Withdrawing DD from RE?

[Widget123]

I want to see if anyone’s had any experience withdrawing their children from PE? How did the school handle it etc.

My husband and I are both atheists. Our DD is 5 and is extremely interested in the universe and science. She’s now coming back from school very confused thinking that god created the world and asking if he made the Big Bang happen! This is too confusing for her, she naturally believes what her teachers tell her (why wouldn’t she) so naturally she’s taking RE as fact and it’s confusing the hell out of her.

I’m happy for her to learn about god in her own way in the future and find her own path but she’s much too young right now.

I’ve read we have the right to withdraw her from Re so simply want to see if people have had experiences with this.

I agree Jassy. I absolutely do.

I just think that the inequality between religious schools and your average comprehensive is relatively small compared to that between public/private and state schools. It's a bit like worrying about a rather yappy dog when there is a hungry tiger in the room. That doesn't mean the point is unimportant, though, I just find it odd that it is cast in that light. I am just not sure I understand the priorities of someone who is worried about the slightly more middle class intake of a faith school when not only grammar schools but also Eton and Harrow exist. It feels like the issue is really not about inequality but about a personal attitude towards religion that isn't fully being acknowledged, with the banner of equality being used to cover that up. Maybe I am wrong though. (My PIL, again, are a good example: they are very anti-religious schools on the grounds of inequality, but DH and his brother went to grammars. Like I said, though, I broadly agree with your points - I just think there are other ways of framing the same issues.

I suppose I define militant atheists as atheists who are bent on conversion. The type of person who will try to convince others they are wrong, and who thinks that their beliefs make them better than others (often, this is cast as more intelligent than others). A new kind of secular elect, if you like! I absolutely do not think all atheists are like this - in fact, I hope I'm one of the many exceptions!

Ending religious schools is less of a priority for me than the fact that many kids are growing up in poverty and don't have enough to eat, or the fact that schools are no longer able to fund basic resources
Perhaps the Church of England should pay its tax on its £8bn of assets then?

Ceara - of course it doesn't make you a bad parent! Not in the least.

I suppose I think that people often see the acquisition of critical skills in a bloodless way, as if it is somehow easy. It isn't. It involves emotions, it involves difficulties, it involves speaking truth to power in ways that are uncomfortable, it involves confronting orthodoxies and received ways of thinking. To do those things, really to do them (and not just to make a show of doing them, like my militant atheist PILs) is painful. It involves conflict and difficulty. It's just that we don't see that very often, because most people confuse critical thinking with what is actually a very uncritical adoption of liberal attitudes and capitalist realism.

I appreciate that these are burdens that it seems unfair to place on a small child. It must be horrible to watch your child suffer in that way as they grapple with new ideas. I remember myself being the same age and undergoing a very rapid conversion to Christianity and an equally rapid loss of faith a few months later, both of which were quite traumatic at the time. But, looking back, I think it was quite a developmentally important stage for me - probably the first time I had to make a decision about something by myself, for myself. I found it really stressful but I needed to do it.

That said, of course if you think there is genuine and permanent harm being done, you don't have much choice but to withdraw your child. I agree that it's appalling that you are being put in this position. It's not right, it's not tolerant, and it's definitely not pluralist.

@woman19 - absolutely. That's partly why I suggested, on the last page, that land reform (e.g. land value tax) was one really great way forward on some of those major assets.

Oh, and sectarianism is absolutely horrible,, whatever religions are involved. It's horrific. Those dealing with it have my utmost sympathies.

I am just not sure I understand the priorities of someone who is worried about the slightly more middle class intake of a faith school when not only grammar schools but also Eton and Harrow exist. It feels like the issue is really not about inequality but about a personal attitude towards religion that isn't fully being acknowledged, with the banner of equality being used to cover that up. Maybe I am wrong though. (My PIL, again, are a good example: they are very anti-religious schools on the grounds of inequality, but DH and his brother went to grammars. Like I said, though, I broadly agree with your points - I just think there are other ways of framing the same issues.

A couple of comments here:

First, people are capable of caring about more than one thing at once and campaigning on more than one front.

Second, private schools get a lot more focus for a lot fewer pupils (7% of children educated in a private school; a third of state schools are faith schools).

