'we said thanks to God today mummy!' Really??

[unexpectediteminbaggingarea]

Apparently a 'special lady' came and told my son and his class that God gave them a special gift so they should all say thank you to him. And they did.

Does this kind of shit go on everywhere? It's not a church school. I am an athiest. My son, aged 4, is now apparently not. He says that, thinking about it, he now thinks God is real and the reason you can't see him is because he 'lives in a different country, maybe London'.

I'm actually quite pissed off about it (not the London bit, that was funny), but if it's what happens everywhere or is some kind of statutory thing I suppose I'll have to suck it up. If it's not I may write to the head.

Although I do think more time on geography and less time on God might be better for DS .

So many strong feelings - I do respect that, though have to admit also mildly surprised.

I would mind if dds came home having been taught creationist stuff as fact, for sure.

But having just been at Harvest assembly, am not at all bothered by dd2's class having chosen to write a prayer with 'dear God' at the beginning and 'amen' at the end - though I am not a Christian, or religious. The rest of the assembly was totally unreligious, lots of of thanks but not aimed at a deity, just general. For some reason, this one class chose prayer rather than poem - and afaik their teacher is not religious either

Either way, dd2 - who is not quite 6 - is quite comfortable making up her own mind about God, and death, and all sorts of other things and I just listen with interest. I know full well she will change her mind a million times, and is happy being curious and trying things on for size in the meantime.

I do realize this isn't the same as knowing one's child is being taught stories as facts, to the exclusion of choice. But still, overall I think most parents I know are pretty unbothered about occasional songs or prayers thrown in the mix.

How sensible,Elibean. I don't think anyone is set in stone-who knows what I will think in 10yrs time and I certainly have changed many times since the age of 6yrs.

What's wrong with teaching creationism in schools if it's true that children make up their own minds?

It wouldn't be wrong to teach that some people believe in creationism. But it would be very wrong to teach that creationism is the truth in the absence of any proof (and indeed in the presence of some quite convincing proof to the contrary).

Lee teaching creationism in RE as a manifestation of a certain brand of Christianity is not a problem. Teaching creationism as if it is a scientific theory that has equal scientific weight with the theory of evolution is a problem. But that's a whole other thread.

Yes but quite a few of the God-botherers on here have been saying that it doesn't matter much what you tell children, since they make their own minds up about everything anyway.

We had our meeting with the HT. We had a strategy worked out: tell him we want the RE policy and the scheme of work. Follow up by outlining our concerns that, whatever is being taught, the message that DD is coming home with is that she is being told that she should believe in God.

I took a notebook, to psych him out

Anyway, he was quite reasonable, immediately agreed to provide us with the documents. He thought it was DD's class teacher who taught RE, and we both thought that he had a bit of a lightbulb moment when we told him that it wasn't. He assured us that he would stress to this teacher that she must be careful how she expressed what she was saying as 'some people believe...'

He said all the things we had hoped to hear about celebrating & respecting different faiths and non faiths. He explained that in assembly they have a 'moment of reflection' in preference to prayer. He told us that the school has a new RE co ordinator who is re vamping things and invited us to form a parents reference group for this work. (!!)

He also made an interesting point about one value of learning RE, Christanity in particular that I had not considered. It was that so much art and literature references it, someone who did not have a basic knowledge could find themself at a disadvantage if they wished to pursue these subjects later. I hadn't thought of that, but it does make sense to me.

So, it worked out brilliantly. We are very pleased with the outcome but VERY puzzled about why he just didn't give us the information to start with!!! So much stress that could have been avoided!!

Thanks to those who have offered support and thoughts. Much appreciated.

aaand relax!

It wouldn't be wrong to teach that some people believe in creationism. But it would be very wrong to teach that creationism is the truth in the absence of any proof (and indeed in the presence of some quite convincing proof to the contrary).

Spot on. All agreed on that?

So...can we therefore say 'It wouldn't be wrong to teach that some people believe in the existence of a loving God. But it would be very wrong to teach that the existence of a loving God is the truth in the absence of any proof ...

In many schools that is exactly the message implicit in their 'collective worship' - that there is a loving god. For which there's no proof.

Grimma - for me, we can definitely draw that as a reasonable conclusion!

God botherer is a respectful term is it for those who are Christians? Respectful? Multicultural? Worthy of equality and diversity [hmmm].

Sounds a sensible Head to me. I have always said that you need a knowledge of religions to understand history, literature, art and current affairs.
I don't know how anyone can treat it as fact- it is a matter of faith and all you can say is 'I believe' or 'other people believe' or 'Christians believe' or 'Buddhists believe' etc etc- and that includes atheist parents who if speaking of 'flying spaghetti monsters' etc should make it perfectly clear that it is a personal opinion.

