Tell me if this is normal- year 7 RE

Balloonslayer, I went to a catholic school and I never understood what the blood and water represented either! That's a really interesting piece of information, thank you.

"I also don't want school suggesting that the bible should be read as fact because there is this evidence."

Gosh I doubt they would say that! And it isn't evidence that the Bible should be read as fact, just that the things that happened were not peculiar to Jesus, just "standard practice." Eg when I was a child, I thought that when Jesus's side was pierced and "blood and water" came out, that was supposed to be some sort of proof of divinity, I thought that "blood and water" was special . . . but it is just normal for a victim of crucifixion.

Cross-posted, totally agree with your last post seeker.

I suppose the teacher could have meant the dragging the cross, being whipped and then attached to it, the cross being raised and the person and being left to die - as opposed to the biology of it. They should have been a lot more specific before sending them off to google though.

Detailed depictions of torture would be X rated, as would detailed depictions of sex. Both can be described in appropriate terms to young children. Neither are suitable subjects for 11 year olds to research on their own, inevitably using the internet, because of the material they may come across.

Surely that is not controversial?

Whatever the teacher had in mind in terms of his answer, s/he had no control over what he read in producing it, and should have shown more common sense.

And surely teaching caution in internet research is part of internet safety. That is not sugar coating - have those who think it is read some of these descriptions? They are very, very horrible.

I am sorry your ds was upset.

I can't think of any reason to have 11 year olds googling positional asphxyia. INRI all that has the religious significance. Not what would have gone on the death certificate.

My son is in Year 8 and he would be upset about finding out details like that. Other,much younger children I know (eg me aged 10!) would not.

The details are relevant because it does help you to understand what is happening when you read the story:

Victims died of asphyxiation as they got weaker and weaker because the hanging position meant that the shoulder blades got pushed into the lungs and the lungs filled with water. The only way to breathe or speak was to stand up on the feet and raise yourself up. If a victim was nailed on the cross, the blood loss made them weaker of course but the pain meant that they could not stand up to breathe, thus hastening death.

The reason they broke the legs to speed up the end was so that the victim could not raise themselves up to breathe, so it would kill them in a very short space of time.

There are lots of descriptions of Jesus lifting himself up to speak. When they put a spear in his side water comes out. Those details are consistent with crucifixion (standing up to speak, lungs full of water), so it makes you realise that this is a real account of a crucifixion, which is important.

Poor Jesus.

Well to answer your question, no I don't think that is normal for year 7 RE.
dd and ds1 did learn a bit about the crucifixion in year 7 but not at the level of detail you described.
I don't think that much detail is necessary and I could see how it could be quite distressing, my dd would have been upset, having to do that level of research.

You didn't say sugar coat seeker - I was just agreeing with knowsabit

Actually, I don't think that's necessary.

I'd go with 'why Jesus was crucified, when and where crucifixion was used as a method of execution' but how it kills? I'm old and was raised RC and never knew that it caused suffocation. I knew the other bits which have symbolism eg being given vinegar and nailed (rather than tied).

I suspect all the teacher wanted was a sentence or two along the lines of 'when you're crucified they put nails in your wrists and feet and you suffocate'.

I doubt she was looking for a detailed description of all the physiological changes the crucified body goes through.

When where any why crucifixion was used seems entirely relevant to me, and not particularly disturbing.

(I'm not sure the comment about x rated was really sensible though - reproduction would be x rated in a film, but is obviously taught to 9 year olds.)

And yes, why sugar-coat?

As an ex-RE teacher, I don't see a problem in your son being asked to research the crucifixion. It is, after all, the crux of Christiainity and is a key origin of moral philosophy for Christian cultures. However, I think the teacher probably did not envisage the level of detail google comes up with when you ask what crucifixion involves. They probably just expected a brief outline rather than all the gory details. You could tell your son that he does not need to go into too much detail on what crucifixion involves and maybe write a note to his teacher saying that you gave this advice and explaining why.

If the school subscribes to the moral side of atonement theology, I can see why they might describe the martyrdom of Christ."

seeker, no, a non-faith school wouldn't 'subscribe' to any such thing. I suppose an individual teacher might but secondary RE teachers seem tolerably good at not letting their own belief dominate the curriculum.

Took my dcs to a Horrible Histories show this summer - hated it. They got all the kids in the audience to sing a song about the hangings at Tyburn with all the audience doing 'actions' of being hanged - so unsuitable (tiny tots in the audience) it's not true.

Blame Horrible Histories.

Agree that I would not want a dc to study this.

Years ago, one of the Sunday papers did an Easter special on the crucifixion, from the medical point of view, with a detailed description of what happened at each stage to the body. It was horrifying and gave me nightmares.

Why would a school wants kids googling this stuff? If text had certificates it would be X-rated. Of course 11 year olds should not be required to look it up, and especially not when they are in a new environment and may not feel comfortable telling someone if they happen across stuff that disturbs them.

I think the teacher was being thoughtless, meant in very broad terms what happens and that the homework should focus on why - but should have known better what they might find.

I would tell him to stop, and send a note to the teacher enclosing links to some of the material, and ask politely if s/he really wants the children to continue.

Why did DD have to watch the end of Anne Franks diary twice in Y6 and learn about the black death in all it's gory details in Y7.

Schools seem to love the nasty bits.

WW2 twice, WW1 (which makes me cry because of my grandfathers experience).

She refused to contemplate GCSE history with the Holocaust and the history of medicine in great depth.

Yes these are very major events, but a mixture of topics giving a more rounded view of history would be better.

how is the exact process of death through crucifixion relevant to the study of Christianity?

I suppose it could be if the aim was to test the accuracy of the biblical accounts versus proper historical/archaeological evidence.

Why sugar coat?