to be outraged that RE is a compulsory subject at GCSE level and History or a language aren't?

[seeker]

Well am I? I thought it was just my dd's very old fashioned school that insisted they study RE even if they aren't doing the exam, but I find out that it's a statutory requirement. So they can drop Modern Languages, History, Citizenship......but they have to do RE. And religious people say that thier faith doesn't impose on my life at all.

ANd I undersstand that it consits of reallly intersting discussion about issues of the day, and is really all about morality and philosophy and is mportant stuff, but why call it RE?

RE GCSE is bloody brilliant imo. I'm all for it being a core part of the KS4 curriculum. Do schools still offer Humanities at GCSE? Hums (History, Geography and RE combined) for those who don't want to focus on anyone of the three is a worthwhile compromise imo and preferable to dropping the lot.

OTOH I think it's very sad that MFLs are being sidelined.

Every survey I have read in the last few years has indicated that the majority, approx 70%, believe in God or a Creator or a Higher Power, however they understand it.

Sorry, iirc Hums = History, Geography and RE - AND sociology/soc sci too.

Seeker, I'd send a letter to the school saying that as your daughter only has to be instructed in it (legally), she won't be doing any homework related to it and any issues the teacher has with this should be addressed directly with you not your DD.

I'd tell your DD to not disrupt the lessons but to just keep her head down and do whatever other work she needs to be getting on with during them.

smugmum, maybe there's a place in primary for you? Maybe teaching language lessons in a few schools. Most primaries are struggling with new MFL lessons with untrained non-linguists having to teach languages. I was the school MFL co-ordinator for years with no relevant language skills. Was given job as noone else spoke any other languages (I speak Russian, Ukrainian, Polish, Czech and Welsh... fat lot of use when you're the SPANISH teacher!) and I was at least enthusiastic about language learning as opposed to everyone else refusing to even have a go.

Also I thought it wasn't RE teaching that's compulsory but collective worship that is? I don't know as my school is Catholic.

DD, well I suggest you google UK, belief in God, statistics, because when I did it all the results showed most people in the UK do not believe in God.

I think your arguments contradict each other anyway. You think that RE should be compulsory because 80% of people worldwide are religious, but you don't think Ethics should be compulsory, even though having an ethical standpoint is universal.

The point of the OP was not that RE is not important, but why should RE be considered more important than other, non-compulsory subjects.

'I am completely open minded about religious people instructing their children as they wish - what I am not open minded about is them wishing to instruct my children too.' I am pissed off with this assumption that all RE teachers are religious; we are not. I am an agnostic verging on the atheist, and incredibly cynical about religion. However, it fascinates me that people believe in it and the extent to which it influences laws, moral decisions, drives the political agenda, affects the rights of women, dictates how some people dress, and what they eat, and affects their behaviour. I chose to study it, and trained to teach it after 10 years, because academically it is interesting to me.

Seeker - go to an RE lesson, they will be studying Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or Sikhism. I've taught all 6. At GCSE, as explained earlier, but you seem to wish to ignore this, they will be looking at what Christianity/Islam/whatever the chosen religion is, believes about a topic and why.

As for non-religious ethics, we look at utilitarianism and Kant at AS. Lower down, we discuss it and the students tell me they are influenced and make their decisions on the basis of will their action cause hurt/injury; do they care if it will?; would they like it done to them?; what it says in the media; what the view is in their home; possible consequences; we touch on situation ethics, how can one decide what the most loving thing is.

Fennel, if you look at how the timetabling is done, at KS3 my students got 3 lessons each of history and geography over a two week timetable (so 6 in total). They had 1 lesson a week of RE. At KS4, the RE short course was 1 hour a week. History and geography were options, but they had to take one of them at least, and the timetabling for those were still 4-5 lessons a fortnight, so RE doesn't detract from those. You are teaching a syllabus, and if that is the time it needs, that is what is allocated.

One of my old friends moved to South wales a few years ago. Apparently welsh language is compulsary at gcse level.
Utterly pointless and bizzare.

Three years is enough to study belief. Rs covers all the major religions - and humanism, agnosticism and atheism for those going on about god- and various moral issues in those first three years.

Duck and cover Curryfreak.

"I think your arguments contradict each other anyway. You think that RE should be compulsory because 80% of people worldwide are religious, but you don't think Ethics should be compulsory, even though having an ethical standpoint is universal.
"

Nowhere did I say anything about ethics not being compulsory. I would hope that ethics was studied alongside and as part of RE lessons. If the name needs to be changed to RE/Ethics, that's fine.

IMO, 13 is too young to stop studying and considering these things.

strawberrycake I've thought about it but many schools around here are using non-specialists to cut costs.

Tbh though, I'm not sure I could do primary: I love languages but, temperamentally, I'm more suited to stroppy teens.

It's not bizarre to study Welsh in Wales, it's the language! If you don't want to, don't live there.

There are hundreds of jobs, especially in the public sector, where being a Welsh speaker is an essential requirement. I've seen lots of friends struggle because they don't speak it, I've struggled in temp jobs myself because I don't but the customers do (and their English isn't great), and I've known adults who've had to try and learn it later in life because it's essential for the career they want.

So unlike RE, learning Welsh in Wales is both appropriate and a huge career boost.

