How to include non-religious worldviews in secondary RE

Secondary teachers can integrate non-religious worldviews into RE by planning connected study across units, rather than adding a single lesson on humanism. Start with the syllabus and requirements applying to your school, then identify where pupils will encounter, compare and revisit non-religious perspectives.

The policy qualification matters: an England-focused parliamentary answer dated 13 October 2026 describes plans to consult on a draft RE curriculum including non-religious worldviews, following sector-group consensus. That is a consultation plan, not an implemented UK-wide curriculum change. It does not, by itself, establish a new teaching deadline or guarantee that a particular scheme of work is compliant. See the record of the parliamentary answer.

Establish which requirements you are planning against

The same answer describes RE as mandatory for pupils aged 5–18 in England’s state-funded schools and recognises scope for including non-religious worldviews in locally agreed syllabuses. Treat this as a broad policy statement, not a complete account of the arrangements for every school or pupil.

For a UK audience, the crucial distinction is between a transferable teaching approach and a transferable legal requirement. Do not use an England-specific answer as evidence of what schools in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland must teach. NATRE’s overview of RE, RVE and RME across the UK is a useful starting point for identifying the relevant context.

Before changing a department plan, record:

The applicable framework: which national guidance, syllabus or school-specific arrangements govern your provision?
The current expectation: what does that framework say about non-religious worldviews, content and progression?
The status of any change: is it existing guidance, a consultation proposal or a confirmed requirement with an implementation date?
The planning decision: are you filling a curriculum gap now, or preparing for a possible future change?

Where applicability is unclear, ask your curriculum lead to resolve that specific point before describing the revised plan as legally required.

Audit progression, not just mentions

A 2018 study of English secondary teachers’ experiences found that some schools allocated time to non-religious worldviews, but systematic study across the curriculum was rare. This is historical evidence, not a measure of provision in 2026. It nevertheless supplies a useful audit question: does your curriculum develop understanding, or merely record that a topic has appeared?

Take your existing unit map and add four columns:

Encounter: where do pupils first study a named non-religious worldview or perspective?
Evidence: which text, account or argument will they examine, and whose perspective does it represent?
Revisit: where will pupils use that knowledge again in a different question or context?
Assessment: what task will show that pupils can explain the perspective accurately, rather than simply recognise its label?

If a row contains only an introductory lesson and no revisit, consider building a later comparison into an existing unit. Do not assume that a passing reference to “people with no religion” provides the same depth as studying a developed account of values, meaning or knowledge.

Choose material that supports fair comparison

Humanism is an explicit example in the October 2026 policy answer, making it a relevant starting point. Avoid turning that starting point into an assumption that one source speaks for every non-religious person.

For each resource, ask: who produced it, what position does it express, and how widely does it claim to speak? Prefer material that pupils can attribute precisely: “This author argues…” is more defensible than “Non-religious people believe…”.

Use comparable questions for religious and non-religious material. For example: What is a good life? What reasons support this view? How might it shape a decision? What disagreement could arise within or between perspectives? Avoid comparing a detailed religious account with an unexplained non-religious slogan—or the reverse.

NATRE provides support for teaching religious and non-religious worldviews. Use that as a resource starting point, then check individual materials for age suitability, attribution and fit with your syllabus.

Hypothetical lesson sequence: why help others?

This illustrative sequence could sit within an existing ethics unit; it is not a prescribed curriculum.

First, establish the enquiry. Ask pupils what reasons someone might give for helping an unfamiliar person. Collect possible reasons without asking pupils to disclose their own religion or beliefs.

Next, investigate sources. Provide a clearly attributed humanist text and a religious text addressing responsibility towards others. Select passages that actually address the question. Pupils identify each source’s conclusion, supporting reasons and any assumptions they need to understand.

Then, test the comparison. Present a hypothetical school decision about supporting a community project. Ask pupils how each source might inform a response. Require them to distinguish what the text states from what they are inferring; allow “the source does not tell us” as a justified answer.

Finally, assess explanation. Set the question: “How might these two sources support helping others, and where do their reasons differ?” Assess accurate representation, evidence and reasoning—not agreement with either perspective. Revisit the sources in a later enquiry about responsibility or meaning.

Keep discussion open without making pupils representatives

Build discussion around claims and sources rather than presumed pupil identities. Invite contributions, but do not ask a non-religious pupil to explain what all non-religious people think, or a religious pupil to defend a whole tradition.

Before approving the revised unit, check that pupils will meet substantive ideas, encounter clearly attributed voices and have an opportunity to demonstrate understanding. Those checks make inclusion a teaching commitment rather than a heading added to a curriculum document.