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....

captainbarnacle

The NC point is that identifying it as a separate subject places demands on other areas and creates a need for some programme with specific knowledge objectives.

If you wish to understand what an individual Christian believes Christmas celebrates, for instance then it is highly reductive to say 'the birth of Christ'. Part of the reason for that is theological-different Christian communities ascribe different importance to the event and you end up peddling a doctrine. But, more importantly, you can't discuss openly what people celebrate (a holiday, presents, family, love, birth of a prophet, birth of a Messiah) because you have to give precedence to a religious dimension to mete programme objectives. What gets lost is the community and social aspects of religion, in favour of trite soundbite theology.

If you start from a basis of what you might expect a 'rounded individual' to know in order to respond to others in society, much of this superstructure is irrelevant. But, more importantly, teaching it impacts on the ability to deliver other aspects of that rounded education-ethics, philosophy, languages, history, geography, art, as well as on absolutely core skills. The question to me is not 'is religious teaching bad?', but what place should it have within a rounded curriculum

All I'm saying is there are ways of teaching about religion in schools without teaching it as a defined subject, and one way is to conceptualise it as part of a cross-curricula programme in ethics and philosophy. Once you create it as a separate subject it divorces it from learners' concerns, makes it worryingly simplistic, and reduces the time and space for other subjects.

So if they googled something for 30 seconds they'd go from being an idiot to Socrates?

It doesn't matter if someone can't recite Bible passages word for word - I'd be a bit worried if they could - what matters is the integrity and genuine belief behind what someone is saying - googling good does not maketh the man

Adela - of course you can discuss the secularisation of Christmas. Who has told you otherwise?

RE does not have to be taught as a separate subject either. Have a read of this (p31).

You can do most things you have espoused - just your school don't plan it that way. Therefore the problem lies not with the idea of the teaching of RE in schools, but how that is translated onto the ground in the schools you know.

Some of RE is simplistic (buildings, festivals, stories) in the same way some of science teaching can be simplistic. It is as children get older and it is explained to them in more detail about different denominations and interpretations that they get a fully rounded picture. Similarly, science students study so called laws of science at GCSE level, only to discover post16 that these are not as black and white or generally accepted as first appeared. It is not just RE which has layers of complexity.

Hence young children may learn that Jesus is the Son of God in the same way they may learn that the earth goes around the sun in a circle. Of course, as they progress in their education they learn that not everyone believes that Jesus is the Son of God - and certainly many religions disagree; likewise students learn that the earth revolves around the sun in an ellipse rather than a circle.

RE, like many subjects, has subject material which needs to be revisited again and again to get to a more developed understanding of the complexity of the world. Children cannot learn all the ins and outs from a young age, but that doesn't mean they should avoid RE altogether.

captainbarnacle

But the point is even if I am not delivering an RE lesson, I am doing so within a framework which distorts. As a thought game, replace 'RE' with 'Ethics' in the NC framework.

Part of that subject guidance would then, necessarily, involve age-appropriate understandings how religious belief affects communal and individual decisions. But I wouldn't have to prioritise those meanings. Neither would I have to teach specific areas of 'general' knowledge which relate to religion (festivals etc.).

RE at the moment delivers some key aspects of education (in particular ethics and knowledge of others). But they can be delivered in other ways and as part of other programmes.

Basically, it's a plea to return to first principles. What is it that we would like children to know, and what priority do we ascribe to it? Then, what is the best framework for setting out those desires. Because, to me, what is now within RE is necessary, but the framework is unhelpful and goes well beyond the basics I would wish covered.

To take your example, for instance, the notion of RE as valuable demands I talk about changes in Christmas as if they were 'secularisation', because the focus is on religion. It would be quite possible to talk about Christmas celebrations over time without placing this (false) secular-religious divide at the forefront of the discussion.

Neither would I have to teach specific areas of 'general' knowledge which relate to religion (festivals etc.

So where would those foundation facts be taught? You mean separate ethics/morals from RE, or leave RE out altogether? After discussions on this thread I think the former can probably be done, but the subject material of RE needs to be included in education of children (festivals, stories, practices, buildings etc)

Hang on, all along I have been saying replace RE with Ethics.

Different framework, much better.

But then children do need the information and facts too.

The whole thing needs to be re-plotted to get best results.

Is the best result from this particular subject (the philosophy/morality one) the ability, when armed with facts, to debate rationally?

It would be quite possible to talk about Christmas celebrations over time without placing this (false) secular-religious divide at the forefront of the discussion

But why would you want to do that? It's not false. There are people who celebrate Christmas for religious reasons, and there are nonreligious or cultural reasons.

(of course, people can embrace both aspects!)

That's probably where I disagree with you. To me, the compelling rationale for some understanding of religion is (a) it is necessary to understand how some people now think and (b) ethical and moral thought is on the whole rooted in and informed by religious thought (which isn't to say you have to be religious to be ethical, just that the intellectual inheritance of our world is such). So I see a role for such understanding in developing understanding of other, present societal issues. And, obviously, relevant knowledge to those issues is important.

But, no, I don't see why learning about religious festivals should take priority over learning French (not a statutory subject at primary school), or the history of Poland, both of which are equally key to developing ethical and communal understandings.

But the priorities of different subjects are not to do with RE being a 'waste of time'. That would be a different thread 'which subject is the most important?' Surely it is not RE's 'fault' that other subjects have declined in priority nowadays.

I think that most children will use knowledge of religions much more than they will use French or the history of Poland in their adult life, TBH.

I think round here understanding the inheritance of Poland's treatment between 1939 and 1999 would do a great deal for communal understanding.

