...to expect students and parents to take my subject seriously?

[TeacherAnonymous123]

Issue coming from another thread I posted, so thought I would ask for people's opinions.

I teach Religious Studies at a Catholic Secondary School. As it is my subject, I am clearly biased, but I believe that students learning about other religions and cultures is extremely important for their development and attitude towards the world and other people.

As it is a Catholic school, students must take RS at GCSE. Their first exam in it is tomorrow morning and some of them are still apathetic, telling me that parents have said not to bother trying as it isn't an important subject and it doesn't matter if they fail.

Obviously this leads to a battle in lesson which I cannot win as I do not have support from parents.

So parents - do you think RS is an important and relevant subject? If not, why not?

My daughter took a full GCSE in RE rather than the compulsory half GCSE. I didn’t realise at the time what a useful subject it was for her. By studying other religions and related cultures she learnt many transferable skills such as critical thinking, how to debate contentious issues, challenge incorrect assumptions, analysis and impact of behaviours etc. This is more because the subject is about beliefs- often no right or wrong answer - but you need to be able to understand the concepts to present a reasoned and coherent case or argument.

I agree with other posters that the problem here with disengagement is about the subject being compulsory. However as the OP points out if parents choose to send their child to a secular school they should be prepared to support (if not believe in) their culture. So telling their kids it doesn’t matter is not on - very rude.

I feel just like this! We had to choose one "soft subject" and I chose Art and Design and it was the one I did not get a top grade in (I am not very good at drawing). I would SO much have wanted to do French, which would have helped enormously in later life. But it was not an option. Although I did once teach myself the basics before going to Paris...

So as I said before it sounds more like a topic or project than an entire years long course. In fact you’ve pretty much summed it all up in one post.

Anonymousteacher123 has replied bravely and courteously to some posters who seem to think that Religious Education is synonymous with religious instruction and dogma.
RE in secular, and increasingly in religious, schools focus on world religions, tolerance, discussions about law and religion, questions such as ‘is prison for punishment or reform?’ Or ‘Do you agree with capital punishment ?’ Kindness, tolerance and helpfulness are promoted.
in RE lessons high school students have the opportunity to discuss many moral issues which they often don’t have in other subject.
Some people who are against Religious Education in schools are woefully ill informed about what is actually taught.

I must admit I can’t remember a single thing I learnt in RS (as we called it). It was a long time ago but I can’t remember a single aspect of it. My kids both had to take GCSEs in it (school had a chapel but low level religious) but it was the one subject neither were too concerned about the grade they got especially when compared to maths etc, they did ok though a 7 or 8.

@willWillSmithsmith well yes - a lot of the basics are usually covered at primary school in age appropriate ways and then in slightly more depth in lower secondary.
There are a lot of different religions and cultures out there - you can't teach it all in one "topic" course and the way it is taught at age 5 will be very different to 15.
My comment about learning the basics was in response to those who said there should be no religion taught at all in schools.

So many posters saying along the lines of "send your kid to a Catholic school then expect to be forced to take RE"

But people don't get to pick and choose where their kids go to school (unless they're paying). The local authority awards school places and sometimes they're church schools -as is the case for us.
This is an extract from the humanist society website "it should be noted, however, that
unfortunately appeals on the grounds that
you do not wish your child to be sent to a
religious school are almost never successful.
As the School Admissions Appeals Code
states, whilst ‘the Human Rights Act 1998
confers a right of access to education’, ‘this
right does not extend to securing a place at
a particular school.’

So maybe they didn't want to end up in a catholic school at all?

The majority of kids who go to Catholic schools especially high school, have chosen it. It may be different for C of E schools and primary, where they are the only school in a village. Most non Catholics have to fake a damascene conversion and have their children baptised to get in. Then they need to suck it up. My kids go to Catholic school because I am Catholic. They have decided they are atheist, as have many in their class. Tough they still have to do RE.

@Itsrainingten ,

‘So many posters saying along the lines of "send your kid to a Catholic school then expect to be forced to take RE"’

I wonder how many are forced into a catholic school and how many choose it because it is the best school in its area but, nonetheless, would prefer it not to be religious.

I also take a bit of a ‘so what’ attitude to those who are compelled to study it, despite not being interested or feeling it has value. There are vanishingly few people who do careers where a part of it won’t be boring, and sometimes one will be asked to do pointless tasks. It is actually a valuable life lesson to accept that sometimes you have to do boring and ,what to you may seem pointless, tasks.

Also, when you look at most white collar jobs (outside academia) what you need to do (simplistically) is be able to problem solve, which is where maths and the sciences come in, and communicate clearly both in a written and oral format, which is where English and the humanities are helpful. I just, in that sense, don’t really see why History or Geography would be any more useful than RS.

My younger daughter took a degree in RI. She is now qualified to teach it too.

@Needmorelego is clearly giving a very simplistic example of how the subject is taught. Obviously the GCSE syllabus actually looks at far more complicated and nuanced issues and how people who follow different religions look at and react to those issues.

For example, here is a question from the 2022 AQA GCSE paper for those who chose to study Buddhism as one of their two religions:
‘For Buddhists, craving is the main cause of suffering.’
Evaluate this statement. In your answer you should:
• refer to Buddhist teaching
• give reasoned arguments to support this statement
• give reasoned arguments to support a different point of view
• reach a justified conclusion.

@TeacherAnonymous123 was not very courteous when accusing those of us who disagree with her of lacking critical thinking skills, while spectacularly failing to make her own case for RE to be a subject in its own right.

I went to a Catholic school that took its Catholicism very seriously. RS was absolutely seen as a 'proper' subject. That said, we learned next to nothing about other religions. We did an entire GCSE paper on St Mark's Gospel, which was more than we did on every other world religion put together throughout my entire secondary education!

