Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Secondary education

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

Original poster

RE and Humanities teachers help me out here please

87 replies

LadyGlencoraPalliser · 02/03/2009 19:38

I am trying to decide whether I should speak to DD's school about what she is learning in RE - or Philosophy and Ethics as it is laughably called.
The topic they have been covering for the past half-term is called 'Does God exist'. She doesn't get much homework so it wasn't until she brought her class exercise book home at the weekend that I saw what she had actually been doing for the past few weeks.
Basically, they have been investigating 'evidence for the existence of god'. They have learned that there are different types of truth including 'scientific truth, historical truth, moral truth and religious truth.'
They have been told that the fact that there is life after death is a religious truth, rather than a belief.
They have been asked to discuss arguments for but not against intelligent design and for but not against the cosmological arguments for the existence of god.
They do not appear to have discussed in any way the question 'Does God Exist' which was supposed to be the subject of their enquiry. Rather they have focused solely on 'Why God Exists'.
Is this the normal way to teach this subject? I asked DD why she hadn't put forward any counterarguments and she said they weren't allowed to. I am very, very uncomfortable with theology masquerading as philosophy in this way but I would like to get my facts straight about how the subject is normally taught.

OP posts:
Habbibu · 03/03/2009 19:25

Yes - I've just been reading wikipedia stuff on truth theories and while, as Iorek says, in theory it's really interesting, it seems more a topic for debate in itself, rather than something that can (ironically) be presented as "true" to a class of 11 year olds. Need to read more, I think - may have got to grips with it by the time dd gets to this stage!

scienceteacher · 03/03/2009 19:50

I think one of the issues with education in general at the moment, and this was in the news last week, is that we often try to teach skills ahead of knowledge.

In the Standards Site lesson plan that I linked earlier, if you look at the detailed activities, they are very much about skills and attitude, rather than knowledge and definitions. I believe, based on my subject, that you have to have a good grounding in knowledge before acquiring skills.

Perhaps the issue is that they are jumping the gun a bit? The knowledge of the truth theories is eye-watering - I don't think I have the patience or inclination to get my mind wrapped around any of them, tbh. It is hard to imagine that an 11 year old would have the mental capacity.

I think that any outrage should not be targeted at this teacher, but towards the QCA and, in turn, senior managers within the school or LEA.

The activities, in themselves, don't seem damaging to me, but whether the specific learning objectives are met is a different matter.

justaboutindisguise · 03/03/2009 19:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Habbibu · 03/03/2009 19:58

How much training/knowledge would the teacher have to have to teach this stuff sensibly? My very very brief reading suggests that it's a contested area of philosophy anyway, and something I'd expect maybe a philosophy graduate to teach. Are RE teachers expected to have this level of philosophical education?

Habbibu · 03/03/2009 20:00

Justa - I think I get your definition, and can see how it makes sense. But this, from the OP:

"They have been told that the fact that there is life after death is a religious truth, rather than a belief. "

doesn't seem to fit your model either.

Scienceteacher, I agree broadly with your last post, but think that the teacher has some questions to answer about allowing the class to examine both sides of an argument, etc.

Threadworm · 03/03/2009 20:00

Where on that standards site do they explain what they mean by a 'philosophical truth theory'? It sounds like they might be rather muddled. It doesn't sound like they are doing 11yo children any favours by intrcducing something very complex and difficult?

Is this RE under a new name or is it philosophy. They don't seem clear what they are aiming at.

Habbibu · 03/03/2009 20:04

I couldn't find that either, thready. I'm hoping that twinset comes back to help!

scienceteacher · 03/03/2009 20:04

It doesn't TW.

justaboutindisguise · 03/03/2009 20:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

scienceteacher · 03/03/2009 20:05

It assumes that the RS teacher knows what is meant, and just refers to them as focus of activities and learning outcomes.

Habbibu · 03/03/2009 20:07

But it goes way beyond religion, and into all areas of learning - and yes, obv. philosophy does do that, and if well understood and thought through can really help critical thinking BUT... It's the kind of thing I'd expect first year undergrads to be really really thinking about - not 11 yo to copy off a blackboard.

Threadworm · 03/03/2009 20:12

If it is called a philosophy course it should teach philosophy. I can't understand the elision of these two subjects. And if it is a philosophy course, I don't think that the concepts of different categories of truth for different areas is a good or intuitive way of addressing the subject to 11-12 year olds.

