Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Original poster

RE and Humanities teachers help me out here please

87 replies

LadyGlencoraPalliser · 02/03/2009 19:38

I am trying to decide whether I should speak to DD's school about what she is learning in RE - or Philosophy and Ethics as it is laughably called.
The topic they have been covering for the past half-term is called 'Does God exist'. She doesn't get much homework so it wasn't until she brought her class exercise book home at the weekend that I saw what she had actually been doing for the past few weeks.
Basically, they have been investigating 'evidence for the existence of god'. They have learned that there are different types of truth including 'scientific truth, historical truth, moral truth and religious truth.'
They have been told that the fact that there is life after death is a religious truth, rather than a belief.
They have been asked to discuss arguments for but not against intelligent design and for but not against the cosmological arguments for the existence of god.
They do not appear to have discussed in any way the question 'Does God Exist' which was supposed to be the subject of their enquiry. Rather they have focused solely on 'Why God Exists'.
Is this the normal way to teach this subject? I asked DD why she hadn't put forward any counterarguments and she said they weren't allowed to. I am very, very uncomfortable with theology masquerading as philosophy in this way but I would like to get my facts straight about how the subject is normally taught.

OP posts:
bloss · 03/03/2009 13:13

Message withdrawn

Original poster
LadyGlencoraPalliser · 03/03/2009 12:01

Scienceteacher - I have NOT as you put it 'rubbished' this teacher to DD. I find that a very offensive accusation. Nor am I planning to 'storm into school' alothough I may at some point if the opportunity arises want to have a discussion with the teacher or the head of department to clarify what their thinking is on this matter. I had certainly no intention of going to the head about it.
Let me make it quite clear if I have not already. My discussion with DD was in the context of one exercise in her book. She had been asked to put forward the arguments for intelligent design and she did so. I asked her whether she was also supposed to put forward the arguments against intelligent design. She said she wasn't allowed to. I did not at that point express my disagreement with her teacher or the methods of teaching but with the concept of intelligent design. It was clear that she had been inadvertantly or not left with the belief that it was not just what 'some Christians believe' but a perfectly valid way of explaining the origins of the universe. Do you honestly think I should have kept my mouth shut about that because teacher knows best?

OP posts:
seeker · 03/03/2009 08:38

Actually, the more I think about this, the less happy I am with the use of the word "truth" at all in this context with children of this age.

There is only really mathematical truth, and some empirical scientific truth - the world is round, diamonds are hard, air is made of whatever it's made of.

I would be hugely uneasy with the concepts of "intelligent design" and "truth" being anywhere near each other, particularly in the lesson of a teacher who is a known committed Christian.

bloss · 03/03/2009 07:13

Message withdrawn

scienceteacher · 03/03/2009 04:46

Before storming into school (did someone really say go straight to the Head?), have a look at this site:

The Standards Site

TBH, when I read the OP, I thought that her dd had put a concept map into her book - which is there to generate pupils' own ideas rather than a fully comprehensive argument for and against absolutely everything. A lot of teachers use concept maps (class and individual) at the beginning and end of topics so that pupils and Ofsted can see how much their ideas have changed/progressed over the course. Her exercise is not a textbook, and serves a different purpose.

How cool that the OP has rubbished this teacher to her DD now. I once had a pupil (different school) who refused to write in pen. When we got to the bottom of his problem, it turned out that he used to get disciplined at home for writing anything his parents didn't agree with, so he would change it before his books made it home, and change it back again before getting his books marked. Poor wee lad - he was in Year 7 and it was very stressful for him.

twinsetandpearls · 02/03/2009 23:47

If she is in year 7 she is not doing short course RE as that is years 10 and 11, or 9 in some schools.

The lessons do sound similar to the unit I taught to my year 8s. I perhaps did spend longer explaining the cosmological, ontological arguments etc because the class tend to have the criticisms or can arrive at them quickly. The arguments are the core knowledge which can then be supported or critiqued by the pupils. But we certainly have time to give both points of view, I insist on it infact.