At primary level, where there is no 'choice' I think 'waste of time' is exactly appropriate-there is finite time, an infinite amount to learn about and an almost infinite amount that could be taught. And I find it very hard to justify much of RE's core knowledge if approached from asking what I would wish religious understanding to do, rather than from 'what RE, as a subject, should be like'.

But RE isn't just about religious understanding - it is about a bank of knowledge - the same as every subject area is. Why is RE always singled out as a bigger waste of time than the rest? Why is religion less important than other subjects? Kids study geography of South America and yet a very small proportion will ever go there. But they are likely to live next door to a Catholic or a Muslim.

captainbarnacle - I live surrounded by Catholics, Jews, Protestants of several persuasions and a lot of Muslims too. In order to communicate with my friends, neighbours and acquaintances I need multiple complex knowledge and skills, but religious knowledge is beyond marginal in the big scheme of things.

"But RE isn't just about religious understanding - it is about a bank of knowledge - the same as every subject area is."

But that is my point exactly. We don't teach all subject areas (no classical languages, or modern ones) or all aspects of any subject. What is it about RE that makes it so essential? And how does what is actually taught relate to those justifications? Because if it's 'neighbours' then RE doesn't work in all situations.

There is something vaguely ridiculous about a situation whereby I spent two afternoons this term monitoring and keeping discipline among my YR1 class (excluding Muslim and Hindu students who were exempted) whilst external speakers (neither of whom-unlike me-actually know how to read classical Arabic) speak about 'Islam', when I could have been working with those who (unlike the speakers) don't yet have the ability to read English. What precisely did the learners I work with gain from that, other than some 'core' knowledge from an RE programme?

CB, you said:

'Hence young children may learn that Jesus is the Son of God in the same way they may learn that the earth goes around the sun in a circle. Of course, as they progress in their education they learn that not everyone believes that Jesus is the Son of God - and certainly many religions disagree; likewise students learn that the earth revolves around the sun in an ellipse rather than a circle.'

I don't really understand the analogy there. One of these teachings is a matter of faith, while the other is simply factually incorrect. Children shouldn't be taught in school that Jesus was the son of God and they shouldn't be taught that the earth circles the sun. I've not heard of primary school children being taught either; children in primary school are simply taught that the earth orbits the sun. So I can't see how you can use the term 'likewise' in comparing the two pieces of knowledge; they are not alike at all.

While I appreciate that you have shared a lot of interesting stuff about the teaching of RE on this thread, your comments on other subjects seem to really undermine them. You can't really place Geography as being less significant than RE. Geography primarily deals with how humans interact with material reality. If we don't understand that we cannot live on this planet.

Adela - but you can say that about any subject: "why am I teaching them french when they don't even understand english? Why are we doing art when they can't even write?" RE isn't any more 'special' really than the other core subjects. They are part of a rounded whole.

Milly - OK - bad example :) I could go on about atomic physics and rings of electrons but was trying to find a primary school example. And no, kids shouldn't be taught 'Jesus is the Son of God' but that some religious groups believe that to be true.

I don't believe geography is less significant than RE - I was trying to illustrate that you can argue 'X is a waste of time' about many subjects. It depends entirely on your family circumstances and outlook. RE deals with how humans interact with each other - that is pretty damn important too.

"RE deals with how humans interact with each other - that is pretty damn important too."

Actually, RE deals (among other things) with how humans used to interact with one another. The teachings of religion on the subject of human relationships are mostly now completely outdated.

Your examples are poor because learning another language demonstrably improves first-language use, and art and mark making improves writing skills. But, overall, yes, which is why you have to question the breadth of the curriculum (and the EYFS for reception in particular) with all its subject complexity.

The point is, though, that most other subjects have coherent justifications for providing specialist methodologies AND knowledge. RE doesn't-it's distinguishing feature is its knowledge-its religious emphasis and content (which, ironically, distorts religion too). This doesn't mean there isn't more too it as taught than that, just that what more there is too it can be taught within other subjects.

But I'm not really getting at RE in particular, it just seems symptomatic of a broader malaise in which subjects are considered important, then content devised becasue the subject matters, not becasue of the reasons it was considered important.

Learning another language may improve first-language use, but languages are first and foremost a way of communicating with people of other cultures. It is much more valuable to speak another person's language than to know about their religion if you want to communicate with them.

it just seems symptomatic of a broader malaise in which subjects are considered important, then content devised becasue the subject matters, not becasue of the reasons it was considered important

See - I totally understand that. RE was deemed important in 1944. Obviously, it still has a significance in today's society but I am sure in 1944 it was put as a special case because of political reasons or historical reasons or that the subject matter was deemed essential. Of course some of those reasons have changed. This is why having a skill based curriculum rather than knowledge/subject based does interest me, but I fear that we get rid of teaching our kids a bank of knowledge. Knowledge is good. It is not to be feared.

The govt guidelines do allow for RE to be taught across other subjects, it's just schools are inherently conservative and the great majority do not do it like that. But children would still be learning about religion in the classrooms, unlike some posters here who think there is no place at all for religion to be discussed in schools.

captainbarnacle - I completely agree that it is vital to teach our children knowledge as well as (transferable) skills. I think it is a lot harder to teach both knowledge and skills effectively when random hocus pocus religious beliefs is mixed in with the facts!

adele of Blois- I used to work in Blois, lovely place.

as for

As for RE, it is a bigger subject than most people think.

Your examples are poor because learning another language demonstrably improves first-language use, and art and mark making improves writing skills.

No - the examples are correct to illustrate that all subjects are important and linked to each other. Just because a child cannot read english does not mean that to hear a person come into school to talk about islam has no educational benefit for them.