Glad it has worked for you Catmint. Now you have to join the working group .

Personally I am not all that convinced by the art and literature argument. That is what Wikipedia (and other reputable works of reference...) are for. Primary school RE lessons don't necessarily teach you the things you need to work out what is going on in religious painting (Susannah and the Elders, say) - but when you need to you can look it up.

I reckon it is pretty useful for literature - you don't want to be stopping to consult wiki (or even the notes in the appendix, if the book helpfully has one) when you're reading eg some 19th C fiction.

I do think the art and literature argument is true. I have an excellent working knowledge of Christianity and have found it useful to me in both art history and literature. But that is obviously v different to teaching it as a truth rather than an optional belief.

DH and I wholeheartedly believe in God and teach our son what we believe, are active church goers, etc, but I would not agree with these beliefs being taught in a school. It is not the place.

I was shocked when I moved to a smaller school for work and they sang songs about Jesus at the Christmas program. And also when the music teacher was teaching notes and taught the high A as "angels" and the G as "God above" as we are supposed to be secular in America. TBF literally everyone in our teeny town seems to be religious, and all of the kids were aware of God, angels, etc, but you never know. I wasn't comfortable with it at all.

I am convinced by the art and literature argument. If I go to an art gallery or stately home etc I can instantly understand the paintings, ceilings etc without having the experience spoiled by having to look it up. I read all the time and again I can put everything in context.

Exotic - I agree that a working knowledge of religion is useful as context for art, lit, history and current affairs, but I don't think the current approach to RE delivers that.

RE is compulsory for 11 years. This wasn't decided on the grounds of how long it takes to build up a religious general knowledge, but because religious instruction had a historic place in the classroom that religious institutions did not want to give up.

It's not designed to meet children's educational needs but the vested interests of religious authorities - hence why children in VA faith schools don't have to study RE as religious general knowledge at all. If it is that important surely all children would have a right to this knowledge? (As with NC subjects)

There a loads of subjects of religious (and non religious) art and lit that aren't covered in the curriculum. If you walk around the National Gallery and know what's going on in Susannah and the Elders or Balthazar's Feast (or Bacchus and Ariadne or the Execution of Maximilian for that matter) it is probably not because these episodes were taught to you in school.

I don't think any general knowledge would be lost if RE was dropped altogether at KS1 and included as a NC subject when children are more intellectually mature.

Grimma - do you really think you are drawing on anything in primary school RE when you read a 19C novel though? I think you are drawing on general knowledge that comes from being well read as an adult.

But I can be interested in Hindu art, culture, history and have a working knowledge of it without having to pray about it. It's the praying bit we are all annoyed about.

Surely if they're going to use the art and literature argument, schools should also be teaching Greek and Romany myths too? Although I have a fairly good knowledge of both Christiand and Greco-Roman myths, I still struggle understanding some art unless there's a paragraph or two about the symbolism.

Suffolk - this is what the DoE website says:

"All maintained schools are required to teach RE and to have daily acts of collective worship. In VA faith schools, the syllabus is decided by the governing body in accordance with the trust deeds of the school. Foundation and VC faith schools follow the locally agreed syllabus but parents of any pupil have the right to request their child receives RE in accordance with the tenets of the faith and the school should provide such RE for these pupils."

And goodness knows what academies are required to do for RE....

Himalaya - I can remember bugger all about my primary RE TBH- it was in the 60s and I'm not sure we did much. My background probably comes more from years of Sunday school - some of the stories referred to en passant in novels were the sort of thing you'd get at quite a young age. To take an example in the book I'm letting gather dust under the bed reading, I came across Balaams ass as a child.

I find that when I'm reading 'classics' to DD, I do have to explain biblical references to her which I'd have known about at her age.

However, I do tend to agree that the way RE is taught now probably doesn't serve the 'arts and lits' particularly well. Not sure where the Greek and Roman myths should be covered - DD has had some of them in primary history (but as I've probably mentioned somewhere, that's the sort of thing I'd ensure gets read at home at various stages in age-appropriate versions)

I find the 'art and literature' argument a bit spurious tbh. I mean, I went to a Catholic school where we had endless RE lessons and mass at school and all of that for years, yet when I'm going round the National Gallery I still have no idea what I'm looking at. Am willing to accept it's just that I'm thick though.

The point is that the arts&lits thing is something RE could and (IMO) should cover but doesn't do it very well.

I reckon 'RE' should consist essentially of two parts: 'Cultural literacy' (mythological, historical and current) and 'Philosophy and Ethics'. That may be roughly what its intended to do but not all schools seem to do it very well.