7 year old doesn't want to do R.E.

FBaby

WillowFae wrote: »

And as an RE teacher I can say that the reason she is predicted so high is because those are EXACTLY the skills we teach in RE. It is often the case that my most religious students are the ones that do poorly in the subject as they are unable to objectively evaluate, compare, and contrast. They may be great when it comes to their understanding of their own views on philosophical and ethical issues, but they just cannot evaluate those and look at them in a mature manner.

When DD said she wanted to take RE as an additional option for her GCSE, my first question was why as she is showing no interest in religion at all. She then explained that it is not about religion but about all the above. I could then understand why she would enjoy that class and why she would find it relevant to the course of study she wants to pursue, but my question (not expecting a response from her) was why is it called Religious Education?

Jack_Parkes

There does seem to be a lack of knowledge amongst the general public about the nature and value of RE. Outside Faith Schools there is no assumption that either pupils or teachers will have a religious faith: RE is teaching ABOUT religions not teaching people to be religious. It is an academic and non-confessional study of the phenomenon of religion which looks at the major world religions AND ATHEISM.


A number of people here have alluded to the belated realisation that the RE they were taught - and didn't particularly value at school - did have practical applications in relation to community cohesion (a big government concern) and a general understanding of others we may meet in daily life.


What many people forget, too, is that RE is not just about the subject content but also about the skills it imparts: students of RE develop thinking skills; skills of weighing evidence; the ability to argue both sides of a point before drawing a conclusion; the skills of identifying good and bad source material and innate bias; the ability to prioritise arguments by strength or weakness etc.


I think one of the teacher's worst nightmares is having a child tell them that their parents say they don't have to bother about that subject (whatever it happens to be). That is simply irresponsible parenting. Should I tell my children they don't have to bother with English Literature because I find Dickens boring? Or that they'll never use a quadratic equation after they leave school so don't bother about Maths? Beethoven - indeed all Classical Music - is dull, so don't pay attention there either? The national Curriculum is designed to give all children a broad education. That all children will not like all their subjects is inevitable but should we pander to that? Someone else here said in relation to RE that they had got on with it and "sucked it up". That's good advice otherwise we give our children permission not to bother. The world is full of the expectation that we do "boring stuff" and things we don't like. The sooner they learn that the better.


Withdrawal from RE might sound a good option but it isn't really because few schools, primary or secondary, are geared up to doing anything with those kids. There isn't a pool of inactive teachers in schools waiting to pick up kids who don't do RE. They'll be sat in the library and largely left to their own devices which is not what schools are about. Alternatively parents may be asked to provide work from their own "spiritual worldview" and mark it to the appropriate key stage standards.


At some stage your daughter will almost certainly be given the chance to sit GCSE in RE: it's a core subject, so most schools will enter it's pupils for the exam. Can she afford to enter the workplace one subject down on her competitors in the jobs market?


Finally, have you actually been in to the school and talked to the subject teacher? Have you asked to see the schemes of work or discussed the time allocation of subjects on the timetable or the content of the locally agreed syllabus for RE?


I used to tell my parents all sorts about the subjects I didn't like. Come Parents' Evening I was in deep trouble.

Carmina-Piranha_2

There's a group of parents who got together to complain to the head of my son's primary about the religious influence within the school. I'm sure your head will be happy to talk about your concerns. I would say that our primary has a lot less religion than yours does, and personally I'm not concerned - but my kids don't have anywhere near as much religious work as yours seems to.

Our school also gives parents the chance to opt out when a church comes in to do messy church within school. One-off activities like that that happen once a term or less frequently would be easy enough to opt out of (although your kids might enjoy it more than being in the library) but I wouldn't want to withdraw mine from ALL religion, it would really single them out. I have volunteered in my kids school before and seen children of different religions, everyone apart from the jehovas witness children, taking part of the christian activities - even the nativity play - and doing so with pleasure, even while knowing that they don't believe in christianity. Neither do the majority of the other children, I don't think.

onomatopoeia99

WillowFae wrote: »

And as an RE teacher I can say that the reason she is predicted so high is because those are EXACTLY the skills we teach in RE. It is often the case that my most religious students are the ones that do poorly in the subject as they are unable to objectively evaluate, compare, and contrast. They may be great when it comes to their understanding of their own views on philosophical and ethical issues, but they just cannot evaluate those and look at them in a mature manner.

That is completely not what I was taught in RE. I was taught a religion, not about religion. Comparitive theology could be summed up by 1 Kings 18-40 (Elijah and the priests of Baal). Ethics and morality? Do as the bible says or you will burn in hell. Confession, Communion and Chrismation (confirmation) were part of the school syllabus - yes, the school put us through these rites without our informed consent. I'm 45, which will give you an idea when I was at school. This was in the home counties, not in Eire.

I absolutely was not taught to objectively evaluate, compare and contrast in RE.

Has it really changed that much? Even in Roman Catholic schools? I hope so, because the way I was taught is indefensible.

FBaby

What many people forget, too, is that RE is not just about the subject content but also about the skills it imparts: students of RE develop thinking skills; skills of weighing evidence; the ability to argue both sides of a point before drawing a conclusion; the skills of identifying good and bad source material and innate bias; the ability to prioritise arguments by strength or weakness etc.

