|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Religious education in state schools
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
What place, if any, should dogmatic (as a pose to comparative) religious education have in the education system, particularly in the public (state) schools of jurisdictions with no state religion.
Here in New South Wales there is legal provision for members of recognised faith groups to deliver up to an hour a week of Special Religious Education (SRE) in public schools. Parents may choose for their child(ren) to attend the classes of any available denomination/faith or none.
Typically you will find Catholic and Anglican scripture/SRE classes in most schools, with Muslim classes where there is demand and capacity. The teachers in SRE classes are clergy and volunteers; teachers from the school may themselves be volunteers but do not receive compensation from the state for the loss of non-contact time. The school has to arrange continued supervision for those whose parents have opted for no SRE; more on that later.
The provision came about many years ago when the state took over the primary responsibilty for the delivery of education from the churches.
It is a legislative requirement that the time be allowed. The Department of Education's policy on SRE states that quote:
Schools are to provide appropriate care and supervision at school for students not attending SRE. This may involve students in other activities such as completing homework, reading and private study. These activities should neither compete with SRE nor be alternative lessons in the subjects within the curriculum or other areas, such as, ethics, values, civics or general religious education.
Here is the rub. The non-religious, especially those militantly so, are among those who particularly object to the provision of SRE. Their children spend the time sitting quietly, with no active educational engagement, underthe terms of the policy. There have even been anecdotal reports of such children picking up litter under the guise of 'recycling'. In our local school, a parent-run alternative on comparative religions was halted after 18 months by the Department when they learned of it; comparative religions is what is referred to in the quote above as general religious education.
Enter St James Ethics Centre. The regulations have been set aside in order to allow pilot ethics classes to run for years 5/6 in 10 schools across the state, including our local school. The religious groups are up in arms, with significant web content established by the Australian Christian Lobby and the Anglican Diocese of Sydney. The ethics classes have so far been a successful competitor to SRE, made up not only of some of the non-SRE kids, but also those who were previously attending SRE. The religious groups see the ethics classes as a threat, and are presenting two potentially contradictory arguments: - The ethics content has a secular humanistic basis and should be opposed as being inappropriate.
- Holding ethics classes at the same time as SRE disadvantages those children whose parents would like them to attend ethics and SRE.
Let me nail my colours to the mast: I believe in a firm separation between church and state. I am therefore opposed to the provision of SRE. I see the ethics classes as a good first step to their eventual removal.
From an evangelical point of view (I was, and may still be, an evangelical), church-state links lead to nominalism: I'm English so I'm Church of England/Christian; our kids attend SRE so we're Christian. From a more liberal point of view, it is an unnecessary imposition of religion on a pluralistic society. Christians lobbying for a special place in society neither edifies them nor glorifies Christ. One of my (atheist) friends posted on a Facebook discussion (he did later apologise for the strength of the 'fools' reference):
quote:
I think they should arrange SRE on a special day each week, lets say Sunday. Set aside special buildings, lets call them churches, with specialist teachers, lets call them pastors. Finally make it available to all people who think this stuff makes sense, lets call them fools.
I will probably have more to say depending on where this thread goes, but that seems to be a bit of a bumper OP. What do others think?
[ 15. June 2016, 18:47: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Yawn. My jurisdiction got rid of religious education in public schools* when I was in Grade 1. I didn't miss it, the school lessons were never that good anyway. When it comes to religion you will never please everybody. Ever. Taking religion out of public schools seems to anger everybody equally, so it must be the right decision.
*Ontario has publicly-funded Catholic schools since this mandated under the Constitution. If they weren't constitutionally protected they would have disappeared a long time ago.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
I wondered when our little NSW war would make it to the front page of the Ship. (As opposed to 6.4 billion letters in the SMH.)
As another ex-pat I think there are loads of related issues here:
1. Separation of Church and State. There is an argument to be had about this, but ISTM that this is a really dishonest way of having that argument. The government should have that discussion out in the open first ... but since the State government is trying its hardest to bring democracy into disrepute I hardly expect SRE is top of its list. The simple fact is that the state government did a deal with the churches in the past to take over education and until they revoke that deal (politically and legally) they've got to work within it.
2. The Ethics class (currently run as a trial) is obviously a fore-runner to replacing religious SRE altogether, so why don't they just come clean about that? ... see point 1.
