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....

As an atheist, I believe that - if taught brilliantly - RS is far and away the best preparation any child can have for independent life. If you can't do maths you can use a calculator for the rest of your life, and if you can't do English you can slip into the Science stream and get by. But if you can't tolerate people and understand the context in which you exist and the context in which your multi-cultural friends exist, you will have forever damaged your potential. It provides the anthropological angle to support and link all the other subjects. Also, other than in the far reaches of science, RS is the only school subject that has no straightforward 'right' answers, which is invaluable.

But I do feel that most schools do not afford the subject the respect it deserves, and it can end up being badly taught.

RE is a vitally important subject that should not be disregarded as pointless. The history of the world has been based on religion. Wars have been fought purely because of religion, and even today religion is at the forefront of almost every problem in the world. A deeper understanding of different religions is vital in a childs education, whether regardless of their own religion.

Grimma - yes that course looks good!

Remember RE is not a national curriculum subject - local authorities and schools for once are given the power to decide upon subject content. Personally I like this - but then it also produces a problem for schools which do not value RE as there is little framework to keep RE lessons relevant.

Hence a lot of schools enter their pupils for a short course GCSE and thus the subject content is driven by the exam board. Some pupils want an exam to give the subject value. Others cannot understand why they 'have' to do an exam.

Yes. RE lessons are not straight forward.

Disagree StillSquiffy. I had a very strict faith education which focused entirely on that school's faith with no reference to any other. That doesn't mean that I or, to the best of my knowledge my former classmates, are unable to tolerate other faiths or understand the context in which we exist nor does it mean that we, Londoners that we are, are unable to understand our many multi-cultural friends either.

In my RE education there were definitely only one set of "right" answers.

If you can't so maths you can't participate fully in civil society as you won't understand the issues, and will get ripped off by the next 0% interest deal. If you can't do english you are fucked in science as well, as science is about communication as much as it is about anything. If you can't tolerate people and understand the context in which you exist and the context in which your multi-cultural friends exist then you are on the Autistic spectrum and need appropriate support.

My eldest (11) is doing RE and he has taken the information given so far and decided that it is a story, not real.

his father is a christian, I believe in god (but not religion ) and his brother is not capable - atm - of understanding well enough to make his own mind up.

So his opinion has not come from us, it's come from studying the subject.

I think that's good. He has used the information provided to form his own opinion on this subject.

Selfishly, I wish he had decided to believe but, he has his own opinion on it, which I respect.

I think that the RE is valuable for this reason. Gives everyone the information they need to decide what they believe, not what their parents believe.

Punkatheart I think it teaches a skewed idea of tolerance though. The one big idea my DS has taken out of 7 years of RE at primary school is 'criticising someone's religion = being racist. Don't do it".

Oppsadaisy, captaincarbuncle and practicallyimperfect I think ethical dilemmas and moral issues can be taught and discussed as themselves. Why do they have to be taught within in a framework that privileges religious teachings? Arguing that there should be more space and skills to teach and discuss this stuff (which I agree) does not mean that the old obligation to teach RE (inherited from the days of 'scripture' as a school subject) fits this bill.

librashavingabiscuit I don't doubt that RE can be a good A level, but not every A level requires 12 years of compulsory study before you get there.

hullygully but why can't you learn the relevant bits of religion when you are learning about The Reformation, Northern Ireland, The Middle East, Paradise Lost etc... To be honest I imagine that you do. I can't imagine that a GCSE/A level History teacher assumes that children know the difference between Catholic and Protestant because they studied it in Yr 8 RE. I bet they go over it anyway.

StewieGriffinsmom I don't think it would solve the problem of 'people talking rubbish about religion' e.g. the recent foster parents case. RE can't teach 'this is the true and correct interpretation of X religion' - hell, religions themselves can't even agree that.

Lauriefairycake This is the only argument that carries any weight for me. Still its more of an argument that kids that have been brought up with dogmatic religion need the opportunity to unlearn it, not that it is an academically coherent subject for the rest of them.

cory and GrimmaTheNome I don't think it can be taught as stringently as history or science, because it isn't a coherent body of knowledge.

Yes I have read the curriculum (and seen the homework my DS brings home from secondary) and it makes my heart sink. It reads like it was written by a committee of clerics from different religions who have made a pact not to dwell on the mutual incompatibility of their beliefs in order to get their common view point that - "religion is important, deserves respect, and has something to say which is of universal relevance" - over to a captive audience (which is exactly how the RE local syllabus is developed)

I count 7 years at primary from Foundation stage up to year 6, and then another 5 at secondary up to GCSE. Are the transferable skills and essential knowledge from RE really worth all that time?

