To think Religious education in schools should be replaced by AI education

[IsitRainin]

Looking at how quickly AI is advancing, our education system needs to be overhauled.
There's no benefit of subjects like Religious education in today's world and people can learn about it from their family. This should be replaced by AI studies and other STEM subjects which will prepare the Children to be ready and up to date with future advancement and at par with children from China, USA and rest of the world.

That was an example of why the subject is useful - I learnt a huge amount before that point. Moreover, I'd not have got to A' level without compulsory RE and then an optional GCSE first. Just like any subject. You're not going to get mathematics PhDs without maths at school.

Maybe they would have the time if thry didn't spend most of their time trying to work through bad behaviour, teaching things parents are too lazy to teach ie common sense, having to hand out party invitations and deal with parents who let rip because their child was given a pencil that was blunt where the head teachers child was given a sharp one and they will spend 20 years being bitter about it, then there are the schools parents and whatsapp drama's of parents who act less mature than the children

I feel like @TheLudditesWereRight is just arguing about semantics. All the things they grudgingly concede might be useful with regard to culture, food, etc ARE taught in RS along with the philosophical ideas ..my own kids learned about Kant and Descartes in Y7. The subject includes factual info about the beliefs religions hold on their founders, holy books etc in the same way that history teaches facts about World War II and English teaches facts about the society in which Shakespeare or Dickens was writing in. Emphasis on BELIEFS. No RS in schools teaches that this IS the truth, but what different religions believe and how they behave as a result. You could equally well call the subject sociology with a religions module but it would be the same thing and, as stated many times now, a lot of schools called it RPE.

You have my sympathy. I think it is ridiculous that schools need to provide the very basics "a sharp pencil or glue stick" bloody heck.
In Ireland you bring your own stationery, and pay 45 euro yearly for any extras, there is a supply for anyone who doesn't have any, but not the whole class, invites are banned from classrooms.
Not the responsibility of the teachers.
Let teachers teach. Ffs.

That is my point though. People on here always bang on about RE being sooooo important when actually there is zero need for it to be anything more than a module alongside all sorts of useful cultural knowledge. I have yet to hear a compelling case as to why it is so much more important in promoting peace and understanding than any other intercultural topic or why if it is so important it is not mandatory in lots of other places and why a class lasting less than an hour a week is supposed to be so massively impactful in promoting peace and tolerance. Tommy Robinson did mandatory RE. Didn't work on him, did it?

@TheLudditesWereRight all you are arguing is that we should call it something different. How petty. A lot of schools already do anyway. As for your Tommy Robinson "point"...plenty of people go through all the subjects at school and never learn anything, so shall we not bother then? What a ridiculous argument.

So you just want to call it something different on the timetable? And then you'd be happy for it to take up more time?

I can't do maths for shit...by your logic we should remove that from the timetable. too.

I would make it optional and reduce it to, like, a week or so, personally. My main beef is with the illogical, parochial and massively overblown arguments about its importance as a subject.

It's not more important than other subjects or ways of learning though. RE is often more about the factual basics of a religion than "promoting peace and tolerance". Some of it is quite gruesome (crucifixion for example).
"Peace and tolerance" will more likely be taught through books such as Anne Frank's Diary or Boy in the Striped Pyjamas - that comes under English Literature not RE.
But you can't learn about the Holocaust unless you know about Judaism.
As for Tommy Robinson just because he is a bigot doesn't mean he didn't learn the facts of a religion.
Unfortunately though an awful lot of what is taught in school goes in one ear and out the other and is completely forgotten after the relevant exams are done.

Please don't use/read The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas. Many Holocaust charities have strongly discouraged it's use due to its inaccuracy and manipulating people to feel sympathy for the Nazis.

Do kids need to know the basics of Judaism to understand the Holocaust? Yes. Does that need to be taught as an entire subject for years on end? No. You could fit a kid-appropriate explanation into an hour in a History lesson.

It's probably the one subject that has the least amount of time spent on it.
I've just remembered my daughter's secondary did everything on a two week timetable - Week A, Week B.
RE was actually only on one of the weeks.
So one lesson (about 45 minutes) every two weeks.

But you don't seem to understand what is actually taught (or how a school timetable works, the wider curriculum or how young people learn!)

Anyway, parents have the right to remove their children from these lessons if they wish. So while here is a statutory requirement for schools to teach it, parents can choose not to have their child participate.

Really?
The levels and understanding of something being taught are very different when a child is 5 compared to being 13.

You view education as a very transactional process don't you? Like it's a tick box exercise?

So as above, hormone-fuelled teens are learning universal peace and understanding in 20 minutes of RE a week. Compelling evidence of its crucial importance to their knowledge if the Western artistic canon.

@TheLudditesWereRight my child could read when she was 5 - does that mean she should never have done an English lesson again?

Not at all. I disagree with the view that RE is more deserving of a protected timetable carve-out than any number of other areas of knowledge.

Not just teens.
It's taught from the age of 4 to 14/16
Why do you keep saying that RE is just teaching "Peace and Understanding"?
It's not. It's mostly factual information.

But you don't even understand what is being taught so how can you make an informed decision about it?

Because one of the main arguments for keeping it as a mandatory school subject, advanced multiple times on this thread, is that it is uniquely placed to advance intercultural understanding, peace and harmony.

@TheLudditesWereRight It's actually not.
It's compulsory but not on the national curriculum so schools can choose how and what to teach.
Parents can withdraw their child if they want to.
(England anyway...)
How does that make it "protected"?

what makes you think I don't understand? I know what is taught. I just don't think it is as vital or effective as people claim.

maybe because it ISN'T taught enough and in a decent depth 🤔

Anyway I have to go out now so peace out ladies ✌