I have a lesson where we look at different kinds of truths and religious truth is one of them.

twinsetandpearls · 02/03/2009 23:43

but most RE teachers I have worked with are like me if I am being honest. There are some crap ones as well though.

Original poster
LadyGlencoraPalliser · 02/03/2009 23:41

Hear hear!

OP posts:
seeker · 02/03/2009 23:38

Twinset - I've read enough of your posts to know that if all RE teachers were like you I would be delighted for RE to be in the curriculum. Sadly, there aren't enough of you to go round!

LauriefairycakeeatsCupid · 02/03/2009 23:27

Obviously I don't think scientific truth and religious truth are equivalent concepts but it seems like an ok explanation to an 11 year old to me.

I'm still misunderstanding - they are not covering scientific proof though - it may just have a way of differentiating the types of truth. They only seem to be covering religion at this point. They are not comparing what you describe (may be out of the scope of the topic or skill of the children at the moment).

They are focusing on unquestioning belief but crucially not theirs but what millions of others believe.

Also, they're only half way through the term, maybe they will cover the other types of truth later.

Original poster
LadyGlencoraPalliser · 02/03/2009 23:27

Oh, sorry, she is year seven.

OP posts:
Original poster
LadyGlencoraPalliser · 02/03/2009 23:26

Twinset, I think it is the OCR course, at least they use OCR for the GCSE exam. So what you are saying is that the teacher is not teaching this course in the way it is intended to be taught? That's actually a relief. As far as I could see from the little information I had, the topics covered would support enquiry from different points of view, it is just that DD's class are not getting the opportunity to do that.

OP posts:
Original poster
LadyGlencoraPalliser · 02/03/2009 23:22

Lauriefairy - I don't think I am mistaken, it has been very clearly set out. The topic for the previous term was what different faiths believe. They covered Islam, Hinduism and Judaism. This topic was clearly signposted as 'Does God Exist?'. As I said in my OP, they do not appear to have examined that question.
The thing about religious truth is that DD had written out a whole list of 'different kinds of truth' (copied down from the board she says) which included 'scientific truth' 'moral truth' 'historical truth' and 'religious truth'. You CANNOT present scientific truth and religious truth as equivalent concepts in that way. You could maybe frame the debate as that between scientific theory and religious belief and look at the different standards of proof that are required from each....
I don't see how you get from this that they are focusing on tolerance and acceptance. They appear to be focusing on unquestioning belief rather than on diversity.

OP posts:
twinsetandpearls · 02/03/2009 23:14

I teach RE, what year is your dd in. It sounds like the OCR Philosophy and Ethics course. Therefore it is called philosophy and ethics because that is the name of the course rather than to avoid withdrawal. If it is a short course I set homework about once a half term so as not to overload my students. I set optional homeworks that many of my students choose to do.

The teacher may have been trying to present different kind of truths in a watered down kind of way which is where the religous truth bit comes in.

Seeker I would love you to come and watch my RE lessons I am almost certain you would change your mind.

OP I would ask to see the head of department, even in a faith school this kind of teaching should not be happening.

I may occasionally say to a student only give the argument for, we will then pause to check they have understood and then give the opposite view. I would never ban opinions though.

I teach many of the above topics but always teach the criticisms of the arguments for the existence of God and allow them to give their own view.

LauriefairycakeeatsCupid · 02/03/2009 23:12

I may be reading it wrongly but you seem to be saying that they have only covered 'religious truth' so far?

In which case they're not finding evidence for 'why god exists' but instead why religious people believe god exists.

And to follow on from that because religious people generally (they may only be covering Islam and Christianity) believe in life after death to them it is a religious truth (crap language but there you go) rather than a belief.

If they are just yr 7 and 8 then they will be covering it by teaching it from the viewpoint 'this is what religious people believe'.

There are millions of people in the world who have a religion and part of the teaching is to teach it as if it's 'ok' so that they genuinely address tolerance.

Also, are you quite sure you read that right and it was 'cosmological' rather than 'ontological' ?

