religious education

[jen333]

Has anone exercised their right to withdraw their child from RE classes? If so how has the school reacted and what have they offered as an alternative?

I think you are misinformed, Jen.

The philosophy and ethics courses have been offered since I did my GCSEs in the very late 80s/ early 1990s. I remember friends studying responses to abortion back then. Certainly, it has existed ever since I've been a RE teacher (1997). So the philosophy and ethics course has been going a good 20 years or so. Hardly a recent development.

Unless you are at a school of a religious nature, then RE has got to be non denominational. That means they cannot tell children 'we believe that Jesus...'. It's all about learning what other people believe and exploring whether those beliefs have any value for us (the A02 side of the course). However, most importantly it teaches children to question and to think.

When I taught this subject at secondary, students often used to say that it was their favourite subject because in RS there are no right answers, it is all down to the quality of the debate / argument put forward. Students really like that, for once they're not told what the right answer is, and they have to think and decide for themselves. I remember holding debates and discussions over whether ghosts were real in a year 8 class. Whilst the children didn't necessarily change their minds on what they thought about ghosts, they sure got one hell of a lot of out thinking about what constitutes proof / evidence, whether other people's testimony is enough to believe something, and if so under what conditions. Etc etc...

And that's before I start talking about having children from different cultures sharing their beliefs and values with each other, and learning about each other's religion, and learning to get on.

RS is such a valuable subject in a multi cultural society, that it makes me sad to see people write it off, before they even know what it involves. Done well, it is an excellent subject and one my students have often valued. It always seem to be the parents that have a problem with it!

I am not misinformed. I have an opinion ...OK ..RE (otherwise known as ethics and philosophy) taught very well, may be interesting and thought provoking. But ... is this always, even generally, the case?
My daughter was indoctrinated at the age of 5 at her non-deniminational primary school. My complaints fell on deaf ears and I was just told to remove her from assemblies:-(

OP
At DCs secondary school, RE in years 7, 8 and 9 is more "comparative religion, ethics and world politics" so quite interesting and useful.

When options are chosen at the end of year 9, the options form includes the slip to opt out of RE for years 10 and 11

Both my kids did so
the school encourages it because then the kids who will get bad grades in RE GCSE are doing something else
and only those who WANT to take it do so

PS
as RE is an Option in the blocks, NO child is twiddling their thumbs while others are in RE
it is an active and positive subject choice made by informed teenagers

RE isn't in the option blocks at my school; we have compulsory full course GCSE for all pupils...!

pottering
but that is silly of them really because RE is not essential in later life so kids will mess around and drag down the average grades of the school.

Employers ask about English and Maths and maybe science, but RE is not a deal breaker with B&Q

I think it is pretty essential in later life :)

Also, I don't have pupils messing around and dragging down grades any more than any other subject. The pupils I teach engage with the subject and do well at it.

It's just thinking - different points of view, different reasons and different justifications. It's the ideal subject for stroppy teens!

That sounds like a good compromise TalkinPeace. From what I understand RE is a compulsory part of the curriculum for yrs 7, 8 & 9 in all schools (unless child is withdrawn). At the high school my daughter is most likely to attend, the gcse is also compulsory as the school considers three years have already been invested in teaching the subject so its a waste not to. If enough parents make it clear that they would rather their daughter is given an option at yr 9 than for it to be mandatory, then there would be no need for some girls to be withdrawn and sitting around twiddling their thumbs as you suggest. Food for thought ... thank you.

Obviously PotteringAlong, I don't consider RE to be essential for adult life. Some teens may have a genuine interest in it but many probably don't and would rather be doing something else. I have been told that due to government pressure on secondary schools (to increase levels at english and maths) the optional subjects at GCSE have had to be reduced from 5 to 3. If a teen is particularly interested in the arts or sport then I suspect they will feel particularly resentful having to spend five years studying RE when they'd rather not.

Pottering
I'm an accountant, DH is a science lecturer, DD wants to be a medical researcher, DS wants to be a flight engineer

please explain where random belief in a badly edited 2000 year old book fits into that?

I totally agree with Pottering

Talkin Have you not read any of the many posts in which knowledgeable people have explained what is on the curriculum ?

What on earth has please explain where random belief in a badly edited 2000 year old book fits into that? got to do with what we are discussing ?

As an aside - there's an awful lot of discussion of ethics that has to be done alongside the development of new Science techniques (your dh and your dd in particular)

I have lived half a century, have two adult sons - one a surgeon, the other a civil engineer, a daughter at junior school (wants to be a dancer/singer:)). Have lived quite a life, often living abroad, with many many relatives and close friends from various parts of the world. I can honestly say that I cannot think of one person I am related to, have known, or worked with, for whom religion has been a serious issue. I fail to see why my daughter is now forced to study it for almost 12 years!

Talkin - we have a similar family. I still think that RE is relevant to DD's education. Even if we assume that RE is all about religions and leave out the (excellent) philosophical, moral and ethical content, I think that knowing about religion is part of a rounded education. As Andrew Motion said, students struggle with English Literature due to lack of knowledge of the Bible.

While you might go down the 'why would I need to study English Literature' line of argument, it is all about having a rounded education and an awareness of culture and society. National and international politics is often very religious too.

