This has also been the case in the run-up to the Flemish elections. Although the media were relatively silent about a possible reorganization of RE in official schools, there was certainly attention for this topic. For instance, on May, 10, 2024, the Recognized Instances and Association of RE subjects (RIA) published its Memorandum levensbeschouwelijke vakken in het officieel onderwijs, wherein they explicitly require the government for “the maintenance of at least the two hours of RE, as it is currently organized in primary and secondary education.”

In addition, the possibility to reduce the RE subjects from two hours to one hour on a weekly basis and using the hour freed up for a new subject (e.g. in philosophy, citizenship and/or about a variety of religious and non-religious worldviews) has been elaborated behind the scenes. This scenario, which has been implemented in the French-speaking part of Belgium in 2016/17 and which is also supported in the Memorandum 2024-29 of official schools of the Flemish Community (Gemeenschapsonderwijs), would be in line with the Belgian Constitution. The first paragraph of article 24 of this Constitution requires “schools run by the public authorities [to] offer, until the end of compulsory education, the choice between the teaching of one of the recognized religions and non-denominational ethics teaching.” Since the Constitution remains silent about the number of RE teaching hours, a change in the educational decrees (from two to one RE teaching hour on a weekly basis) would, as in the French Community, also be possible in the Flemish Community.  

Remarkably, the current Coalition Agreement does not mention this possibility. Instead, the Flemish Government, partly in view of budget cuts, has chosen for a shift to a model where “for official education, we foresee two hours of interreligious dialogue [IRD] in primary and secondary schools, within the curriculum”. This sentence provoked significant concern among the RIA, who were not informed at all about the shift. On October, 1^st (the Coalition Agreement still had to be officially ratified in the Flemish Parliament at that time), they signed a Communiqué wherein several critical questions about the Coalition Agreement are raised. First, there is the question whether the current proposal, which would prevent pupils in official schools from taking RE in one of the recognized religions or in non-denominational ethics, aligns with the Belgian Constitution. In addition, the RIA question whether it is pedagogically possible for children and young people “to engage in interreligious dialogue without first being educated in their own religion or in non-denominational ethics”. Finally, the Communiqué points at the situation of present and future RE teachers: will they still have a future as an RE teacher? 

Regarding constitutionality, the RIA correctly have doubts about the present Coalition Agreement. As long as the Constitution is not amended and the RIA remain responsible for the organization of RE, it is difficult if not impossible for the government to force them to switch to two hours of IRD in primary as well as in secondary official schools. In relation to this, there could be problems with quality control and inspection: is it, after all, possible for the Flemish government to control whether and how IRD is realized, without infringing on the constitutional separation of Church and State? 

In addition, there are problems in terms of pedagogy, albeit not for the reasons mentioned by the RIA. Different from what the RIA claim, it is possible for children and young people to engage in dialogue with each other without a prior or additional subject in their ‘own’ religion. For instance, since 1969, non-denominational RE has been part of the compulsory curriculum in primary and secondary education in Sweden. This education is organized by the government and is based on the objective, academic study of religions. The curriculum includes knowledge of various religions and worldviews, the (positive and negative) role of religion in society, the link between religion and cultural expression, and the influence of religion (in particular of Christianity) on Swedish society. Additionally, students are encouraged “to reflect over various issues concerning life, their identity and their ethical attitudes. In this way, teaching should create the conditions for pupils to develop a personal attitude to life and an understanding of how they and others are thinking and living”.

This example shows that forming one’s own (religious) identity does not necessarily have to be accompanied by government-facilitated education in one’s ‘own’ religion. In Belgium, we have a long tradition of assuming that this is the case (a tradition the RIA are too happy to continue), but nothing prevents policymakers from changing this tradition – although a constitutional amendment may be required in that case.

Another consideration of the Communiqué concerns the future role of RE teachers. A valid question, which can be further supplemented. Are these teachers sufficiently trained to fully engage in IRD both substantively and pedagogically? And are they, from an ideological perspective, willing to fully commit to that dialogue? Since the training for RE teachers is not strongly academically grounded everywhere and since the focus on dialogue and knowledge about other religions is not equally emphasized in every training, it is far from evident to switch to two hours of IRD in a short time.

In addition to the abovementioned points, there are several other issues raising questions. The Flemish Coalition Agreement mentions that “the division of students by religion in official education is organizationally difficult.” This practical aspect, cited in the Coalition Agreement as an argument for changing the system, has indeed been raised by school administrations for a longer period. They not only have to find extra classrooms, but also teachers, which is far from easy. For several years, fewer and fewer vacancies for Catholic religion teachers have been filled, but this is also a problem for other RE subjects: in the 2021-22 school year, 145 full-time positions for RE were not filled because no teacher was found.

This practical aspect is not the only reason calling for an RE reform. With the current organization of RE in official schools, the government tacitly assumes that every student fits into a recognized religious category, but this assumption is outdated, as 58 % of Belgian citizens no longer identify with a specific religious tradition. This large number of unaffiliated or ‘nones’ not only explains the shortage of RE teachers, but also prompts reflection on the organization of RE in official schools in Flanders (and by extension in Belgium). Is it still appropriate to separate students when discussing religion and worldviews in the classroom?

With all this in mind, it is valuable that the Flemish Coalition Agreement aims to strengthen IRD classes, where students from diverse religious backgrounds are no longer separated and where they are encouraged to engage in dialogue. However, the wording of this objective is very vague. As a result, it is currently unclear how this objective could be implemented, taking into account the considerations mentioned above.

Moreover, the Coalition Agreement only addresses the official school network. Nothing is said about RE in so-called ‘free’ (private) schools, which are predominantly Catholic and which are frequented by most Flemish pupils. The Coalition Agreement remains silent on this matter, most likely due to the freedom of education. However, the current organization of RE in Catholic schools is also far from evident: notwithstanding the increasing number of students who are non-religious or identify with a religion other than Catholicism, all Flemish Catholic schools organize two hours of Roman Catholic RE per week for all students, both in primary and in secondary schools. Although this subject has evolved over the past decades to a more open subject, with attention for other worldviews, for reflection, and for (interreligious) dialogue, the subject still adheres to an outdated pedagogical and institutional framework.

To conclude, we emphasize that the development of the relevant passage in the Flemish Coalition Agreement is still in its infancy, and therefore, we can at this moment only speculate on its implementation. As rightly mentioned on the Thomas website, much will depend on “the future Minister of Education, the policies pursued, and the choices of the official school network.” The aims are ambitious, but can the Flemish government deliver on its promises? In the past legislature, this has not been the case for RE. Although the previous Coalition Agreement (2019-24) stated that “we will engage in dialogue with all stakeholders to offer a meaningful alternative to students who opt for an exemption”, no action has been taken in this regard. It remains thus to be seen whether any changes will occur in the coming years regarding RE in Flanders, and if so, what those changes will entail.

Leni Franken (University of Antwerp).