When they get older and head towards gcse there are far more discussions about learning about other beliefs and discussing personal ones.

There is so much Islamophobia around that they are being quite careful with the curriculum to focus on tolerance and acceptance. Appreciate that you may not like that because of personal beliefs.

seeker · 02/03/2009 23:00

Has anyone read a book called "The Abstinence Teacher" by Tom (Tim?) Perotta?

Sorry to hijack, glencora, but it's about religious/sex education of young teens, and I found it fascinating, if a bit depressing.

We are the last defenders of the Enlightenment!

Stopfighting · 02/03/2009 21:42

I'd be fuming.

How dare they do this!

You need to see the teacher/head asap, but I must warn you, I have had similar issues at times, and have never managed to get my point across fully. They always fobbed me off, and I just didn't want to make too much fuss.

RustyBear · 02/03/2009 21:41

I remember DD doing a very similar project at school a few years ago, but iirc they were definitely encouraged to look at both sides of the argument - surely anything else is a very bad preparation for exams/essay writing?

janeite · 02/03/2009 21:34

In that case, it may well be worth going directly to the Head of Faculty. That way you can see how the department usually approaches the topic and check out if this individual teacher is allowing a personal agenda to get in the way rather too much. If they ALL teach it like this, then there is even more cause for alarm!

Original poster
LadyGlencoraPalliser · 02/03/2009 21:32

Janeite - I don't know whether to speak to the teacher or to the head of humanities. I happen to know (small town) that the teacher is a very committed Christian. That shouldn't be an issue - I know lots of teachers who have no trouble separating their personal beliefs from their work, but in this case, I wonder.
Anyway I have expressed my feelings fairly volubly to DD so she has heard the other side now!

OP posts:
Habbibu · 02/03/2009 21:27

"What I mind is the fundamental fecking intellectual dishonesty of presenting a bunch of 11/12 year olds with a list of 'truths' and including 'religious truth' as if it were some unproblematic category of knowledge like scientific truth. Leaving the concept of 'truth' out altogether and diffrentiating between fact, theory and belief would have been a heck of a lot more helpful." Oh, absolutely - the religious truth - not belief - thing really bothers me.

Original poster
LadyGlencoraPalliser · 02/03/2009 21:27

Seeker, DH and I were wondering that, but it looks like they have been working on this topic for several weeks now and no sign of any other side being put yet.
I can tell you my blood was boiling when I saw a beautifully written page of 'arguments for intelligent design' in my daughter's handwriting. Anyway, why would you discuss the pros in one lesson and leave the againsts for a couple of weeks? Doesn't make sense.

OP posts:
janeite · 02/03/2009 21:25

Yes - ridiculous that they're not allowed to look at the other side of the coin, especially given their key question.

Am just trying to find any positives in what seems to be a v negative situation (understatement!), as I passionately believe that good teachers (of any subject) SHOULD be encouraging debate and helping pupils develop ways to consider different viewpoints etc: used sensibly the "different truths" idea could support this.

Are you going to speak to the teacher? Is dd in Yr 7?

seeker · 02/03/2009 21:23

I would be outraged if my dd was taught in this way (see my other thread somewhere about whether it's important what children are taught!)

But I would also check whether she hasn't misunderstood something - is she sure that they "weren't allowed" to put the counter arguments. Could it have been that they are doing "pro" this week and "anti" next week? (I realize I might be clutching at straws here!)

I hate the fact that RE is a subject at school at all - but that's another debate.

Coldtits · 02/03/2009 21:22

I would ask to see the teaacher, and if I didn't get a satisfactory answer, I would ask to see the headteacher.

Imagine a Psychology teacher insisting that nobody put forward the genetic argument to the enquiry "What causes schizophrenia?", instead insisting that it IS caused by the environment, but nobody knows which environment, so let's discuss that.

I think this so called teacher is on fucking dodgy moral ground here, as it's usually the people responsible for mass atrocities who burble and foam about "Different sorts of truth".