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....

Religious people want to get to children early precisely because, once children are of an age where they are in possession of historical and scientific facts, there is no way they are going to buy into the supernatural religious stuff.

I think it's very important, early on (Reception, Year 1) for school and families to discuss how we all treat one another, how we need to learn to respect multiple conflicting agendas and work out fair compromises. So many adults don't know how to do this, but know all sorts of inflexible religion-derived relationship rules that are ultimately harmful for all concerned when attempting to negotiate real life.

Exactly. It is so irritating to me that ds' flexible and uncritical mind is being filled with religious stuff.

I also think if one has been exposed to religion from a young age and then seeing another equally strong one with all its superstitions in full force is a (sometimes unpleasant) way to force one to reassess.

It is unbelievably strong conditioning. And I agree it is only as effective as it is due to teaching it early on.

Himalaya - yes, point taken. I just reread how I worded the bit about sex education. As a teacher I cannot teach that promiscuity is correct, in the same way I cannot teach that all people should wait to have sex until they are married. I have to remain a moral relativist to all intents and purposes because it is not my job to tell students how to live their lives - that it up to the kids themselves and their parents. I can only show them alternatives.

I remember looking at vegetarianism and animal welfare in english lessons as a pupil, and debating the different points of view. Our teacher did not lead us towards condemning all farmers and meat-eaters as murders and practically immoral. We were free to make up our own minds and scored higher marks if we considered the alternative point of view. In education you need to know the alternative view. But it has to be framed like that - not as morally repugnant. I have students from differing backgrounds in my classes. It would be disrespectful.

I think we all come to this from our own backgrounds - whether we were religiously conditioned at home or school, what we see around us, whether we are fearful or angry at the power religions can have on people. This is why RE teaching is important for me - I don't want my children to have only my ideas about the world presented to them. I want them to see alternatives.

Yes loads to cover before tackling ethics. Perhaps the ethical issues surrounding religion should be left to specialised university courses.

Yes - it is difficult to make value judgements about religious practices in a classroom of children.

Bonsoir - you have a chip on your shoulder about religion and it's place in the world. I don't think education policy should be made coming from such a personal standpoint. You have to consider a much wider view than your own personal prejudices.

Marsha - do you really think that kids today will become narrowminded and religious just because they are told about religious stories and practices from a young age? I have a 4yr old DS. He has to go to a faith primary school as there are no alternatives in our rural area. I am not very happy about this, and I have him coming home talking about God and Jesus and prayers and everything. This is from the faith school aspect, not RE lessons. But it doesn't worry me, as I know he is only 4 and he will 'grow out of it' as he gets older and understands more about the world around him.

I think a lot of this is due to fear.

I believe there is a big big difference between RE lessons and wider practices in church schools.

CB I don't say much at all about it, and do think he will grow out of it. When he stops having to hear it. It's not a faith school but from what he says to me it sounds like they are being told religious stories quite a bit.

But I think if they kept up with this level of religious education he wouldn't have the distance he needs to grow out of it.

Sorry, I was pointed this way by another thread, but here goes.

I'm a primary school teacher and I really hate RE. Not so much for reasons of disbelief, but because it's a crap way of understanding what it is to be a believer.

For most believers, even the most sincere, religious creed alone doesn't dictate their lives-they make a series of moral decisions variously informed by their faith, the values of the communities they belong to and individual preference. So, if you want to teach religion from a believers' perspective, it makes more sense to approach it as a series of ethical dilemmas (from the seemingly secular 'should I keep the money I find on the bus?' to something more overt such as 'should I wear the veil') and to show how differing religious and non-religious ethics work together. And P4C does that nicely.

If, on the other hand, you really want to teach theology, then you have to start with disagreement, not 'Christians believe Christ was resurrected', but 'what does resurrection mean to Christians'. And then you have to explain why agreeing matters-since it doesn't in all religions. And you can do that at primary school, cos kids are sophisticated and logical, if also ignorant, and really care about this stuff, but we can't because it doesn't give 'right' answers to be ticked.

So, basically, I think what really appalls is that RE's a crock of shit in terms of teaching about religion.

In other words, you CAN teach about religious belief, even to the very young, without it being indoctrination. BUt the NC won't let us.

Sorry, have only just re-read. I think I am directly opposed to MarshaBrady in some ways-teaching ethics seems to me a natural part of answering questions in the classroom and of teaching Yr1. Teaching religion within that is possible. Teaching religion without it isn't really teaching religion, it's like cheap and simplistic anthropology from the days of Empire (look at the Christians and their beliefs and the way the dress and what they sing and their holidays-now you get it!).

