The Da Vinci Code in an RE lesson?

No, that's not correct.

It is compulsory to teach RE whilst students are in education, but it does not have to be at any level.

Traditionally, there hasn't even been national curriculum levels within RS because it has been organised via SACREs.

So long as it is taught, the level can vary. I've taught it to GCSE, to a half GCSE and as a compulsory but most definitely not GCSE level. That school did mostly watch a film, and debate concepts type RE. Most definitely not GCSE standard!!

And if you can't tell, yes I am a RS teacher .

I think many schools make re a GCSE because they have yo teach it, so it may as well have an exam at the end. DCs school does a 4 year course. I read "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" in the 80s and thought it an interesting notion.

Mumsneedwine

No one said it was compulsory to GCSE, just that it was compulsory (and it is!)

This comes from the 1948 Education Act which stated that all students are entitled to Religious Education whilst they are at school. Traditionally, this has been done over a set number of hours per week, but this is not set in stone, it could be done as special days. However, if your school is not teaching RE (whether to GSCE or not is irrelevant) then it is breaking the law.

it's not compulsory to GCSE at any school I've worked at
was at my son's secondary.....he couldnt stand it and escaped to an FE college

mumsneedwine - Unfortunately RE was compulsory in my children's schools. I even asked if my daughter could swap RE lessons for French instead. The Head of Department looked at me in abject horror and flatly refused, it just wasn't possible, apparently.

It wasn't even a particularly religious school.

I just wish they could have been taught all points of view.
Anyway, they left school several years ago, so it's no longer an issue for us, but I still think if religious studies are compulsory, then all avenues should be explored

mumsneedwine my DD1 has to take RE as half a GCSE at her non-faith secondary. No choice in the matter at all. Complete waste of time as far as I'm concerned.

I don't think Darwinism is 'non-faith'. It's perfectly easy to hold to both science and faith, or to have a rubbish understanding of both. I think teaching that Darwin's theory rocked the boat for lots of Christians at the time makes good sense - but when people are fixated on it, IMO they tend to end up misrepresenting science.

Much better to teach scientific theories in science lessons, where you can show how they are rational and can be tested, than to treat them as a magic cure-all for religion.

PS it's not compulsory to GCSE at any school I've worked at. None of my kids have it

RE at secondary is a lot about ethics and philosophy. Mine has watched My Sisters Keeper which has led to interesting discussions. Sure this teacher was using the film to get kids thinking about how things can be interpreted.

Martorana - Evolution is a bit different from gravity.

I know - but RE is compulsory, and being a non-faith family, I always used to think it would be fair to throw all points of view into the pot. As an atheist, I used to get a bit cross that my children HAD to attend RE lessons. Lessons on Faith should also include the pov of non-faith, surely?

The problem with your position, Evans is that Darwinism is science, not faith. As long as RE is teaching about faith, not indoctrinating anyone into a faith then I have no problem with it (though I wish it was not compulsory to take it all the way to GCSEs, waste of teaching time except for those who choose to take it as a full GCSE).

Darwinishm belongs in the science curriculum.

I still think Darwinism should appear in RE lessons (I said similar upthread ^)

Teach all points of view, all values, all beliefs (not only religious, when religion is compulsory in schools, so that pupils can make up their own minds. Stretch their minds to question it all, and come to their own conclusions.

A lot of religion is a form of brainwashing, usually. Religious education should be impartial

What I mean is, I think a faith with a long history, such as Islam or Christianity is more equal than some conspiracy about Jesus' bloodlines and Knights Templar. And I don't think they should be given equal consideration.

I agree with you there. But I still think it's potentially a good way to get teenagers talking and thinking about the subject. If you're going on about Jesus and Mary Magdalene having married and had children, that could be a good point to hinge a discussion on the place of women in Christianity through time, for example.

no need to be patronising now is there? it was a cross post

so you believe that Jesus who was the son of God was born of a virgin, was crucified to atone for your sins and died but came back to life on the third day and rose to the kingdom of heaven to be with his dad who was also him (and then there is also the holy spirit,. three in one and one in three) and every Sunday you consume his flesh and blood?
and then you are talking about 'nutjob conspiracy theories'?

Do beliefs get truer the longer people believe them?

Mmm. Does that mean Judaism should be more thoroughly taught than Christianity, because it's older? Conspiracies about Jesus' bloodlines and so on have been knocking around for yonks. The film could just be a fun (or not so fun, if you think it's rubbish as I do) way of exposing that.

It's a neat way to get around the 'all Christians believe ...' nonsense that some children grow up believing, or the idea that 'back in the past everyone believed the same,' which is equally prevalent and equally dodgy.

the thing is christianity actually has a very short history and some people think that it is a conspiracy itself.....