To think RE is a big waste of time

[Himalaya]

I don't mean that kids shouldn't come out of school with a basic knowledge of the world's religions and some skills in philosophy and critical thinking, but to have to take RE classes every week for 12+ years seems like overkill, and a waste of their time.

They certainly don't come out at the end of it with twelve years worth of knowledge, so you have to wonder what is the point. The only point seems to me to be to instill in them strongly the idea that religions deserve a special kind of RESPECT.

Most of the stuff in primary and early secondary is just mush content-wise (but with a heavy undertone of respect).

I think the facts on religion they need to know could be covered in a couple of modules of general studies, or under humanities at KS3 and KS4. It would free up time that could be used for critical thinking, philosophy, study skills, economics, public speaking, sport, creative writing etc....

All the subjects I can think of that are exam options are part of the core curriculum prior to that. Not sure why RE/RS whatever should be left out.

I outlined what I thought should be taught instead at 11.17am!

Atheism is not an umbrella term. Christians have many divergent beliefs but also share a range of common beliefs, history and literature that are unique to Christianity. The only thing that atheists have in common is that they do not believe in God. They have no shared elements of history, literature, culture, morality or belief that are unique to atheists other than that they do not believe in God.

YANBU

RE should be a segment of history. Not its own frickin subject.

..or history a segment of RE....

I9, that may be the case in Scotland but not in England. DS has done many new subjects at secondary that were not studied at primary. He has also studied subjects as discrete subjects that were merely subsections of others at primary. When he chooses GCSEs, there will be again entirely new subjects to choose from and subjects that were formerly subsections of other subjects.

Have read the first and last. Thoroughly enjoyed RE - in my day I think it served also as PSHE and Citizenship and taught me a great deal about differences, discrimination, fairness and love. PE however, I think is another matter and another thread altogether.

Milly - atheism is an umbrella term in so far as the majority of students will understand IE it is not an homogenous group. There are a large variety of people who do not believe in a god. Your well laid out arguments several pages earlier have been superseded by your nitpicking over the past couple of hours about what does and does not constitute atheism or an 'offensive' part of a religion. What are you arguing against? Compulsory lessons about religions?

I am responding to points other posters have made because they have made interesting points.

A history teacher is not qualified to teach RE, or vice versa.

The argument that RE has no agenda is laughable. It's not the old agenda of 'scripture' class, but it's still an agenda.

Firstly there is the RE teachers' agenda that their jobs and respect depend on legislators, parents, kids, other teachers buying into the idea that this stuff is important.

Then there are the people who control the local syllabus and schemes of work on RE. (This is the only subject where what is taught is negotiated out by interest groups) Their agenda is about respect too.

Then there are the headteachers whose worst nightmare on the subject would be for parents to get irate en masse that their children had lost/gained religion on account of something they thought about at school. Best not to challenge strongly held beliefs to much.

Of course other subjects have agendas but they also have a coherent method to decide on right answers, and/or a specific skillset to practice. No one here has yet made a convincing case that RE satisfies either of those criteria.

If nothing else, RE does promote the idea that religion is a thing in itself, rather that just one of many ways in which one can draw the boundaries of culture and philosophy (though admittedly a historically important one)

This is very valuable to faith groups as it gives them a legitimacy over other interest groups that isn't neccesserly justified.

Ds' school does a great line in how to exist together as well as possible. Every week they discuss racial differences, sharing, being kind.

it is far more effective than teaching an age old story of death and virgin birth etc. Do the above and religion would become history.

Give it one subject age 9 then Morality and Ethics age 15 or so. It is given far too much importance by virtue of being taught throughout the school years.

Your argument about do not talk about religion specifically at all, because it gives them a platform has a parallel today with the announcement that cigarette displays in shops must be blank so that the brands have no platform and no one will buy them. You have these conspiracy theories about who is behind RE teaching as if it is something sinister to discuss and challenge all the issues with have outlined within a belief/non belief framework.

I see no argument to encourage ignorance of anything in our children. I have no empathy with all the posters here who wish to deny their children information about religions to equip them for modern life.

