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....

You can say the same about a lot of the content in the history curriculum.

Ok, my dc at 11 and 12, have written essays on abortion, euthanasia, capitalism, charity, conscience etc where they are encouraged to look at all sides and to explore how people of different religions and those that are atheist, would approach the issues - and what they think themselves.

I am very grateful for it.

Bonsoir - I would expect children to learn their mother tongue at home. Not all children are allowed to be given all the facts about religions at home to allow them to make up their own minds - hence RE is very important.

RE is not an homogenous subject - when I was a primary school it was 'scripture' and mainly bible stories. At private/faith schools it can be quite constrictive. I taught RE in an innercity comprehensive.

captainbarnacle - you are confusing subject with the construction of the curriculum and the skills that are developed therein.

All the transferable skills that you claim are only developed in RS can equally be developed in history and geography and mother-tongue and modern languages and economics. It just depends on how you construct your curriculum.

Oh, so shall we stop teaching English in schools since parents are doing such a fab job?

Religion is very much history

That's an ignorant comment to make. You only have to open your newspaper or switch on the television to realise that is not the case for millions of others. And this does impinge on our own society in the UK, whether you are religious or not.

I have no problem with it being taught but do not see why it needs to be an exam subject.

As far as literature and culture is concerned, if you don't have a reasonable grasp of religious tenets and tasks, frameworks and references entirely pass you by. (C21 excepted to an extent)

Bonsoir - the curriculum for other subjects is jammed packed already. Is it the term 'religious' which you dislike? RE (and citizenship) are used by many schools and education authorities as an umbrella under which to teach many important life lessons.

I would say it is much more likely that children know how to speak english from home than they do about tolerance, knowledge and understanding of people who have a different faith to them.

You can be tolerant of others without having to know the minutae of their religion/culture.

I am an Re teacher. It is not taught my the religious, I know many atheist RE teachers, one lesbian one too. We don't teach content at my school- secondary. We do war and peace, wealth and poverty, medical ethics, creative arts as worship, humanism, the environment.

I hate the "i don't believe in God so I shouldn't do it" you don't have to be French to learn French. Some schools teach it badly, but some teach science badly. Doesn't mean it is the same everywhere.

80% of world's population believe in some sort of God, so it would seem quite important. My intention has never been to convert kids. My pupils say that they like the opportunity to talk about stuff they don't get to talk about anywhere else on curriculum, as there is so little time for discussion.

Quite

manicbmc - yes, you can. But trying to develop a sound knowledge basis for that tolerance cannot harm?

I am sure for many of us and our kids, RE lessons were just common sense. But believe me for many other children, RE lessons are the only opportunity they seem to get to have religion properly explained to them.

I'd be intrigued to see how apopleptic what the Headmaster's reaction would be to being told that DD2 won't be taking RE in the faith school she is due to attend in September. According to the school GCSE RE is compulsory but according to the government I have the right to withdraw my child from all or part of the curriculum.

Has anyone been brave/determined enough to do this? Particularly in a faith school?

When I did RE it was bascially learning bible stories, we didn't even touch on any other religions and certainly no philosophy. Hence I found it really boring.

My DS at secondary school has been covering all manner of issues, nothing bible related at all so far! I think it is a very worthwhile subject and I don't see any problem in people studying it for a GCSE although I'm not sure my DS will want to choose it as one of his options.

Surely the opportunities for discussion that arise in RE would be more plentiful without an exam looming and targets to achieve?

"It is not taught my the religious"- I think what you mean, practicallyimperfect, is that it is not taught exclusively by the religious. Unfortunately, in some chools it is.

I absolutely think RE should be compulsory. I just hate it that dd's class is being taught to see all the great questions of war, poverty, ethics, the environment etc through a Christian filter. What I want is something more scholarly: where the class for instance could discuss how questions might be different depending on whether they are seen through a Buddhist or Christian perspective etc. But that doesn't seem to happen; they discuss these big questions under the unspoken assumption that we all have the same background and same underlying ideas. As it so happens, that is probably true in dd's very white, very homogenous school. But that's precisely why they would need something different.

Hullygully - I think it's great that DCs write essays on those subjects. But you don't need to teach RS in order to get DCs to write essays on those topics and to discuss them. I think there is a lot of confusion between RS and philosophy (and they really are not the same thing).

A knowledge of the religions which have played a significant part in shaping the world's great cultures and which seek to adress some of the most difficult questions which face us as individuals and society must be important; and I say that as an agnostic.

The crucial thing is that the curriculum and the intellectual standard applied should be rigorous.

The law says you cam withdraw, but you have to provide work, and it can't be catch up for other subjects, and some schools insist that you provide someone to monitor, ie go into school and sit with them. I don't think you should be able to withdraw. But I think the same about all academic subjects.

Vallhala - why are you sending your child to a faith school if you want to withdraw them from RE from the outset? Anyways, yes of course he will grit teeth smile sweetly at you and pass you the forms!

I think many of you on here had a bad experience of RE lessons 30 years ago, or disagree with your specific schools now. Anecdotal evidence should not be a basis to decide a whole subject is a waste of time. Surely it depends how it is taught?

captainbarnacle - you misunderstand me (maybe a little bit more mother-tongue teaching would not go amiss? ).

I agree that you shouldn't be able to withdraw from the subject but also that you shouldn't have to sit an exam in it.