key scholars of religious literacy—Stephen Prothero, Diane Moore, Robert Jackson, and Siebren Miedema—does the important work of clarifying the specific definition of religious literacy for this particular context. This work of defining religious literacy is essential not just for the scholarly conversation, but also is much needed when bringing the conversation to the wider public. Chan writes that when she was introducing her study to potential stakeholders, “it was equally arduous to inform individuals about religious literacy. As a result, a study about perceptions on religious literacy resulted in the need to educate about religious literacy first, which at times made the efforts seem counterproductive” (128). This observation highlights the challenges of religious literacy education and research broadly; substantial effort must go into explaining what religious literacy is and why it is important before any of the actual work can be done.
Despite challenging circumstances for her fieldwork (including the 2016 US election season and its aftermath, having to revise the research design after access in Modesto was restricted, and several high-profile incidents related to religious identities during the study period), Chan was able to collect survey responses and conduct interviews with a wide range of stakeholders in both Modesto and Montreal. Small and non-representative sample sizes preclude definitive statements on the prevalence of religious bullying in each setting, but the data do show the existence of bullying among both students and teachers. School environments, rather than these courses, appeared to be the chief influence on students’ experiences, although “participants felt that the existence of the course itself legitimates the teaching about religion in public schools and gives student identities a degree of credibility . . . the course can potentially help students feel more included and offer them a foundation to enable them to share their own identity” (149).
Chan is appropriately cautious in her findings, concluding that while religious literacy courses have the potential to reduce religious bullying, the “positive potential depends on the specific types of religious literacy that is offered and is highly dependent on dialogue and the opportunity for intergroup contact, in addition to the teacher attitudes, curriculum, and the form of teacher training” (192). Shortcomings in these areas have the potential to counteract the goals of the courses and even promote religious discrimination and bullying. “Hard knowledge” about religions must be accompanied by the “soft skills” of social-emotional learning, including self-awareness, social awareness, and relationship skills. There is no single, one-size-fits-all religious literacy course that could be implemented across contexts to meet its many goals. While the courses profiled in this research are subject to changing priorities within their respective educational settings and will evolve in coming years, this research provides both evidence of the potential benefits of religious literacy education and lessons for improving future initiatives.
The project of religious literacy has been taken up in many sectors and continues to be discussed and debated by religious studies scholars, at times as either the downfall or savior of the field. In Teaching Religious Literacy to Combat Religious Bullying, Chan contributes important insights into the actual outcomes of religious literacy education and highlights the need for greater public understanding of religious literacy and religious bullying. As the religious literacy project matures, this type of research about goals, contexts, and outcomes of religious literacy education is crucial if it is to live up to the initial assertations that increased religious literacy is beneficial to our communities and society.
Kate E. Soules is the executive director of the Religion & Education Collaborative and an education consultant specializing in religious literacy education, research, and evaluation.
Kate Soules
Date Of Review:
April 4, 2023