Third, I’d argue that the most meaningful gains to be made are with those children ‘selected out’ of faith schools (and other schools including grammars and quite a few schools where selection is conducted by house price). A modest improvement i man their educational outcomes is going to have a much greater impact on their own personal life choices and on society as a whole than in the margins between middle class children at ‘nice’ state schools and middle class children at private schools.

The hyper focus on private schools when faith schools are just as divisive and discriminatory, but by religion rather than purely by money, has always baffled me. It often comes from the same people promoting tolerance and integration, which is bizarre.

Or the Australian model, where all schools, get per pupil funding. The state tops it up for secular state schools. Churches, parents or a combination top it up for faith schools, all of which are in the private sector.

100% agree with this- everyone should just get an education voucher which entitles you at fully state run schools to one education. That voucher has a value (perhaps indexed to inflation?) that can be redeemed at any other school and then parents can choose to top up what the voucher provides if they choose, or faith schools etc can try and operate with the same resources as state schools.

faith schools etc can try and operate with the same resources as state schools

Given the wealth of the Churches that should not be hard...

Jassy - I feel like we are moving towards some kind of integrated programme here! How about we just have one state school system of secular schools where RE is taught in a tolerant way.. and nothing else? Sorted.

Oh, and no selection, and a funding regime that ensures that schools in poorer areas have more resources.

Thanks @downcasteyes, that's interesting.

I think it's about the degree of difficulty? - challenge is good, stretch is good, being in totally over your head isn't - and also whether or not real genuine space is provided within the lesson planning for exploring and processing the emotions and for questioning the ideas.

DS is no stranger to confronting orthodoxies and making decisions for himself. For example, he's decided to be vegetarian, on ethical principle, in a family where the rest of us are omnivores, and that involved some really challenging conversations and exploration of difficult ideas - but not to the point of trauma (nightmares/behavioural issues/disturbance/clinginess etc). I don't believe there needs to be trauma, I think the children should be better supported than that in school when difficult material or ideas are being introduced.

We have a fabulous locally agreed RE syllabus which would, if followed in its full spirit, have even the very youngest children engaged in a challenging term-long philosophical enquiry into an open-ended and ambiguous question grounded in deep exploration of a particular concept, within a Christian or other religious context but in the early years and KS1, focussing on concepts which are relateable for very little ones. Some really hard thinking would be going on with that, but the children would be able to work it all through. My issue with the actual teaching at DS's school was that it was basically a 6 week-long Biblical knowledge dump, which threw out a whole rapid fire succession of new and very difficult ideas and imagery and religious vocabulary which there was no pause or space for the children to question, engage with, think through, or to process their emotional responses to. That's what I believe caused the problems - an over-focus on factual knowledge delivery in the name of religious literacy. And part of the school's justification for it, is that they don't really expect the little ones to think too deeply about it all (in which case, why teach it?! but that's another issue!)

My kids don't do RE but I think it really depends on what the school is like - I'm in Northern Ireland where there is no choice but to go to a christian school and it's very much taught "this is the truth" not "some people think...... other people think......." (which is what we teach at home). It also depends on what the mix of the class is and what their other outside influences are - if you're in inner city London where you've got a good chance of having a big chunk of the class being non-christian, you're already going to get that diversity. If you're like us and even Scouts is religious around here, I feel it's important to make the point to them - and to the school - that not everyone believes the same thing. My 5 and 6 year olds don't do the class but sit in the corner with a colouring/activity book that I send in so to be honest they hear it but they also know that it's not what we believe at home - it's a compromise I'm happy with. Having said that, one of my kids had a talk (in front of parents!) by a religious dude who denied Darwin and I had to make sure he wasn't exposed to him again as I felt that was a step too far!!
Essentially I'd to consider the influence they are being exposed to as a whole and then make a decision based on that - and what I wouldn't do is keep them in RE just because it's easier or not to make a fuss. IMHO it should be a question asked at the beginning of school if you consent to religious education rather than those of us withdrawing having to make the point ourselves.

Ceara - I agree. There has to be a limit beyond which it ceases to be healthy discomfort and becomes unhealthy. It sounds as though you feel your DS is over that line, and who am I to say that you aren't correct?

