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....

And also, this discussion is becoming addictive and I need to get on with stuff.

bonsoir - religion is ethics with god thrown in. Writing those essays means they get both for the price of one (RS and philosphy/ethics). Plus, see earlier point re culture and literature for importance of subject.

It wouldn't be a waste of time if it was done really well, and encompassed non-religious philosophies properly.

They don't have to do it every week for quite 12+ years - I don't think the legal requirement includes 6th form. DDs school, as far as I can tell doesn't have it as a regular subject beyond KS3 (unless you opt for GCSE, of course) - I think they probably do something once a term.

It certainly shouldn't be a compulsory GCSE subject.

That is a shame cory, that is what we do- look at am ethical issue and think about how different world views would effect decisions.

The reason we do exam, is that many kids asked for recognition for the work they did. Many parents and the government dont care anymore unless there is a grade a value added. I would love to teach non-examined.

pointmissima The crucial thing is that the curriculum and the intellectual standard applied should be rigorous - I agree with you. The difficulty with RE is that in many schools it is not valued - it jsut ticks the compulsory boxes the school has to conform to. It does not help significantly to the 5 GCSEs published on the league tables.

Therefore most RE is taught in mixed ability groups, and sometimes by nonspecialist teachers. There is such a wide scope of preknowledge (or ignorance) that kids bring to the classes. Of course teachers can set extension tasks for the more able, but when a class has some very religious children in it, some very ignorant children, some academic kids, some nonacademic kids... discussion and debate has limitations.

RE would be taught better if schools valued it more. But whilst schools remain judged on exam results (and most schools only enter pupils for a half GCSE in RE if that) then it is difficult for rigorous intellectual standards in the RE classrooms of many comprehensives to improve.

Some religions are weird ethics with god thrown in. Conflating ethics and religion isn't wise.

Hullygully - I don't think God has anything at all to do with ethics.

Living in a dual-religion family with each side having a very different attitude to our own religious culture, I get very cross with anyone bringing God into anything much. He always makes life more complicated than it really is! So much easier to gain ethical clarity without Him.

I think a major problem is the name, Religious Studies. The name inherently flags up religion as a subject worthy of attention and study, and that's one of the questions which would be up for discussion in an Ethics or Philosophy of Religion course. I don't have a problem with children learning Ethics, History, Philosophy, Politics etc at school, or learning about the history and impact and literature of religions. But calling it RS and making it compulsory, that's a problem. It's pandering to the faith groups.

Fennel - I agree.

Unfortunately we have made a generation of pupils who only see value in exams and grades. But that is a wider educational issue.

I agree fennel. I have taught on 4 secondary schools and RE has always been valued nd not a tick box exercise. Obviously I am passionate about it, it is my career, but not becAuse I am some religious nutcase!

I don't know what the legal requirements are - but at my son's school it is optional after year 9.
Is there a new law saying that you will have to study it up to year 11?

I am very happy for dd to be forced to sit an exam in the subject, as I hope that will eventually have some effect in concentrating the teacher's mind and make him realise he can't just spend his time whaffling on about what he thinks is important. Bring on the exams is all I can say! Or the inspector! Or someone who makes him realise it's not all about him.

I am an atheist. HOWEVER, since studying RE throughout GCSE's. I think that RE is more beneficial to everyday life than Maths or Science! I think you use RE and all the subjects it covers in day to day things. But things like long-multiplication, diameters of shapes, melting points of mercury etc etc are never used!

I love RE and it was the subject I cared about most in my exams!!

Thunderbird - they should have RE lessons up the yr 11, but the school may put them under a different 'umbrella' - so he might have RE lessons in Citizenship or PSHE?

I agree, Fennel. The name of the subject is a problem. I disagree, Bonsoir, that I don't think God has anything at all to do with ethics. - that might be true for you and your family in your simplified world without god. But in reality religion (with a capital R and small r) has a lot to say in great ethical debates and government policy, for instance on euthanasia. Rightly or wrongly, it is a fact and as citizens we should understand their religious viewpoint - if only to be able to argue against it!

LPO - good to hear! I agree, the pupils I taught who were non-believers seemed to get the most out of the lessons. You will never run out of opportunities to use the information you learnt from RE lessons :)

12 years!

I had it once a week in secondary up to the 3rd year.

Then dropped to make way for GCSE subjects.

What on earth has God got to do with euthanasia?

My MOL died ten days ago, finished off (at her own request) by morphine once the doctors had told her that they could do no more for her cancer. None of us thought God had anything to do with it.

City you don't live in Leeds do you? I have a teacher in my dept like that and it drives me mad.

"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."

Thank you PracticallyPerfect, I can arrange that should it be necessary.

Captain, as it happens I was wondering rather than intending but if you want to know, the school is not my choice but one allocated by the LA under a specific Protocol following an unusual and difficult situation brought on by DD being severly bullied at a previous school. Had I disagreed with the LA's decision I'd have had no option but to HE as there is no way I can get her to any other school. As it is I'm fairly satisified with the LA's choice wrt the care of children, expectations of behaviour and the size of the school so I accepted as it was the lesser evil.

I'm less inclined to opt for withdrawal if DD can't use the time to catch up in other areas (and think that's a disgraceful stipulation too, btw), although I can see the benefit in giving her additional tuition in English/maths/science etc and relieving her of the pressure of studying for an additional and not particularly useful or widely respected GCSE.

Stupid auto correct, that should say cory not city

Something like this looks quite appropiate. 'KS4 students receive Core Religious Education within the PSHE timetable following a course entitled ?Philosophy and Ethics?'

What on earth has God got to do with euthanasia?

Nothing - for you. But at the moment the rules in the UK about euthanasia are decided by parliament - and the bishops who sit in the HoL are unlikely to allow it to become law due to issues about sanctity of life.

There are people in the world who have a faith. I think our children should be allowed to make up their own minds about important issues and be equipped to be able to argue their point intelligently - whether they have a faith or not. To do this they need to understand where people with a faith are coming from. Otherwise they are ignorant.

captainbarnacle - try going to an NHS hospital and seeing what happens in practice

What on earth has God got to do with euthanasia?

Religious people, with disproportionately more airtime than anyone else, skew public debates with their particular take on ethics.

One reason for a proper study of religion and ethics is to learn the problems inherent in taking your ethics from an old book rather than arriving at them through principled reasoning.