What you are asking for is a censorship in schools where religion is concerned. Makes no sense to me.

"What you are asking for is a censorship in schools where religion is concerned. Makes no sense to me."

Much of what we tell children is censored. Until the age of 18, children are protected by law and custom from much of the man-made rubbish that circulates on the planet, and we try to bring children up in a secure place where the truth prevails in order to equip them to fend for themselves when they are adults and are out in the cold world on their own.

All academic subjects have agendas, and all teachers want children to study their specialism.

I agree that there are probably outside interests and that heads could be influenced too in terms of what curricula are set within the school. This is probably true for Citizenship and PHSE and certainly is true for sex education.

I was quite anti religion being taught in primary school (am an ex-Catholic atheist), but having moved to a totally secular system I am slightly appalled at how totally ignorant my children now seem to be about the basics even of Christianity, let alone the other religions (and we read them lots of myths and stories from different faiths when they were younger).

I don't think that this is a good ignorance. At high school I'd like them to be having debates about morality and doing things like devising their own ten commandments, visiting different places of worship, understanding the great festivals from important world faiths. All stuff I did at school, enjoyed and learned from. None of which are covered (or should be) in history, economics or geography.

I think it is ingeniousness to say that children have 12 years of instruction in RE, most primary schools spend a very small amount of time on religion, and when they do it's not terribly onerous. So we are really talking about three years at secondary, generally once a week for 45 minutes or so. Of course if we are going to be lumping subjects together into meaningless terms like 'humanities' then RS could fit into that just fine. It just ignores the fact that geography, history, politics, RS etc are very different subjects with different skills and knowledge. To me this is like doing general science, a bit of a waste of time because it does nothing well.

CB - looking at the historical pressures and interest groups behind an obligation that is enshrined in law does not a conspiracy theory make (and I am somewhat surprised you should say that, since somewhere within a critical think approach to religions you must look at them in terms of human institutions with power dynamics and drivers, no?)

Asking for less time to be devoted to RE, and for religion not to be used as the primary vehicle for discussion of moral issues is not a call for censorship.

Time is tight and subjects are prioritised. As I said in my OP there are other things to use the time for - economics, philosophy, Chinese, none of it gets 12 years of kid's time, but its not censorship.

Also, thinking about how RE is developed and legislated for within the National Curriculum framework, it is an odd one - all other compulsary subjects are on the NC and expressesed as a body of knowledge that children have a right to know. RE curricula a cooked up by a multifaith group of clerics and RE teachers (SACREs) but then the faith schools controlled by the institutions they belong to don't have to teach it at all but can get RE of the one true religion variety.

Is it not worth thinking about these things or should we take stuff at face value?

Where I live this is the statuatory guidance on RE. It says kids have to study it from Reception to post 16 over a total of 460 hours, and it lays out schemes of work week by week what they have to cover.

Schools get pulled up by OFSTED if they don't do this, and IME they stick to the guidance and you cam follow what they are doing through the Schemes of Work.

there are other things to use the time for - economics, philosophy, Chinese, none of it gets 12 years of kid's time, but its not censorship.

Children's brains are not wired to study those specific subjects as an academic discipline from the age of 5. Economics is given a foundation in maths, philosophy in RE and Chinese is subject to the focus of the individual schools. RE works as a subject because it is tangible - festivals, stories, songs can all be learnt at a young age.

looking at the historical pressures and interest groups behind an obligation that is enshrined in law does not a conspiracy theory make

But that is the same for all subjects is it not? Why do business studies if there isn't a capitalist agenda? French - must have a pressure group behind it in France to increase the global significance of the language? PE has an agenda to force children to partake in team sports or get fit? Not all these agendas are sinister - some have very pertinent and relevant reasons behind them.

RE curricula is locally controlled, and the specific schemes of work and GCSE exam entries will vary from school to school. Isn't this a good thing? It is flexible, it reflects local religious issues, it is not proclaimed by national government. I think the existence, as I've said, of statefunded faith schools and what they teach is a whole different thread.