@TheCompactPussycat exactly - the curriculum starts off simplistic because it starts at age 4.
A geography/art/science lesson for 4 year olds won't be the same as the ones at GCSE level. You need to start at the beginning for anything you learn.

Apologies for the tone, which is unintentional. Yes, I do come across more strongly than I intend; others have pointed that out. I'm trying. But, well, sorry, meanwhile. I don't mean to be aggressive or defensive.

Thing is, I just think, if you're to take your subject at all seriously, you should judge other people's religious beliefs when those beliefs are demonstrably and obviously silly.

A chemistry teacher who told her pupils about phlogiston but didn't point out the truth about it (no such thing) ... or a physics teacher who was asked about teleology and Aristotelian final causes as explanatory of the motion of the planets and didn't point out the flaws in such notions ... such teachers would rightly be held to be unserious.

Of course you teach about transubstantiation. But do you teach about its background in Aristotelian/Thomist metaphysics of substantial forms etc., and point out no-one (outside the Vatican perhaps) thinks any of that makes sense, or has done since the seventeenth century?

[Here's something Anthony Kenny (distinguished philosopher, famous ex-Jesuit) had to say: "... the metaphysics we were taught appeared to save the coherence of transubstantiation only at the cost of calling in question our knowledge of every material object. For all I could tell, my typewriter might be Benjamin Disraeli transubstantiated, since all I could see were mere accidents ..." (Kenny, A Path from Rome, P.72) Kenny surely is right about this.]

I don't say you shouldn't tell children some people believe in transubstantiation and some don't. That's fine. Just not enough.

--Because you can't really be thought of as engaging seriously in your pedagogy unless you also tell your pupils some people think transubstantiation is absolute nonsense ... and why, ... and where they got such a ridiculous belief from. (And, yes, that it's very much part of acceptable contemporary thought that it îs ridiculous ... and why this should be so.) Otherwise, yes, you're simply gilding the lily and selling your pupils short.

Do you tell children why most serious people think transubstantiation, Divine Command Theory, the efficacy of prayer, and all the rest is such a load of tosh? Does your subject include such balance? If not, it's not to be taken seriously and starts to look - yes - like disguised indoctrination.

(Think of the chemistry teacher: "Some people believe in phlogiston. Others don't." Is that a serious approach to chemistry if it stops there?)

We share most of those opinions,

My children, when small, were always particularly taken with religious myths. (Read as bedtime stories, not as part of RE or RS, which I deplore as you know.) I recall they really enjoyed the plagues of Egypt, for instance. "Aargh! Not the frogs! Anything but the frogs!"

Krishna was good, too, I recall. (Krishna and Arishtosura, anyone? Takes the bull by the horns.)

And, yes, some grandchildren are particularly taken with Greek myths currently.

But it seems as sensible making a special school subject of, say, Hogwarts, or Middle Earth, as to do so with these religious myths. No?

Not guilty. No Flying Spaghetti (though I understand the logical point there). Vitamins only when evidenced and NHS prescribed. No anti-aging. Aging is good anyway; why would anyone seriously be anti-aging?

I don't think it hard to show the need for humanities, either. Or education beyond vocational skills. But that's another thread.

@vawodoc The subject could be renamed "Cultural Studies" I suppose ?

Sure. And then include, for example, Romanticism, Football, perhaps Popular Music and Social Media ... and ... oh, and so on.

Fine.

@vawodoc well yes...why not?
Social media comes under media studies already - and also PHSE (ie how to be safe on social media).
Schools learn about popular music in music lessons (as well as traditional and classical). Football - well the actual sport is already taught and played and the stats etc often are incorporated in maths lessons.
Romanticism? Isn't that poetry and literature.....oh. That's done already.
School is busy. It's amazing how much is taught.

No I think it's useless and my dc attend a catholic school,
The vast majority of apprenticeships or 6th forms want you to achieve a minimum of 6 decent gcse grades with maths, English and science being the vital ones.
My son is not academic along with many others in the school. All his efforts need to be going to these vital subjects in order for him to get passing grades.
I don't know why children who struggle academically still have to take 10 GCSE's (or at least they do at this school) I would have said maximum 8 would be more than fine.
I'm also encouraging geography but have told him to forget about his language exam as well - equally useless for him.

It’s impossible to understand history without an understanding of religion!

This.

Imagine people learning their times tables and thinking that's Maths covered lol

Religion has been the cause of so many historical wars and atrocities and yet here we are, same thing happening today. We never learn.

I can't help thinking we'd all be happier without any form of religion.

At the end of the day, we are in the state we're in, so of course I allowed my child to visit places of worship. Kids need to understand what the causes are of World conflicts and not be ignorant about the lives of those they will meet in everyday life.

I even allowed mine to attend a CofE Primary (because there are no non-CofE primaries around here!) and he's plodded along OK, even if he has pissed off the teachers by telling everyone Jesus was actually born in October and that Xmas/Easter etc are stolen Pagan holidays.

Attaboy 😁

I’m not against children learning about other religions fairly briefly, but if it’s going to be a compulsory GCSE subject that is supposed to make us more knowledgeable about the way others live in this world, more tolerant and better able to understand and defuse conflict it, needs to be cultural studies not religious studies. There is far more to how people live and the things that they end up prioritising than their religions. If the issue is the need to grapple with big questions, philosophy would be better. Religious studies is too narrow a focus for considering big questions.

Religious studies is only worthwhile if you think there is actually a spiritual element to life. Having it be a compulsory subject is a form of indoctrination that children shouldn’t be subjected too. I can see why a Catholic School might take a different view, but then I’m against religious schools too!