1. Dialogue Among Young Citizens in a Pluralistic RE Classroom The Norwegian Discussion

2. Dialogue in RE In a national school system based on the principle of ‘one school for all’ n What is the particular role of RE in dialogue among pupils with different religious background, worldviews and beliefs? n What type of ideal picture or concept of the dialogue is found in different positions in the Norwegian discussion about RE?

3. Ideal picture of the dialogue n Voluntary n religious committed n verbal dialogue n among adults n Open n experimental (diapractice) n ”unfinished” ongoing process n verbally restricted n among children n in a given setting

4. ’One school for all’ n Comprehensive school for 98.3 % of all children n local school (mirrors the local culture) n all children integrated n streaming not allowed n permanent differentiation or segregation not allowed n equal opportunities n no formal assessment before age 13

5. RE as a test question n Up to 1997: division of children due to religious background. u 94,7 % Christian knowledge u 4,4 % Worldviews (Life Stances) u 0,9 % no RE in schools n From 1997: KRL common subject (with partly exemption only)

6. RE – as part of life in school Diapractice and dialogue n National school system build to serve citizenship as a main aim n School life is dominated by diapractice - (co-operation): living together with difference (Lissi Rasmussen) n Religious education cannot be limited to RE as a school subject

7. Diapractice... n School and classroom as given social structures n demanding differences in practice independent of objective degree of plurality n 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 …

8. Necessary dialogue n emerges from the necessity of living together in a society (Oddbjørn Leirvik) n the verbal dialogue that goes along with diapractice n making common celebrations and ethical practice possible, understandable and transparent

9. Dialogue in RE as a subject n The Official Norwegian Report: the principles in KRL is titled: Identity and dialogue n 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 n 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

10. Dialogue in the official reader n Practical dialogue skill n structured dialogue u a dialogue that occurs where the teacher sets the rules and decides the perspective to present the view of others u dialogue in the role as pupil n comparison - a prerequisite for the dialogue

11. Dialogue so far:  Diapractice – co-operation  Necessary dialogue –  everyday conversation to get to understand one another  informal personal exchange of ideas  Structured dialogue – F empathic work with other religions and beliefs F representing other views F comparison F face to face communication  Spiritual dialogue – the personal encounter that makes change

12. 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

13. Leirvik’s ideal picture? n dialogue between committed adult representatives n voluntary, verbal dialogue n dialogue of religions - between systems (political and academic interest) n frustration: Theology and Religious Studies as separate academic traditions n the necessary dialogue seems not important, asks for the spiritual dialogue in schools

14. n Tove Nicolaisen: n “the invisible (backstage) dialogue + narration theory” n Dialogue in the general part =>dialogue as a working method n bigger room for ethical dialogue, parents: not less dangerous n necessary dialogue, structured, philosophical and some times spontaneous spiritual n philosophical dialogue has its limits: “the best argument” n teachers task to turn the dialogue into an informed dialogue

15. Nicolaisen: n dialogical room within the narratives: all children are both insiders and outsiders because all narratives have three dimensions: u the anthropological common u the religious u the specific religious n system-ascension part of teacher training and classroom practice n Not interreligious dialogue, but KRL-dialogue

16. Nicolaisen’s ideal picture? n dialogue between children: informal spontaneous n open-ended process in a given setting n system-ascending on an individual level n not interreligious dialogue -room the secular child n something specific: KRL-dialogue

17. Aspects of the dialogue concept : n  Action side n Diapractice - co-operation n 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 n  Verbal side

18. n 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. n 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.