Adela - I don't see a problem with that. That's still teaching RE. Teaching RE doesn't have to be staid and without development or how it is at the moment in some schools and LEAs - but it does involve a study of religions and what they have to say about stuff. I don't think you can teach the ethics without having a discussion of religious practice.

Adela - is there a NC in RE in primary? Set by the govt?

Yes, here. I was coming from was precisely this-I don't really object to some consideration of religion in school (better there than out of it in many ways), but I do question whether we actually need RE as a subject.

What you'll note is that there is room here for some ethical discussion, but also a whole load of 'facts' about 'religious tribes', and these tend to dominate actual delivery.

You can discuss religion without having RE. What's more, you do it better.

So you would like 'would you keep the money' and then refer to religions Adela, in primary?

A catholic would say it is wrong, due to ten commandments, that sort of thing?

Adela - there isn't a NC for RE:

"Maintained schools must follow the locally agreed syllabus adopted by their Local Authority. These programmes are included for illustrative purposes so that schools can plan a whole curriculum." (from that website)

I like your idea, Marsha, about taking an ethical issue and then discussing alternative viewpoints including religion. But I am not sure Adela means that. I am confused, Adela, about what you mean about 'RE'. Yes, the subject could do with reappraisal. But surely religious practices and ideas should be discussed in a rounded education?

I have just done this as an exercise (Money on a bus). Beyond basic practical solutions, moral underpinnings were generally empathetic and humanist (I would want it back if it was my money); or a simple non-religious rule (it's like stealing). One child mentioned stealing was against her religion (RC), which allowed me simply to say that there were other religions that thought this too, and to ask children what they were. So we learnt stuff about religions and ethics, but we didn't simplify an ethical dilemma into a purely religious one. Takes planning, though, and a nerve-jangling wait for the first 'religious' answer...

I hope this meant very precisely that I wasn't saying 'catholics wouldn't do this DUE to the eighth commandment', but you get the point?

marking this thread..

Only read 1st page -

SGM - can you please not refer to posters who do not share your exact point of view as - 'A bunch of idiots'

I've seen enough of you to know your intelligence, and manners, leaves a lot to be desired.

OK Adela, I see benefits in that. But what about kids having a deeper knowledge of the 10 Commandments - for instance? Would there ever be an opportunity for that, or would it get lost along the way? Would the children do any written activities including religious arguments, or would it just be a side note in discussion?

What I mean is that scenario sounds like it only pays lip service to religion - it relied on children listening intently for that 5mins and then it was glossed over? I know this probably suits a lot of you :) But it doesn't improve kids knowledge of religion really - just mentions it.

Do you teach about churches and synagogues and Easter and all the other specifically religious aspects of the UK?

See I do love that too Adela. Leading with an ethical question. And at some point a religious viewpoint may be thrown into the hat. And I am also won over by Bonsoir's leading with the facts.

It is so important and interesting how this particular subject is set. Ok will ponder this some more...

captianbarnacle

It is a statutory subject within the NC, with a non-statutory programme. Hence all schools have to teach RE. The consequence of that is that what is taught is prescribed, and a whole pile of 'subject specific knowledge' is added to justify this. So I can't just teach about religion, but have to include 'facts' about religion regardless of their relevance to other discussion.

By way of contrast if thinking about 'rounded' education, modern languages are not even statutory at KS2.

RE isn't a NC subject - it's a statutory subject like careers and sex ed are, and parents can withdraw their children if they wish. But it is outside the National Curriculum.

What is wrong with teaching facts about religion?

Just as a contrast to what has been said, RME is a statutory subject in Scotland too, but that does not mean the content is prescribed.
We have principles & practices to follow (every subject has this) and a list of experiences students should have by different ages (again, in common with all subjects).
Here's a link if you're really bored

Isn't it part of a rounded, general education for kids to know what Christmas celebrates or Divali or who Moses was or what Yom Kippur is or what kosher means? What kind of kids are we turning out of school who cannot answer these basic questions?

SGM - I fully appreciate that the Bible is open to interpretation - it really depends who you're talking to and what agenda they're trying to push - it's an extremely old book and many people find it hard to understand why anyone in 'the modern world' still live by it's teachings. Most don't - even people who consider themselves 'religious' - but they take notice of the Pope- he is very much alive and kicking and tries to take a modern approach, which of course he has to - If you're going to ignore the Pope you might as well give up.

I don't know anyone who knows the Bible inside out - so to talk about eating shrimps and wearing clothes of two different fabric is just ridiculous.