As I said previously, the factual knowledge of religion is important. But it can equally well be acquired later on when a child is better equipped to deal with it. It sounds as though your DS is finding this difficult precisely because he's thinking about it in ways the school has not anticipated. I think that's very different from a child simply being confused by being presented with a different world view.

The VC schools I know do not get extra miney from the Church. I am not even sure the VA ones do except they own their own premises. The idea that C of E schools are richer is nonsense. What they do have is a separate Diocesan Board for Education and Advisers but many choose to use it sparingly preferring other models for advice. They are in Headship groups, take training from the LA and generally do not differentiate themselves other than for daily act of worship and admissions for Aided schools. I really do not recognise evangelical teaching where I live.

We have issues with my eldest’s non-denominational primary school and their connections with an evangelical church. We are a family of atheists but I do believe RME is important to foster understanding and acceptance of wider society but I despise the fundamentalist crap my child is being fed and theyre too scared to speak their mind in case they get into trouble. Recently before Easter they attended some church run event as part of RME where basically if you took a scientific approach to understanding things around you that their religion claims is due to god the you were told you were wrong. Headteacher fully supported the church event despite a number of parents complaining. My child enjoys learning about different religions so doesn’t want withdrawn (it’s all or nothing here) but it’s the evangelical nature of the lessons on Christianity that is unacceptable in a primary school setting. They never discuss non-belief/faith such as humanism or atheism and one parent when asked was even told the discussion of atheism happened in science when they talked about the Big Bang.
I firmly believe RE is valuable and important but not enforced belief systems. Learning about how religions work is different to having one particular cult like section of one particular religion rammed down your throat.

If you chose a church school then you are being pretty unreasonable to then complain about the religious content. If it's a standard state school re is minimal with all world religions covered

I think it’d be easier to say something like, “some people believe in God and think he made the earth and go to church but we believe in science.”

FWIW, my generation were nearly all brought up with purely Christian RE, daily hymn-singing assemblies, prayers, etc.

The vast majority of us were not 'indoctrinated' by it - we soon worked out what made sense to us.
Having said that, IMO most C of E primaries have a fairly gentle attitude to the whole thing.

My dd and SiL aren't remotely religious, but are happy for their dd to start at the local C of E in September. It's multi-ethnic, so I dare say she'll be learning about Ramadan and Diwali, as well as stories of the loaves and fishes, etc. - and so much of this comes under the 'general knowledge' heading.

Religion has paid a massive part in European history - it's often part of the very landscape, so I can't see the harm in them learning what it's all about.

RE should be taught in exactly the same neutral way in a church school as in a non-faith community school, following the same locally agreed syllabus, unless it's a VA faith school (and even many VA schools say they opt in to the standard local syllabus). And collective worship is supposed to be sensitive to the fact it's not corporate worship ie not all pupils or teachers will be of the faith. That's not an unreasonable expectation, it's the law. And parental choice is also a misnomer in many areas.

C or E's untaxed wealth comes from investments, as well as property (obtained through interesting methods) including loan shark companies like Wonga, until they were found out.

If you chose a church school then you are being pretty unreasonable to then complain about the religious content. If it's a standard state school re is minimal with all world religions covered.

Seriously?

What about the people who didn’t ‘choose’ a church school in any meaningful way, but don’t have the option of a community school?

People do know that a third of primary schools are faith schools, don’t they?

^
Jassy - I feel like we are moving towards some kind of integrated programme here! grin How about we just have one state school system of secular schools where RE is taught in a tolerant way.. and nothing else? Sorted.^

I would love that, and if you were building from the ground up that’s how you’d do it.

I don’t think it’s practical, though. Too many folk who are invested in the idea of a faith education for their children, and their churches are pushing it heavily.

I come from a country with a much larger private education sector, because all religious schools are in the private sector. All private schools get a certain amount of state funding per pupil. State schools get more. Private schools are topped up by either parents or churches - reflecting the fact that it’s a parental choice, not a human right, and therefore the people making that choice should bear some of the financial burden, either themselves or through their churches.

People do know that a third of primary schools are faith schools, don’t they?

I’m always fascinated by posters who simultaneously assure me that Christian worship in schools makes absolutely no difference to anything while simultaneously clinging on to the privilege like grim death.....