I don't think that level of knowledge of how to make ethical decisions is good enough. I do think we see that ignorance all the time in society. People frequently pass judgement on issues, often issues that are going to immediately impact on others (disability for example) and yet don't really understand moral deliberation or have any knowledge of specialist subject areas.

Seriously, did no-one else cover other religions from year 6-9? I remember doing the various festivals of light, drawing the five pillars of Islam- very literal teacher- with the meanings written on etc.

Always wondered about the honey Om symbol being drawn on Hindu babies tongues and the no honey until one because of botulism.

scaryteacher I saw the title of this thread and was about to wade in but then read what you said and I could have written it (though probably not as well). Am also an agnostic / atheist RS teacher and do get narked when kids come to option evenings and the parents say they think its pointless.
A few comments on here have been objecting to the name rather than the content - does it really matter what its called? Certainly the way I teach it, we do cover the issues in a fairly secular way just as I would in a PSE class but then you consider the religious views as well and try to promote a understanding of where these views come from and why some people are prepared to make their lives perhaps more difficult in order to uphold them. If nothing else it teaches young people about the general idea of having a set of beliefs or morals that you try and apply to your life, and we do discuss secular alternatives.

'It is ludicrous that people with RE or Theology degrees should be considered more appropriate people to teach children critical thinking about important contemporary issues than these other graduates.'

No, it is important that people who can teach, do so. I know people with double firsts from Cambridge and Oxford whom I wouldn't let set foot in front of a class of teenagers because they can't break things down to that level, and get impatient with those who can't keep up.

What is wrong with a theology and philosophy degree anyway? We were taught to think and question and criticise - skills I try to pass on to my students.

Narky, we don't teach belief, we teach the hows, whys, whats and wherefores of the various religions; we don't teach how or why to believe; that is outwith our remit and left to those who have a religious belief.

Believe it or not, there are those who enjoy RE, attend after school on a Friday to do ful course, and then go on to take it at AS and A2 and then do a degree in it. They don't have a religious belief either, but are just interested in the subject. It is possible.

Precisely Rhiann. From what my friend says, you are practically ostracised from any public sector jobs if you dont speak welsh, and the cosy jobs especially those in the media are all but reserved for an elite few (even if they're crap at their job)
she is a teacher, and is obliged to teach welsh in an english medium school where none on the children have the remotest interest in learning it.
French German and spanish, far more useful and relevant to what employers are looking for.

"
Seeker - go to an RE lesson, they will be studying Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or Sikhism. I've taught all 6. At GCSE, as explained earlier, but you seem to wish to ignore this, they will be looking at what Christianity/Islam/whatever the chosen religion is, believes about a topic and why." I do know what RE is - as I have said becore, I'm not actually stupid!

They won't, actually, in my dd's yer 10 RE. Because they aren't doing the exam, what they are going to do is look at issues in the news in a moral context. Brilliant. Just the sort of thing I would be expecting a good school to be encouraging people of this age to be doing.

And of course people who choose to do RE as a GCSE will be doing the sort of thing you talk about. Great. If you choose to study RE, then that's fine. What I object to profoundly is that there is a statutory requirement for everyone at school to do a subject called RE. It's not what they study - it's the fact that RE has special status. A status above History or Languages. It is considered of equal importance to English, Maths and Science. Religious Education. Mot Moral Philosophy, or Ethics. Religious Education. As if it is only in the context of religion that morality and ethics can be considered. Surely you must see this is wrong?

'It's a really soft subject. It was 100% course work at the school I attended- the only subject that was- and most of the people I knew who took it knocked that out over a weekend. They were also given months worth of lesson time to work on it!'

Come and let me teach you; no course work in sight, exam only, and 90%+ needed for an A*. I don't think it's soft; we don't let them take texts in unlike some subjects. We couldn't do that at O level.

There is nothing wrong with a Theology degree, but there is no reason why someone with a degree in Theology should be considered a better candidate for teacher training than people with degrees in the other subjects I mentioned.

The reason that people with Theology degrees are more likely to be selected for teacher training is because of the preferential treatment RE receives in school.

But you seem unable to get your head around the argument that there are other ways that children could be taught about important contemporary issues.

Your subject and degree choice are not being condemned. It would just be preferable if you could see your subject in the context of other academic disciplines and their importance, rather than trying to argue that they can all be subsumed into some sub-topic of religion.

Ethics and debate lessons are a very easy way to continue RS and meet the compulsory requirement. Debating abortion etc.

I think that personal development/ relationship education is incredibly important in teaching respect for themselves and others regardless of differences. I think once you've covered the basic differences- breaking down ignorance- you can move on to respecting others opinions even though they contadict your own and debating. I'm sure that this is covered in RS at GCSE but I don't think it needs to be taught as RS.

"It is considered of equal importance to English, Maths and Science. Religious Education. Mot Moral Philosophy, or Ethics. Religious Education. As if it is only in the context of religion that morality and ethics can be considered. Surely you must see this is wrong?"

Yes, important as the other subjects because religion has always had and still has a huge and far-reaching role in life today. More so than knowing about cosines and Shakespeare and quadratic equations and how to work out the rate of acceleration down an incline, even. If it requires a name-change to include moral philosophy and ethics as well as the study of religion, then okay. But older children should have deeper study of all of these. )(And a MFL as well.)