They barely have the time in history or English etc, and giving them my one hour a week wouldn't be enough.

They spend hours of their time on bloody Shakespeare which I think is a waste of time. I would happily withdraw ds from those lessons. And pshe, that is a real waste of time.

yabu

I think Himilaya has a good point - you can't even actually teach people 'this is what Christians believe', 'this is what Muslims believe' as the religion that someone claims to follow has fuck all to do with the way they actually behave or the things they believe.

Agree with Valhalla absolutely. I had exclusively Christian RE all the way through school, and I am a lovely and tolerant person. Though with a healthy disrespect for dragging religion into ethical matters.

Completely disagree that RS is necessary or even useful for understanding world's problems.

For example, after 11 years of compulsory RS, how many students do you think could explain the difference between a Sunni and a Shia Muslim? (Not counting the Muslim students!)

On a previous thread, I was surprised how few people really knew the difference between Protestant and Catholic religions. And even so, knowing that isn't going to help you understand the conflict in Northern Ireland.

Children should be taught epistemology, ethics, logic, history and philosophy of science and statistics/probability/risk. These are the tools that one needs to engage with Civil society including faith positions.

There is no significant difference between Sunni and Shia, Protestant and Catholic for anyone outside the religion. They each represent political struggle within the religion - the differences in dogmas are interesting, but not particularly useful for anyone else to know about.

Coalition

Can you imagine if you took one year of compulsory RE, and used it instead to study how risk works, and the importance of the controlled trial?! Now that would be useful life knowledge!

captainbarnacle I am really not convinced about the RE and tolerance argument. Because kids know some facts about Christianity, Islam and Hinduism they will be more tolerant towards people of those religions, but because they don't happen to learn much about the teachings of the Baha'i, Zoroastrians, Rastafarians or Jains they can be expected to be highly prejudiced towards them?

Also the the argument that you need to know about the basis of religious views on Euthanasia because Bishops sit in the House of Lords and have an unelected say on these matters also seems a bit arse-about-face. There are Bishops in the HOL for the same historical reasons that there is RE teaching in schools.

It is a legitimate part of education to get kids thinking about whether Bishops should be in the HOL (Citizenship, politics) but not to get them to seriously have to take into account supernatural considerations in thinking about whether the law should allow someone their wish to avoid a slow, painful death (anymore than they should be told to take seriously the idea that disability is a punishment for spiritual misdeeds in a past life)

THOS - Innit. They are trailing a program on radio 4 about 'The Jargon of Science' using 'double blind controlled trial' as an example.

Why the FUCK are people leaving schools so ignorant of basic science that they don't know what 'double blind controlled trial' means?

It is a legitimate part of education to get kids thinking about whether Bishops should be in the HOL (Citizenship, politics) but not to get them to seriously have to take into account supernatural considerations in thinking about whether the law should allow someone their wish to avoid a slow, painful death (anymore than they should be told to take seriously the idea that disability is a punishment for spiritual misdeeds in a past life)

Totally agree. That's the sort of thing I mean by teaching about religion and ethics properly. You've put it more clearly than me, evidently.

I know someone who teaches in a Catholic primary school and she says they only briefly skim over other world religions, cos they have to.

Athiesm, humanism, philosophy and the historical context of all these, should be given as much importance in the RS curriculum and of course ethics should be a major part of RS. We need to recognise that many people in this country are not religious and do not automatically respect religious people and views.

In fact, why not bung it all in with the Citizenship classes and stop calling it Religious Studies? And of course we need to get rid of religious schools as a matter of urgency

The clearest thing to emerge so far is that RS means different things to different people and that it is taught wildly differently in different schools.

So some of us appreciate it. And some don't.

Surprise!

If you teach Ethics then there is a legitimate place for Religious ethics.
If you teach RE why would Utilitarianism or Kant or Plato come up at all?

i completly disagree. I hate the fact that children today are taught with more emphasis on the importance of business studies (capitalist grooming) over the importance of spiritual and religious fufillment. its everyhting thats wrong with the world. priorities are all wrong

Try reading TS Eliot (for eg) with no religious education.

It should be morality, philosophy and history. Not RE.

I dislike that every week ds1 learns about Jesus and dying on the cross etc. It has a huge impact. He is in year one.

HullyGully - You just refer to the footnotes. As you would with any work from another culture.