Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

The Da Vinci Code in an RE lesson?

82 replies

Martorana · 07/05/2014 09:33

I only have 13 year old ds's word for this, but he tells me that they have been talking about the Holy Grail in RE and yesterday they watched a bit of the Da Vinci Code and discussed the Blood line of Jesus, the stuff about there being women in the picture and all the rest of it. Apparantly it was discussed in a "some people think" way, rather than in a "this is a load of bollocks" way. Would you be happy with this? I can see how it would make for some interesting discussion, and the "of course it is claptrap" line might come in the next lesson............

OP posts:

pointythings · 07/05/2014 21:04

mumsneedwine my DD1 has to take RE as half a GCSE at her non-faith secondary. No choice in the matter at all. Complete waste of time as far as I'm concerned.

EvansOvalPiesYumYum · 07/05/2014 21:04

mumsneedwine - Unfortunately RE was compulsory in my children's schools. I even asked if my daughter could swap RE lessons for French instead. The Head of Department looked at me in abject horror and flatly refused, it just wasn't possible, apparently.

It wasn't even a particularly religious school.

I just wish they could have been taught all points of view.
Anyway, they left school several years ago, so it's no longer an issue for us, but I still think if religious studies are compulsory, then all avenues should be explored

NigellasDealer · 07/05/2014 21:10

it's not compulsory to GCSE at any school I've worked at
was at my son's secondary.....he couldnt stand it and escaped to an FE college

lechers · 07/05/2014 21:11

Mumsneedwine

No one said it was compulsory to GCSE, just that it was compulsory (and it is!)

This comes from the 1948 Education Act which stated that all students are entitled to Religious Education whilst they are at school. Traditionally, this has been done over a set number of hours per week, but this is not set in stone, it could be done as special days. However, if your school is not teaching RE (whether to GSCE or not is irrelevant) then it is breaking the law.

Original poster

Martorana · 07/05/2014 21:12

RE is compulsory to GCSE level in state schools. You don't have to take th exam, and some schools call it something else- but it is compulsory to study the subject.

OP posts:

RiversideMum · 07/05/2014 21:16

I think many schools make re a GCSE because they have yo teach it, so it may as well have an exam at the end. DCs school does a 4 year course. I read "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" in the 80s and thought it an interesting notion.

lechers · 07/05/2014 21:17

No, that's not correct.

It is compulsory to teach RE whilst students are in education, but it does not have to be at any level.

Traditionally, there hasn't even been national curriculum levels within RS because it has been organised via SACREs.

So long as it is taught, the level can vary. I've taught it to GCSE, to a half GCSE and as a compulsory but most definitely not GCSE level. That school did mostly watch a film, and debate concepts type RE. Most definitely not GCSE standard!!

And if you can't tell, yes I am a RS teacher .

Shallishanti · 07/05/2014 21:24

well, we only have OP's ds's view of the lesson and maybe he wasn't paying attention at some crucial part. I suppose it could be part of an interesting lesson, eg on how powerful ideas and images from christianity are in our culture (massive best seller despite being crap), perhaps on how some elements of a tradition become orthodox and others heretical (but a bit deep for 13 yo?)
BUT I hope it was also pointed out that it's a NOVEL and not intended to be taken as truth.

mumsneedwine · 07/05/2014 21:26

Well of my 5 kids not one has to take it to GCSE. They do citizenship and PHSE but not RE after year 9. Only school I know that does exam is the local CofE school - no one else here does it !

NigellasDealer · 07/05/2014 21:27

Wales

mumsneedwine · 07/05/2014 21:30

Nope. Deepest Berkshire !!! Lots of kids choose to take it at kids school as they like the ethics part. But mine are ardent atheists after years at a church primary !!

NigellasDealer · 07/05/2014 21:31

no no I meant that in many schools in Wales have compulsory GCSE RE

fairylightsintheloft · 07/05/2014 21:38

Its probably covered in the pse curriculum to enough of a standard to pass ofsted but it will be there somewhere. We teach the science / creation debate in y7, y10 and y12. A basic understanding of the principles of darwinism is necessary, as is an understanding of the big bang. As far as the da vinci code goes, it falls into the same category as the illuminati and so on. Teenagers find conspiracy theories so much more interesting than the boring truth and like to discuss tge idea that they have seen through the cover up and have figured out what everyone else has missed for centuries. They are a useful jumping off point for discussions about the nature of proof, faith, belief vs fact etc.

NigellasDealer · 07/05/2014 21:40

'so much more interesting than the boring truth' - so you believe what I wrote in my post of 18.38 is the truth then?

LRDtheFeministDragon · 07/05/2014 21:45

It's a novel based on ideas some people have held for centuries, though. It's not like he made it all up (being, amongst other things, a massive plagiarist).

WooWooOwl · 07/05/2014 22:27

Both my dc have to take RE as a GCSE at their schools, one of the heads said that as they have to teach it they may as well get a GCSE out of it.

I think it's quite good, the curriculum seems quite interesting to me. They do a lot of debating about different moral issues, and although I'm not religious, I think it makes up quite an important part of their education. The skills they learn while debating points of view that they don't necessarily hold themselves is good for them, I think it helps broaden young minds. Especially for those who are from religious families and have only ever been presented with one point of view as if it's fact.

noblegiraffe · 07/05/2014 22:36

What's with calling evolution 'Darwinism'? Usually it's only creationists that do that. Do we call gravity 'Newtonism'?

LRDtheFeministDragon · 07/05/2014 22:41

I'm not sure that's what people were saying?

My reading of the thread was people were suggesting the historical theory of Darwinism should be taught, not that they thought it was current theory. It did have a huge impact on the church in England (and elsewhere) after all.

EvansOvalPiesYumYum · 07/05/2014 22:43

Fewer keystrokes than 'The Theory of Evolution' maybe - that's my excuse.

noblegiraffe · 07/05/2014 22:45

What historical theory of Darwinism? Evolution by natural selection? As far as I'm aware that's still the current theory?

noblegiraffe · 07/05/2014 22:46

Darwinism and Evolution have the same number of letters!!

EvansOvalPiesYumYum · 07/05/2014 22:48

'The Theory of Evolution' Not if you include the full title

EvansOvalPiesYumYum · 07/05/2014 22:50

(Why do my Underscores never work)

The Theory of

to be included in the keystrokes, as described above

EvansOvalPiesYumYum · 07/05/2014 22:52

You can't just say "Evolution", because it is a theory. Therefore, to my tiny mind, it is easier to say "Darwinism" because, well, just because.

noblegiraffe · 07/05/2014 22:52

But the theory of evolution (via natural selection) shortens naturally to evolution.

Darwinism is just a creationist label to try to make it about a man rather than a billion pieces of evidence and thus diminish it.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Swipe left for the next trending thread