And probably the idea of different sorts of truth isn't sustainable anyway.

justaboutindisguise · 03/03/2009 20:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Threadworm · 03/03/2009 20:15
Habbibu · 03/03/2009 20:16
Habbibu · 03/03/2009 20:18

That may be true, justa, but ST's link bothered me too - just seemed so sweeping - here's a theory about truths, but it's essentially to be presented as fact, and then used to debate other "truths".

sally08 · 03/03/2009 20:18

Hiya

I would suggest asking to speak to the teacher to find out exactly what has happened and why. Although there may be a reasonable explanation, it all sounds a little peculiar to me as one of the major skills people generally try to teach in RE lessons is the skill of evaluation, so I would think that it would be incredibly important for the children to look at and explore all sides of the argument.

scienceteacher · 03/03/2009 20:38

I don't see it being presented as fact, Habbibu. They are asked to rank different statements of truth according to their own values and opinions.

Unfortunately, from the Standards Site, we don't know what the KS3 definition of Truths is meant to be - presumably a lot simpler than the Wiki page. Maybe TSAP can help.

However, it does not appear to hold the view that Religious Truth is the Ultimate Truth. It says, "if you were to look for proof of God...". It doesn't say that God is real and here is where you will find him.

TBH, it's not unlike the direction I take in some of lessons. For example, if the focus of the lesson is Global Warming, then I would get the pupils to explore the anthropogenic explanation, and the natural one. I don't tell them what to think - just how to arrive at their own conclusion based on the evidence they have. This may involve trying to understand how 'experts' have arrived at their views, and the arguments they deliver.

Karamazov · 03/03/2009 20:41

I teach RS (only 'A' level now). I think it is difficult to make a judgement call about these things, because their written work in their books never give a true picture of everything that is going on in the classroom. The only way you can know would be if you asked the subject teacher.

It is an RS Course though - increasingly more and more schools are calling RS 'Philosophy and ethics' to make it more appealling to the students. It started with GCSE, but is increasingly seen at KS3 level too. Whilst they do start to think more about philosophical issues, its not really philosophy. But this is not unique to your DDs school, you'll find it happenning all over.

I also agree that if you look at the question 'does God exist', then the debate does need to be equally balanced. That said, of course there are two aims in RS - Learning about religion and learning from religion. This extra requirement make make work in the books appear unbalanced. (That said, when I taught this topic, we looked at what people can learn from humanism and atheism too - not just what people can learn from religious beliefs).

HTH

Karamazov · 03/03/2009 20:43

Sorry lots of typos - in a hurry marking to do

Habbibu · 03/03/2009 20:45

Yes, I get all that - it's the definition of "truths" that bothers me - I guess it is simpler than the philosophical debates I've read, but it still has to have come from somewhere. And yes, absolutely - learn to examine evidence critically, and make an argument - no disagreement from me there - but the OP mentioned odd things like life after death being a religious truth, not a belief. But it is a belief - if these truths are communally-held beliefs, they're still beliefs. It just all seems a bit woolly.

Where's twinset when you need her, eh?

twinsetandpearls · 03/03/2009 20:49

I have been teaching about religious truths as long as i have been teaching, we look at differnt kinds of truths, what makes something true, what is the problem with a religious truth.

Habbibu more and more RE teachers have philosophy degrees. I have a theology degree and have studied some philosophy of religion at degree level. I teach A level philosophy of religion and use my subject knowledge from my theology. I am studying with the OU towards a psychology degree which I have put on hold to study pholosophy at a degree level as I think my suject knowledge is updating. I had to promise to do that in order to teach a level in my new school.

Part of the problem people are having is that theire is not a national curriculum for RE, we have locally agreed a locally agreed syllabus. I will check my one to see of it says anything about this

Habbibu · 03/03/2009 20:51

Can you point me to some stuff about these truths please, twinset? What's the origin of their usage in teaching? What's the difference between a truth and a belief or a theory? Isn't it confusing to use the same word for mathematical proofs and religious beliefs?

Original poster
LadyGlencoraPalliser · 03/03/2009 20:52

Thanks Karamazov. I take your point about the title of the course - although I think it is misleading - and about the work in her book not providing the full picture. What this thread has shown me is that I was confusing two issues - I apparantly have issues both with what she is being taught AND how she is being taught it. I'm not going to make an issue of it just yet, but if she starts informing me that the earth is only 6,000 years old we might have a problem...

OP posts:
IorekByrnison · 03/03/2009 20:55

It does all look rather confusing, and think I agree having looked at that link that it would be better to avoid using the word "truth" quite so liberally. In my day we just learned chunks of the Good News Bible by rote - without too much investigation of what beliefs we might hold in our undeveloped little heads - and this was considered perfectly adequate

Scienceteacher - don't want to sidetrack the discussion, but surely the scientific consensus on global warming is that it is anthropogenic?