But how is that specific to religious studies? It is applied in many aspect of our every day life, not just when discussing or thinking about religion. I guess that's what annoys me about it, that such valuable skills that are applied in a large array of disciplines should be called 'Religious Studies'. As a matter of fact, I would say that all the above would apply the most appropriately to the study of science if anything.

angeltreats

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

That is completely not what I was taught in RE. I was taught a religion, not about religion. Comparitive theology could be summed up by 1 Kings 18-40 (Elijah and the priests of Baal). Ethics and morality? Do as the bible says or you will burn in hell. Confession, Communion and Chrismation (confirmation) were part of the school syllabus - yes, the school put us through these rites without our informed consent. I'm 45, which will give you an idea when I was at school. This was in the home counties, not in Eire.

I absolutely was not taught to objectively evaluate, compare and contrast in RE.

Has it really changed that much? Even in Roman Catholic schools? I hope so, because the way I was taught is indefensible.

Sadly this was my experience too. I went to school in NI and our (compulsory) GCSE RE classes consisted almost entirely of the teacher dictating notes to us to learn by heart about the Bible. It was 100% based on Catholicism and no other religion was so much as mentioned - not even once (it was a convent school). It really was severely lacking and utterly unmotivating and I paid very little attention to it.

However I did leave the school even more a convinced atheist than when I started so the brainwashing had little effect.

margaretclare

angeltreats wrote: »

Sadly this was my experience too. I went to school in NI and our (compulsory) GCSE RE classes consisted almost entirely of the teacher dictating notes to us to learn by heart about the Bible. It was 100% based on Catholicism and no other religion was so much as mentioned - not even once (it was a convent school). It really was severely lacking and utterly unmotivating and I paid very little attention to it.

However I did leave the school even more a convinced atheist than when I started so the brainwashing had little effect.

I was thinking about the conversation here as we passed through East London yesterday and it occurred to me: why do those of us in various branches of Christian belief and/or non-belief, agonise so much about 'not forcing religion on our children and letting them make their own minds up when they're old enough'. I have seen this in my own family. My two daughters were the last to be christened and confirmed, the next generation haven't been christened (baptised) and it seems unlikely that the newest generation will go anywhere near a church.

That said...I saw women in East London in all forms of dress symbolising their religion. Some more extreme than others showing only the eyes. Little girls with them, jumping and skipping around, and I wondered at what stage those little girls will be told they must cover their pretty hair and lovely little faces 'because of their religion'.

Similar with my DH. Because his parents were of a particular religion, did he have any choice about a ceremony on his 8th day of life or in his 13th year? His grandfather told him what he must do 'now he was a man' and it's described in the early part of the Bible. Was he ever told 'it was what people used to do/used to believe' but that he could make his own mind up when he was old enough? Not a chance. When he 'married out' as they put it i.e. married a woman not of that religion, the results were that his father wouldn't go to see his first grandchild and many of his cousins will not speak to him to this day. It wasn't even a matter of 'changing his religion' at that stage, he did that much later. His children were baptised and confirmed, went to Sunday school, although interestingly enough his first wife insisted on their son having the same ceremony on his 8th day as had been the case for him.

We are reading more and more of a different religion being forced on people in the Middle East. Are they ever asked whether they really believe it or not? Some of that, I've read, is very much 'creationism'. If it wasn't known about in the 7th century then it doesn't exist.

Again, I wonder why those of us in the Christian tradition - whether believers or not - should agonise it so much?

lazer

angeltreats wrote: »

Sadly this was my experience too. I went to school in NI and our (compulsory) GCSE RE classes consisted almost entirely of the teacher dictating notes to us to learn by heart about the Bible. It was 100% based on Catholicism and no other religion was so much as mentioned - not even once (it was a convent school). It really was severely lacking and utterly unmotivating and I paid very little attention to it.

However I did leave the school even more a convinced atheist than when I started so the brainwashing had little effect.

Your parents sent you to a Catholic School, so surprisingly enough it was Catholicism they taught you.


I too went to a Catholic School, as I was taught mainly Catholicism but was also taught about other religions and what they believe in.
We spent a lot of time learning about of Christian Denominations (including visits to their place of Worship), and we also learnt about other religions - I remember learning about both Jewish and Islamic faiths.


It is now compulsory to learn 2 other world religions as part of GCSE curriculum
http://www.deni.gov.uk/index/curriculum-and-learningt-new/curriculum-and-assessment-2/80-statutory-curriculum/80-curriculum-and-assessment-religiouseducationcoresyllabus-pg.htm


However prior to GCSE's - world religions do not feature, only Christianity, however sensitivity to others beliefs is part of the teachings about Christianity.

Person_one

margaretclare wrote: »

Again, I wonder why those of us in the Christian tradition - whether believers or not - should agonise it so much?

In what way is it better to impose religious and cultural practices and remove choice? What are the advantages?

lidlest

gayleygoo wrote: »

. (ETA I am not happy that she doesn't want to go back to school, just that she hasn't been taken in by it all.)

?

They probably don't do half the amount you think, and at 7 she's just probably picking up on your feelings and making a huge deal out of it. I'm an atheist teacher who used to work in a church of England school, and it really wasn't a massive issue on a day to day basis.

As for the teaching of religious education, just tell her to take it as a learning opportunity, the national curriculum should cover all different religions, and its interesting to see what others believe even if you don't agree.

seems such a funny thing for a 7 year old to be bothered about...