In their essay "Failures of meaning in religious education", James Conroy, David Lundie, and Vivienne Baumfield report findings from their recent project "Does Religious Education Work?", during which ethnographic studies in 24 British schools were conducted. In this response I first highlight the importance of the character of RE for considering what "works" and describe the kind of RE that the authors discuss. Secondly, I point to findings and conceptualisations which I consider important. Thirdly, I comment on factors which, the authors maintain, are important regarding failures of meaning in RE. I conclude with my interest in further empirical findings resulting from the rich material of this project.