How could you understand Northern Ireland without an understanding of the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism (and the historical context)? How can we deal with the anti-Islamic sentiment in society without teaching our children something about Islam and how it is practiced, including by non-radical Muslims?

I'm not religious and would like for Collective Worship to be abolished, but I would like DD to study RE at secondary level. I think that the primary curriculum is too limited to get sufficient understanding of a wide variety of religions and some of the issues in RE are not easily accessible to primary children.

Backforgood / Pico
I totally support compulsory RE at primary schools - we do NOT want the problem in the US where those of faith do not understand each other.
I'm ambivalent about compulsory RE up to year 9
but I do genuinely think it should NOT be compulsory to GCSE.
THose who want to study it, fine. But those who do not should be allowed to drop it.
I consider DCs school very enlightened in that approach.,

PS Pico
Schools of an openly religious nature are allowed to each almost solely about their own religion
so Muslims do NOT learn about other faiths
and Catholics are NOT taught about protestantism

I studied philosophy at university and A-level, as well as the full RE GCSE.

The ability to think through an argument, listening to all other points of view and deciding on your own opinion, whilst still being respectful of others is a wonderful lifelong skill.

Many RE teachers are athiest and have no desire to teach a Sunday school about what you MUST do, cos it says so in the Bible. That isn't their aim. This is only amplified at GCSE stage where the main aim is getting good GCSE results!!

TheresLotsOfFarmyardAnimals - but many RE teachers do teach in a Sunday school way, and many are not athiest. This is my personal experience.

The subject is still called Religious Education, not Philosophy.

TalkinPeace - we are heading towards the situation where those of different faiths do not understand each other by the government supporting faith schools and therefore segregating our children.

Had anyone out there removed their child from RE classes??

Not in non-den state secondary schools they don't. It doesn't affect the facts that they are teaching.

It is along the lines of:

Abortion - different religions have different beliefs about if this is right or wrong. Strict catholics believe that it is wrong because of x,y, & z. Protestant/Anglican Christians believe this, that and the other.

I think if your daughter is interested in religion, then you should let her explore it on her own anyway. She won't always listen to or agree with your views on the matter.

Does that take six years of study including a compulsory exam?
I already am very well aware of the fact that children very often don't share their parents' views:-) My daughter has already decided that re is very boring and she says most of her friends believe in science not god:-)

Does that take six years of study including a compulsory exam?
I already am very well aware of the fact that children very often don't share their parents' views:-) My daughter has already decided that re is very boring and she says most of her friends believe in science not god:-)

Talkin - I entirely disagree with faith schools for various reasons including the lack of comparative religion in their RE teaching.

I have to say I think some of the RE apologists on here are being rather misleading, or are seriously uniformed, about the general state of RE courses. The posters here might well have positive personal experiences about courses in comparative religion, or philosophy and ethics that they rightly wish to share, but there are syllabuses other than that bonkers Northern Ireland one I posted for which it is possible for a school to configure a course to ONLY talk about one religion. AQA Religious Studies A is a particularly ghastly example. Its own specification states that it is possible to "focus on the study of one religion, including some aspects of its beliefs, sources of authority, practices, organisation, scripture and ethics. The following are examples:
• a study of Christianity and St Mark’s Gospel
• a study of Christianity and Christianity: Ethics
• a study of Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholicism: Ethics" and so on - verbatim from the AQR web site. That is just not remotely good enough for an educational function. If a school has configured their course in that way I would avoid it like the plague. It's a course approved for use from June 2014!!! I would say more like 1614. So the OP most certainly should check on the syllabus on offer before making a decision.

And how many students actually study that course, rogue dad?

The issue is, if you send your child to a faith school (say a Roman Catholic School) then it is perfectly legal to teach your child within the remits of that faith, and so there are GCSE exams which look specifically at Catholicism for example. These are like the AQA you mentioned.

However, the overwhelmingly popular GCSE course for most students is OCR philosophy and ethics. Again, this theoretically allows students to explore the views of one religion, but if you look closely at the mark scheme, if students do that they fail! To get the higher marks, they need to explore the discussion on the ethical issues and this means looking at varied (and often opposing views). So when considering the view that abortion is wrong, to get a good grade students are required to explore the arguments for and against, including the reasons for beliefs for and against. Typically, students might contrast the views of a religious person and an atheist, or they could look at different types of Christians and explore the ideas of fundamentalists versus more liberal Christians, or compare religions.
This is far more typical of the experience of the average GCSE student.

Well it's a good job that we don't let all pupils opt out of anything that they find boring. Teenagers would have a lot of private study time.

Really, unless you have any reason to believe that the teachers are somehow using their RE teaching time to indoctrinate children in the religion of their choice, I don't see why you need to withdraw from the subject.

Of course teens should not be able to opt out of any core subects that are likely to be of need/of use. Religion has very little relevance to many people, and yes, I do have reason to believe that RE classes have been used as an opportunity to indoctrinate.
Religion should not be compulsory at senior gcse level.

Religion has very little relevance to many people Erm...Israel?!

yes, I do have reason to believe that RE classes have been used as an opportunity to indoctrinate I think that you should just keep an eye out for it happening at your DD's school and then pull her out if you have any concerns. It seems quite premature to do so before you've got any proof that this is happening at her school.

There are many subjects that people deem to be less important than others but you don't get a choice in the matter. Personally, I don't have much use for my physics GCSE but I still had to take it.