Aibu in being shocked at this school newsletter?

[whensitmyturn]

Aibu in being pretty appalled at this school news letter or am i being naive?

Children attend a catholic primary school- dh is Catholic I am not. Never had an issue with the school, children are in the last couple of years there.

Had a newsletter home tonight saying that a new ‘children and social work act of 2017’ has been passed and that parents will no longer be able to remove their children for PSHE lessons but that the government are still deciding what content the lessons should have. There is a public questionnaire on gov.uk to write your ideas.

The newsletter then goes on to say that we need to ensure that things that are age suited to children get suggested and I quote ‘to avoid respect for alternative lifestyles being allowed to undermine Christian principles of marriage and family life’.

It then goes on to link ‘coalition for marriage’ for help with us filling in this questionnaire.

Coalition 4 marriage is a group that promotes a traditional family set up and states that children should be taught that ‘marriage between a man and a woman as the gold standard of adult relationships’ Also that ‘they believe there is no age-appropriate way to teach primary school children about same sex marriages or transgenderism’. In blinding hypocrisy it then goes on to say ‘we should be teaching children broad values of tolerance and respect’.

!? I thought that in this day and age in the uk even if you attend a faith school inclusivity was seen as important/ the norm.
Would you be angry at this or just see it as an unavoidable downside of attending a catholic school?

Please fill in the consultation at consult.education.gov.uk/life-skills/pshe-rse-call-for-evidence/ with your own ideas of what should and should not be taught.

That would be entirely normal speech for a child of 6 and I would hope the teacher would say 'That's very nice, dear'

Well, that’s reassuring. My own experiences of religious schools differ; one of the great joys for me of same sex marriage being legal is being able to respond ‘Great!’ to that statement rather than the ‘no, boys can only marry girls’ that children were told in the past.

It’s difficult to see how that would be compatible with a curriculum that said one form of legal marriage only should be taught, though, and I fear would leave the teacher open to parental complaints. But then if the teacher said ‘no, men can only marry women’, they would be lying. Tricky one.

And how to respond when another kid says ‘no, my mum says men can only get married to women’ (ignoring mum’s poor teaching here, it still happens), and the teacher is appealed to as the final authority?

And here’s the thing. You and I will need to agree to disagree on the ‘complexity’ of this subject; saying it is doesn’t make it so (and neither does me saying it’s fairly straightforward make it so). I don’t think your arguments have much merit because they are grounded in the idea of that complexity; you dismiss mine for identical reasons.

It’s not a question of understanding Christian or Catholic structures and beliefs. It’s a question of whether talking about different kinds of marriage in age appropriate ways is any more complex to a child than the idea that they can’t marry their mum. And whether it is desirable to treat it as so much more complex and ‘other’ if the goal is respect and tolerance.

There's no age appropriate issue about marriage law. It is legal to get married to a man or a woman.
Why is that an age related discussion? Are you suggesting marital status should be kept from our own children?

Jumping back into this. This thread has shown very clearly why RE shouldn't be a joke subject. At my very Catholic school we were taught about every major religion. I have a basic understanding of their values and how the teachings differ from what us taught within the Catholic faith. If a few more people had the same understanding of Catholicism much of this thread would exist.
As an aside during GCSE years we spent a year on 'contemporary moral issues where we would debate abortion, euthanasia, etc. Of course we were taught the Catholic viewpoint but we were encouraged to debate other stances and allowed to form our own opinions.

This thread has shown very clearly why RE shouldn't be a joke subject.

How so? Religion should be separate from state and certainly from morality. It only stifles debate about abortion (when a fetus becomes a baby is not something a vicar can answer) or euthanasia (why not?).

Other moral stances and debate are healthy but religion isn't.

Why should religion enter these debates and why should it be treated as a proper subject?

We live in a very diverse country with respect to religion. You and other posters have shown a lot of ignorance with respect to Catholicism, one of the more popular faiths in the UK. I dread to think of your knowledge of Hinduism or Sikhism, for example.
The lack of understanding causes a lack of respect for the beliefs of others and this can cause huge problems within society. I would argue that teaching aboit religion is as valid as teaching about any other subject. You aren't trying to lure people in to believe what you do but rather educate them so they can understand others better.

This thread has shown very clearly why RE shouldn't be a joke subject. At my very Catholic school we were taught about every major religion. I have a basic understanding of their values and how the teachings differ from what us taught within the Catholic faith.

I very much agree, having attended a very Presbyterian school that was good on what other Christian sects believed and practised but bloody dreadful on other world religions. I’m glad things are different now and that we agree that young children can understand that different people believe in different gods, or believe in following the same god in different ways, without it undermining their understanding of their own faith.

What I don’t understand is why some feel that children are capable of understanding and respecting the different religious beliefs, customs and practices of other faiths, but not secular practices or values. The idea that knowing about the legality same-sex marriage will confuse children and undermine Christian teachings, but that knowing about Islamic or Sikh traditions and values will not, is an odd one that appears to be rooted in prejudice rather than logic. I get that - change has been fast, in human terms.