I don't think that this is a good ignorance

Absolutely. Bonsoir - what do you tell your under 18s which is censored or prohibited in your household? Surely we just give information to our children which is said in words and concepts they can understand - rather than ban them from a whole area of knowledge?

CB - oh don't be so literal. Thems is just examples to show that not getting 460 hours on the timetable is not the same as censorship.

There is no economics in maths though, there is maths in economics, but thats not the same thing.

I agree other subjects have agendas, but they also have coherant frameworks and methodologies.

RE doesn't give students a coherant method for deciding what is a reasonable set of beliefs and what is not. As you said yourself after all that study they are no better able to robustly say whether god (any/ every idea of god?) exists than before.

As far as I can work out the syllabus is designed to give children as much practice as possible at thinking mushily but respectfully about religions, and going along with the idea that religions offer insights on moral questions (which funnily enough is the agenda that most closely coincides with that of the clerics and teachers)

So you end up with relativist formulations like - "I dismiss (x ridiculous belief) for myself, but that doesn't mean I don't think it is a valid way of life" "I dislike zealots" (...but they have a valid way of life?) I do not need my own opinions to be dismissed. (...of course you do, everyone does when they are wrong else how can we come up with better ones?)

I think, in the end that is why RE is not a good framework for critical thinking about moral issues - because it is so tied to mushy relativism that you just end up at 'i have a right to my opinion' arguments (and teenagers can find their way to that dumb line of defense all by themselves)

captainbarnacle - please, you are being really ridiculous here. Children brains are not wired to learn languages at 5 (or younger)? If there is one single area where children's young brains are more receptive than at other time of life, it is language(s).

I cannot even begin to list the things I shelter my children from, and they are very far from sheltered in the big scheme of things.

"As far as I can work out the syllabus is designed to give children as much practice as possible at thinking mushily but respectfully about religions, and going along with the idea that religions offer insights on moral questions."

Indeed.

I have a hard time being respectful of religious belief (though I can go along with religious traditions that coincide with rites of passage, passing of seasons and family get-togethers quite well), and a very hard time being respectful of the despicable manner in which some religious people peddle their wares.

RE doesn't give students a coherant method for deciding what is a reasonable set of beliefs and what is not. As you said yourself after all that study they are no better able to robustly say whether god (any/ every idea of god?) exists than before.

The existence of a god is only one aspect of RE. And I think that not being able to say robustly whether god exists or not (and justify that opinion) is a very very valid standpoint!!

give children as much practice as possible at thinking mushily but respectfully about religions, and going along with the idea that religions offer insights on moral questions

What is wrong with that as a foundation level of understanding that can be achieved by most students - within a context of other ethical and belief systems? Why is that so sinister to you?

Children will not leave school at 16/18 with their philosophical and ethical and spiritual ideas and opinions fully formed, you know. Schoosl can only give them a broad foundation. To think that RE has failed because 16 year olds are proficient at relativist answers is ridiculous.

Of course RE should be supplemented in a rounded education with skills honed in other subjects, and I also believe that there is a place for more critical and philosophical thinking within RE lessons especially higher up the school.

I have a lot of experience in marking GCSE RE papers, and if a 16 yr old (although increasingly a lot of 14 yr olds sit the paper) just put forward their own opinion with no evidence or consideration of the opinions of others, then they would fail to gain anywhere near a decent grade.

Bonsoir - I have a hard time being respectful of religious belief

I think this says it all.

I don't think this is a great standpoint of which we should want all our children to aspire.

I think it's quite sad.

'You seem to live in a very black and white world.'

You preach about tolerance and ignorance CB but where is your understanding now?

Why should I be respectful of hocus pocus? Astrology, graphology, tarot cards, crystal balls, fairies and religious belief all fall in the same camp.

Obviously, if people are attached to their religious traditions, they are quite free to do that in their own private space. But they should not expect anyone to be respectful of their religious traditions or belief in public, IMO.

There is, of course, some room for negotiation on the concepts of public and private space, about which we could start a whole new thread.