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....

I would argue that studying religions tells you little about other people in the sense of how to overcome cultural barriers and get along with them. The understanding and acceptance of diversity is from my perspective about finding your place in this world and connecting with your spirituality.

I'm not sure I agree that understanding and accepting diversity is always such a good objective though. I much prefer the idea that humans are at heart very similar to one another - they just know different things and behave in different ways by virtue of their circumstances. I would rather emphasise similarity than diversity in order to promote tolerance and harmony.

What I meant was that the adults find it difficult to tell their children about mortality.

To which scientific facts are you alluding. The space time continuum?

I'm not alluding to any scientific facts in isolation. You need several years of separate sciences at secondary level at least to get a grasp of the basic scientific rules than govern our existence - that's what I'm referring too. Getting children to think about "where am I from" in a religious framework in early primary is pointless. They have no access to the knowledge of the wider world at that point and cannot have an informed conversation. It's hocus pocus at that age.

pickledsiblings

I don't disagree that ultimnately good treatment of others comes form acceptances of yourself, or that "a global non egocentric view of the world that does not put any country or belief in a central position but instead opens the world up to them and can offer explainations for diversity (or the lack of it) is great."

Just wonder why we can't do both these things within an ethics course, a PSHE course, or a 'nations' or gender studies one, and why these possibilities should be sacrificed or distorted by being pushed alongside the rest of RE.

I wen tfor ethics originally, but am in a bad mood now (not due to anyone here). Anyone explain why we can't have 'Gender Studies' as compulsory, with examination of the different beliefs about being a man and woman across cultures and times, and how these influence ethical decisions? Why is that any different in terms of what it achieves (also is relevant to everyone, can't escape gendering even if we would wish to)

Bonsoir

I think you underestimate children. They may be ignorant, but they are logical and involved, and interested. Getting them to think about how to answer is as critical as getting them to get it right.

Two Yr2 students presented a summary of part of Sophie's World for our KS1 book week assembly-and they weren't the brightest, just intrigued.

By diversity, I suppose I mean different ways to 'god'. As you have probably guessed I am not at all well read on this subject so it is probably uswise to engage any further in the debate.

< runs off to find an improving book about religion, spirituality and ways to 'god' >

I don't think I underestimate children's analytical skills at all (and I have frequently argued this point on other threads). But they are ignorant of facts, in a general sort of way and for entirely understandable reasons, and the trouble is that ignorance of basic facts critical to any debate makes the debate at best worthless, and frequently harmful.

Adela - you sound like a great teacher, and the ethics approach you have outlined seems like the right way to go (I wish you were teaching my DS!)

I would be wary of 'gender studies' as a compulsary stand-alone subject in school, for the some of the same reasons as RE - it is a single lens approach.

I think it is important that subjects don't encourage kids to think of themselves and others in binary terms defined by labels of gender, religious affilation, race etc..but as people with multiple strands to their identity.

I think human rights the UDHR is the best framework for the issues and dilemmas discussion as it gives a commonly agreed set of values and avoids the moral relativism quicksands. (yes I know some religious authorities don't accept the UDHR, but then neither does North Korea, but you cant please everyone!)

For how to understand the world in all its diversity, I think in the end the framework that is most useful for understanding the basis on which cultures have developed and why we are the way we are is the evolutionary biology one.

As far as I know they don't teach that at all in schools. I mean they teach the mechanics of evolution: genes, wrinkled peas, fruit flies, dinosaurs, the shape of bird's beaks in the South Pacific etc..(which of course you have to understand first) but they don't teach what this plays out as, in terms of driving how human characteristics and cultures have developed - the differential genetic investments in parenting by gender, interactions between genetics, environment and culture etc...Stephen Pinker, Daniel Dennet, Jared Diamond type stuff.