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 had to dredge up some old stuff there, was quite dusty.

I like Bakhtin. He has some good wheezes.

Luckily I am very tolerant of non-postmodernists, cos I accept a multiplicity of perspectives.

But MarshaBrady is right, IMO, you can have a postmodernist approach to science which does not mean you think there is no such thing as right and wrong answers. But you accept that we cannot necessarily know these absolutes about the universe, and that our observation of the phenomena changes the phenomena. And moreover, our prior understandings affect what we perceive, and how we interpret it.
We're not neutral observers, so it's best not to start by assuming that we can be. We have to build a degree of subjectivity into our scientific model or interpretation.
That's my postmodernism, more or less.

Although don't put us in a corner...
trips

Yes MillyR

And its anachronistic that RE is the one subject which is legally mandatory.

OTOH, in the US RE is the one subject (AFAIK) which is legally prohibited. I have heard ardent pleas for its inclusion from atheists. Might have been Dan Dennett - someone of that ilk. Because in the US children are likely to have no education in anything other than their families beliefs. They are not educated about religions, they may simply be educated to be religious.

That's even worse than what we have here.

damn with the corner.

Agree re US. Much worse.

So why is it worse off in the US but not France? Where they don't do it either.

YABU. Agree with scaryteacher.

So scaryteach, scrumvontubby and practicallyimperfect (and any other secondary school RE teachers) is there any point to primary school RE then, or can we agree that is a waste of time?

Milly - it's at GCSE - we look at the law and what the students think, we discuss late abortions and the pros and cons on euthanasia, we look at what the students think and why, and only then do we look at the viewpoints of the religions we are studying at GCSE; making sure they know that each denomination within that religion will have a different viewpoint.

It also shows up what they don't know; some think the abortion limit should be lowered, not realising that some of the tests for Downs etc are done quite late on and thus would breach the limit if it were to be lowered.They also have to tackle the dichotomy between their right to choose an abortion if they are girls as opposed to how they may feel if they were pregnant; the idea of abortion as contraception, and what role the father of the baby has or should play if an abortion is decided on by the mother.

A lot would be achieved by just changing the name. All that stuff is easy done in Ethics /Morality.

Fennel - The thing is, that is pretty much a description of 'The Scientific Method' and why it exists. The whole process of Science is designed to acknowledge subjectivity, to compensate for it and to attempt to improve our understanding even if that means destroying previous ideas.

easily

ST, yes, that is what I don't agree with. I don't think explanation of the law, followed by pupil's opinions followed by a variety of religious perspectives is a good way to teach young people about abortion.

I was talking to a lady the other day whose husband teaches RE here in Belgium. I am a UK trained RE teacher and I would not be allowed to teach it here as I am agnostic.

Thus, he teaches Anglican RE; another colleague will teach Judaism as he is a practising Jew etc etc. You have to have a certificate from your priest/rabbi etc to allow you to teach. Some classes in the Belgian system may have 7 different RE teachers.

It is better than it was though, because not so long back it was purely RC RE.

alot of badly taught morality, late abortions and euthansia issues are taught under citizenship or general studies, otherwise know as insult to human thinking subjects.

Post modernism does not negate or undermine scientific theory / practice. It is entirely possible that both can exist.

Why Milly? There isn't just the physical/scientific and legal aspect to abortion; there are other factors in play.

RE involves thinking in an academic way about religion, which many people don't get the opportunity to do outside of education. It also importantly includes learning what many people believe, in order to get an understanding of the various world views. Like it or not, religion is very influential and I believe education increases understanding and tolerance. I also believe it's important to know why others, from world leaders to the family down the road celebrating their religious festivals, decide to do certain things. How can anyone form educated views, or make educated decisions about religion if they never learn about it?

Thecoalition, to me Postmodernisim is a logical extension of understanding the scientific method and the way it changes over time. Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, incommmensurable paradigms.

And in linguistics, to me postmodernism is a logical extension of understanding how the language/s we think in affect our knowledge and perceptions.

That's coming from a scientific and linguistics and psychology background. I think people who come to postmodernism from Eng Lit courses have a rather different way of seeing it.

scaryteacher

Your points:

1: We teach, we don't preach - proselytizing is not acceptable for any RE teacher --> not relevant to the question of whether RE is a waste of time.

2: Students need some degree of religious literacy - this is NOT covered in Citizenship --> OK. How much?Is 12 years worth really warranted?

3: RE is the only subject taught by law in England. It is base curriculum. The Sec of State can vary the teaching of any of the others by an SI - it takes an act of Parliament to take RE off the curriculum.--> Just because its the law doesn't mean its not a waste of time though.

4: It is academic at A level - Kant, Mill etc, Philosophy of Religion. It is also quite academic at GCSE, at least for the more able, and as someone said earlier, this may be the only chance they get to discuss abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, just war etc.--> But if they didn't have to spend so much time studying RE perhaps they could introduce a subject that allows them to discuss ethical issues without recourse to ancient mythology? As for what people study at A level, that is their choice.

5: You can do a lot to 'debunk' myths about people as well. I was teaching a unit on Islam on 09/11, having watched the footage of the planes. That was a very interesting time to be an RE teacher.--> So far so mushy, what is was the content of the insights from RE on the motivations of the 911 bombers?

I disagree with the OP; but then again I did theology at degree level and am rather fond of TS Eliot, although sadly have no idea who/what PoMo is.

I don't agree Himalya but neither does that mean it's great as it is.

My kids attend a village school that is Church assisted and I am far from happy with the very narrow education they received in RE' however the school has started to run a philosophy class that ahs really got my boys thinking- lots of stuff about ancient mythology etc. Chuck the two together and mix in a bit more about world faiths (my school got out of the 2 faiths bit by selecting Judaism and just covering the OT) and I think it would be great.

They also learn languagaes- both French and Welsh, and have excellent results across the board in a state school so it shows it can be done. Now they are not perfect- I may have the chance soon to help overhaul the SN input as have been co-opted onto a committee and will relish it- but generally for NT kids it's a great example of what a state school can achieve. Usually. Maybe not the infants . but she left.

Fennel - The problem is that post-modernism covers a multiplicity of sins, and can mean different things to different people.