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?

ST, yes I agree that an understanding of ethics is required to study Science. For the reasons you have mentioned about the applications of scientific advances, but also to aid an understanding of intellectual honesty and integrity in the research process.

History over RE any blardy time. Far more interesting for the pupils too

I think it is important, perhaps at A level, to study the history of science, ie. the political and philsophical background and context of how science was and is understood. Something like the sociology of science, I guess: how political theories have twisted something like the IQ test, how the Soviet authorities skewed decades of scientific research with Lysenkoism; how evolutionary psychology can bolster political initiatives not to aid the more disadvantaged members of society. That science is always value-added, context-impaired. Its purposes, even when bringing about positive results, are not neutral.

Bonsoir - I think seeker was saying that one gains a better understanding of English grammar by learning an MFL. I had no idea about tenses, for example, until I studied them in French.

Languages are dropping off the curriculum because they are hard, therefore don't get the results that schools so desperately clamour for.

Every parent seems keen for their child to study a language. Every secondary headteacher will wax lyrical about how language skills are a good thing. But he/she will still quietly sideline them so much that children will stop being able to choose them. Very sad state of affairs.

RE exam = read this thought-provoking faith-based newspaper article, then answer questions on it, using your own opinions and the stuff from the article.
MFL exam = learn by rote a never-ending list of words, phrase, idioms, rules, pronunciation and grammar, then answer the questions and give your opinions - but this time, in the language. Much harder. Lower results. Headteacher quickly abandons course in favour of RE. Happening all over the country.

Brightlight - was that the Jill Paton Walsh? Fascinating isn't it?

Bonsoir - my premise is not flawed at all. I have seen many students who could not cope in English (one of my tutor group especially who could not read or write at year 7), kick off and sink without a trace in French. If you can't read at all in English and it is your mother tongue, then trying to read in French is not going to work is it?

What will you do when she decides she doesn't want to do 4 languages Bonsoir? Although you are presumably being disingenuous as you speak English and your dp is French so she presumably isn't doing those ab initio as it were.

You can be multi-lingual without being multi-literate, you know!

I suspect your experience reflects appalling teaching of MFL - which is, very sadly, far from uncommon.

I am biased as a RS teacher, but I do think RS is important for students to teach.

When I first went into teaching 15 years ago, most students knew nothing about Islam. When I left school (to go to a college) a few years ago, I was spending increasing time combatting inaccurate portrayals / stereotypes of religion, particularly Islam.

The ignorance of some students is staggering. Only last year, I had an argument with a committed evangelical Christian student because he would not accept that Catholicism is a form of Christianity. Eventually I asked him what he thought it was and his reply was "a wolf in sheep's clothing".

Increasingly, we see students who think their version of religion is the only way of doing things, and perhaps do not understand that different denominations hold different views within the same religion. This doesn't just apply to Christianity though, but to children of other faiths too.

We do look at atheism too. Again, in my old school we studied Humanism, atheism and agnosticism too (year 8). We also looked at the source of morality - is it from religion or independent of religion? (Year 9) If independent, then is morality relative or objective? This makes up a whole unit at 'A' level.

A lot of time at GCSE is spent looking at ethical issues such as abortion, euthanasia, punishment etc... However, in my experience students usually consider both religious and non religious perspectives and are encouraged to compare the views on a topic from say a Christian, Muslim and Humanist or atheistic perspective.

However, what is actually taught will depend on where you live and the SACRE syllabus that is agreed in your local area. Despite that, I really do think that Religious Studies really has moved on from when we were at school, and it is wrong to judge it by the standards of our own education.

As for the name issue, well in my experience RE is a name mostly used by parents! I've heard it called Religious Studies, Religious Moral Studies, Philosophy and Ethics... depending on what is actually taught.

I'm not being remotely disingenous - being a native speaker of two languages doesn't mean that one of them doesn't count!

She won't have any choice - just as she won't have any choice about learning maths, physics, chemistry, biology, history, geography, economics etc in due course.

My experience of MFL teaching in the 80s was fantastic thank you. I had a very scary and inspiring lady who taught me French and German, and an excellent teacher at sixth form as well.

The native speaking French teachers where I taught in Cornwall got great results and were infinitely patient with this child (I know, I went to the lessons on my frees because they had told me there was a problem) but he could not and would not engage.

If a child can't read and write or communicate very well in his own language Bonsoir, then the teaching time has to go to improving his mother tongue as that is the tongue he will use for the majority of his life given the social situation he was in. Simple.

Mind you, the advantage of properly-taught religious studies is that it increases the likelihoood of students realizing the fundamental absurdity of superstition.

stressheaderic Yes, yes, yes to everything you say.

I have a huge problem with RE being taught in schools anyway, especially when its taught as a history lesson. RE is not fact of events and should not be taught as such. I also hate the thought of one of DS's GCSE options being taken up by something as pointless (to an athiest) as RE.
DS's school call it "cultural studies" which I think is more appropriate.

Of course it does, or confirms them in their atheism/agnosticism. That's why I don't understand if it's properly taught people get so het up about it.

It is so we are not ignorant about such things and not about being religious - infact my dd1's RE teacher didn't beleive in God of any kind - probably nothing to do wiht the actual subject

This is so wrong they don't teach all religions one of which that isn't included is our religion so until they include them all it should never be compulsory.

Paganism Stewie. Its not taught in RE. Its a widely held belief I feel if you're going to teach children about all beliefs so they understand how they have points in common then every religion should be taught.