If a few more people had the same understanding of Catholicism much of this thread would exist.

Disagreeing with some of the teachings and practices of Catholicism and Catholic schools, and feeling that children are capable of and would benefit from knowing more about the broader society they live in isn’t ‘not understanding’. It’s disagreeing, and putting the view that many of us feel that if the taxpayer is funding faith education, that education should ensure children should understand the wider community in which they live. We’ve made big strides on religious education. It would be nice if we were consistent in trying to foster respect and understanding towards all people.

"You and other posters have shown a lot of ignorance with respect to Catholicism"

Have I / we? I can't see a single instance.

I don't think so. Vehemently disagreeing and being ignorant are not the same thing. Being able to question religion is a very new thing so it will take some getting used to, I understand that, but it's going to happen more and more.

I do mt think RE is a home subject is it? I have two children who have done the GCSE and I was very impressed by the curriculum. One is doing it for A level and the other is just finishing a theology degree.......

joke subject, not home subject......

"I don't think RE is a joke subject is it?"

Yes. It is (Senior management in a school).

We don't offer it as a GCSE and have IB in the 6th Form which, because of it's inclusion of TOK (Theory of Knowledge), is unsuitable for religious studies. The quote below is from a catholic bishop.

" I have been in an I.B. classroom before and witnessed the immense problems of the program (from the view of the Church). The key elements are: 1) truth is relative and provisional; 2) science, math, and technology are the key to progress (and the only “objective” ways to find truth; 3) all of history (via Social Studies) is merely cultural interpretation, which we ought to re-write; 4) creating a “global citizen” (as opposed to local patriotism)."

I realise the difference between an education in a religious school and RE in a proper school but I think the quote gives a flavour.

RE is a fairly empty subject. It touches on a few things but at GCSE and A Level, you simply don't have the depth or time to cover it properly.

It's seen as an easy subject (see sociology etc) and would not be rated as highly by universities as other more rigorous courses.

Contrary to everything I just said, my predecessor had a degree in Theology although it was from Cambridge. I'd say the degrees have some value. GCSE etc don't and the subject and the teachers tend to be a bit of a joke (for good reason).

Actually, it's useful to teach kids a bit of RE. It's a mix of history and politics, when taught properly (ie not by pushing any one superstition as 'true'). After all, fighting about imaginary friends has, unfortunately, caused a lot of the world's problems and a good RE class can look at this.

@ReanimatedSGB

How do you do "a bit"?

History and politics are fine subjects.

Crickey. I'm glad my children's highly selective 6th form don't think like that. And, judging by the destinations of it's pupils, neither do Oxbridge/Russell Group..

So ignorant that you aren't even aware you've been ignorant! A lot of the things you've posted about the faith are complete nonsense.

None of my RE teachers were a bit of a joke and neither is the subject.

@BertrandRussell

Awkward.

Here we are playing 'highly selective' top trumps. I know I'd win or at least am odds on favourite simply based on the school I work at but neither of us will prove who we are.

Hmm. What to do? At least they weren't taking Sociology or Womens Studies eh? I'm sure there's common ground between us knowing they're a waste of paper and school fees.

JJPP

"None of my RE teachers were a bit of a joke and neither is the subject."

According to ...

Not playing games. Just stating facts.

According to me. Two of mine had PhDs in theology and were excellent teachers. It's incredibly rude to suggest ALL teachers of a subject are jokes.

PhDs and became teachers?

What held them back from academic greatness?

Not many teachers have doctorates. Most get by with a post grad. Some get Masters. It seems telling that you need a PhD in RE (or similar) to become a teacher!

Several teachers at my school had doctorates in various subjects. Its a shame that you scoff at it being a valid career choice for very educated people. Some of them were quite inspiring which was fantastic for students.

But anyway, people in general.do not know enough about religions which is why RE is useful as a subject. If you don't want to learn about other religions then fine, but don't go around stating 'facts' when you don't know what you're talking about.

NextDay, you are about as ignorant a poster on Catholicism as I have encountered here on MN, and that is saying a lot.

I was most surprised that a RC Bishop would have an issue with the IB ToK, given the number of RC IB schools that I am familiar with, each one existing under licence from the diocese in which it is located, and subject to periodic scrutiny to ascertain whether it is actually a Catholic school.

So I looked up your quote, and lo and behold, it was not a Bishop but an administrator in the diocese of St Paul, Minnesota who wrote it.

I went to state school, and some of the science and the humanities teachers had Ph.D
They were v matter of fact about it

Reanimated I am not convinced it is religion that is the cause of the world's problems. Yes religious fanatics kill innocent people and this is horrific. But the masses are not all religious fanatics , this is a very sick minority.

It is the leaders of the day, on both sides , who play on the obvious mistrust between the different religions and cultures, to feed the drive to continue fighting to gain more power, and control ( over land, oil ).

Exactly what did the OP think was going to happen when she sent her kids to a private religious school?