What do we think.....would this improve grades at secondary level?

[Verbena37]

I was thinking whilst chatting to two teacher friends today......what if, rather than continuing the primary (mainly KS 1 and 2 rather than reception), primary schools employed specialist teachers in ALL subjects?

I honestly think this could dramatically improve teaching and outcomes. So instead of a teacher, for example doing a degree in education or a degree in history and then doing a PGCE), they do their specialist primary subject (maths/English/science/French/PE/Humanities and music and then do a PCGE.

After that, they teach from year 1-6 only in their specialist subject.
Obviously many primaries already employ specialist language, PE and music specialist teachers but surely this proposal would be cheaper and more effective (for continuity) way of teaching.

Wouldn't specialist teachers from year 1 ensure a better quality of teaching ....especially in core subjects? I'm really NOT trying to annoy current primary teachers but just looking at an easy way to update and improve our state education system.

The two teacher friends both agreed that it was a possible idea that could work,

How much is 'very large amounts' NewStatesman. A morning/afternoon a week? Two afternoons a week?

Which subjects do you think are suitably academic? I'm guessing art is out alongside gardening, cooking and handicrafts.

You appear to be confusing religious education with faith.

RE is so much more than teaching a religion (of which there is not enough time to squeeze into 1 hour a week trust me) but about exploring the world through history and ideology. Ignorance breeds intolerance, the more you know about different ways of thinking the less likely you are to just dismiss them as being wrong or not "normal"

So suffolk let's call that lesson history and ideology then.....you don't actually need 12 years worth of being taught about religion to be tolerant of it. It's a simple concept.....spend a few weeks teaching kids at the right stage of their school the basics of each religion with their traditional customs (some people pray to Allah, some people pray to God and celebrate the birth of a man called Jesus etc etc). Then that's it.
Voila.
Why go on?
At home.....yes, should parents practice a religion.

Then replace that RE lesson with something else......business studies, gardening, more maths and literacy, more art etc.

So what are the basics of each religion that should be covered in your opinion?

The origin of the religion
Customs and traditions
Quick facts (how many people believe/where are they from etc).

Then at GCSE/ A level, if you want to study theology, then fine but before that, keep it basic and not weekly.

And before you say I didn't mention the history of religion.....I did GCSE history....there is plenty of history of religion in all aspects of the history curriculum.

Which customs and traditions? I can spend 6 weeks on each religion for that alone

Also I notice you make no mention of critical thinking in your basic curriculum, the very thing Ofsted praises RE on providing students.

What facts would you include specifically. You cannot say x number are Buddhist for example without going into which branch of Buddhism they follow and why it's different from the others yet comes under the name of Buddhism.
Origins of which religions?
What about religions that have different branches that originated in different ways?

But why on earth do you need to? That illustrates my point exactly! If humans are to be truly tolerant of all religions, then surely, the basics is all that's needed.

If my children were honestly being taught 6 weeks on one religion's customs and traditions, I'd be thinking something needs changing and the RE curriculum needs reducing.

It's tricky because you're an RE teacher and I'm an atheist ????.

If critical thinking cannot be taught within other subjects other than RE (which of course it is), then it's a poor tale.

Holy books? Would you include those? That's half a term on each religion.

Key leaders/inspirational people? That's half a term on each religion

Beliefs and questions? Another half a term

Worship practices? You know the drill

Celebrations and Festivals?
Symbols and Artefacts?
Journey of Life & Death?
Beliefs and Actions in the World?
Rights and Responsibilities?
Ethics?
Expressions of Spirituality?
Inter-faith dialogue?

Why do you assume I'm not an atheist?

A page of reading wiki for each religion should suffice.
I cannot see how any of the skills you profess come from learning RE, cannot be taught and learnt in every other curriculum subject.....only without the religious aspect.

Hmm, I didn't assume you weren't an atheist......just that being an RE teacher, I assume you agree with the teaching of RE?

Wiki?! Oh please, at least research the very thing you're trying to deride. You have a clear prejudice against religion which is very reason why young people need RE, so they avoid assuming their bubble is the only way of looking at life.

The teaching of RE that includes atheism. I teach RE, I don't teach faith.

and the list.......

Why?
Yes, it's a way of creating more stuff for the kids to do (artwork on Buddhism for example) but I'd rather them be learning about a whole host of other topics before I'd choose religion.

Once you've taught them to tolerate others' beliefs, why would you need to teach them in fine detail all about a religion? They learn that in their 'church' and with their parents.

Teach them about engineering, about saving the environment, about womens rights, about the history of the IRA, about how to design and grow a Mediterranean garden but weekly RE, in my mind, is unnecessary.

Once you've taught them to tolerate others' beliefs, why would you need to teach them in fine detail all about a religion? They learn that in their 'church' and with their parents.

Because every child is a member of all faith communities (!) take a look at USA, see how religion is treated there and then come tell me that's a world your want your children to live in because there is no way I want my daughters to live in a society like that.

You could probably make the same argument about history. Most of the skills in that could be taught in other areas of the curriculum.

I was thinking you might soon say I'm prejudice against religion. I haven't said or inferred that anywhere.

All I've said is that I believe in depth religion can be taught at home rather than in school. Speaking as a parent of two children who both attend/attended a C of E school, they have Jesus and God spurted at them all day long, every day. .....as if it were proven to be true. It's wrong. No school should be faith school.

Anyway, this has greatly veered off my original post about specialist teachers....oops !

Well if they were at my old middle school they wouldn't have had that in my lessons believe me (I happen to agree about faith schools despite teaching in them) as I taught RE the way I would in any school regardless of faith or not. The fact is I'm a very different religion to usually found in Suffolk and my pupils found my lessons fascinating because I wasn't coming from the traditional CofE RE teacher/indoctrination route.

A child (or adult) can be part of an all faith community without knowing every single detail about that religion. For goodness sake.....I couldn't tell you a Hail Mary but my sister in law is Catholic. I don't hate her, I'm not mean to her, I love her. I have a friend who is a Jehovah's Witness and she is lovely and has taught me much about her religion.....but I didn't know she was a Witness until six months after I knew her.....it made no difference. I'm totally okay with people's faith because my parents taught me to respect everybody and their religion.

A page of reading wiki for each religion should suffice

Actually you might be on to something. We could open up huge amounts of time in the school day for other things if we just pointed children to the appropriate wiki page in all curriculum areas. Obviously some skills would need to be taught differently. Frees up loads of planning time too.