3. It is not hard to see how this is going to play out. After the trial is heralded as a success then there will be political pressure to offer it in all schools. Who is going to implement it? Once all the hype has died down I can't see parents volunteering to come in every week, during the working day throughout the school year, for free. Don't forget, we are not talking about a little bit of reading with a couple of kids, this would mean teaching curriculum to a whole class. The way it works with Christian SRE is that it dies out in some schools where the local churches can't find the volunteers. So are they going to get the teachers to do it instead? As you say this would have to be for free or it would be an unequal playing field for religious SRE. I can't see the Teachers' Unions taking on this extra responsibility across the state for nothing. So we're going to be left with a course which has a a fair bit of popular support but no way of making it happen without the government intervening... oh look, let's build another metro.
So, in short, I do think there should be a discussion about the separation of church and state. However, until that happens we should play by the rules. At our church we teach Christian SRE in lots of local schools. We're not afraid of any competition - as long as the rules stay the same for everyone.
PS The thing about the rest of the class doing nothing while Christian SRE is on is a bit of a red herring IMO. As a parent I'm amazed how often the kids 'do nothing' in an average week. If you took every 40 minute lesson on a Friday and squeezed them all together it wouldn't come close to the three weeks before Christmas!? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
What place, if any, should dogmatic (as a pose to comparative) religious education have in the education system, particularly in the public (state) schools of jurisdictions with no state religion.
You pretty much indicate what answer you want when you dismiss anything other than comparative religion as "dogmatic".
Religious education in a particular faith has its place where the students are part of a particular faith community otherwise the state is imposing its own values. Where students aren't part of a particular faith community, being taught general knowledge about whichever religions are around in the locality is an appropriate alternative. I'd steer clear of trying to dumb down philosophy or ethics for kids.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
.
*Ontario has publicly-funded Catholic schools since this mandated under the Constitution. If they weren't constitutionally protected they would have disappeared a long time ago.
But isn't it the case that the government had discretionary power as to just how much of Catholic education to fund? I seem to remember a heated controversy, mid-to-late 80s, when Bill Davis decided to extend funding of Catholic education to include high school, and this caused a lot of consternation, not only among his dwindling constituency of Orangemen, but among liberal, secular-minded Ontarions in general. It even ended up in the courts as I recall.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
I didn't realise this issue was quite so complicated.
At our gov't primary school, there was Catholic Ed, Bahai Ed and Anglican Ed (until the Anglican stopped for lack of time).
My sons government high school offers no RE whatsoever.
In my opinion, Christian religious ed should be taught at a high school level, offered as an elective, just as philosophy or engineering or art is an elective.
But just like all those other electives, the RE teacher should be paid, not a volunteer.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
In my opinion, Christian religious ed should be taught at a high school level, offered as an elective, just as philosophy or engineering or art is an elective.
But just like all those other electives, the RE teacher should be paid, not a volunteer.
This is a good solution imo. The other proposals look like indoctrination to me.
...
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
I thought Peter Vardy (from over here in UK) was working with some Australian schools to try to introduce a more academic philosophy, religion and ethics course a bit like the one we have over here?
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
What place, if any, should dogmatic (as a pose to comparative) religious education have in the education system, particularly in the public (state) schools of jurisdictions with no state religion.
You pretty much indicate what answer you want when you dismiss anything other than comparative religion as "dogmatic".
Sorry, I wasn't intending to use the word "dogmatic" in a prejudicial way. I was aiming to differentiate between RE that is based on a particular faith/belief system (what NSW terms "Special RE") and comparative RE (what NSW terms "General RE"). Please read the term as "faith-based" if that sounds more neutral.
ETA: Bracket
[ 29. May 2010, 08:15: Message edited by: Vulpior ]
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
In England and Wales, the term 'confessional' was used for what the OP called 'dogmatic'.
I have spent 35 years in RE as a teacher and, later, in an advisory capacity. I have always fought for a comparative (a flawed term but let it stand) religion approach taught by graduate specialists who are trained and paid just like any other teachers.
Clergy and other volunteers (apart from a few charismatic exceptions) do not command the respect of most pupils because they aren't proper teachers and do not have the skills involved to keep kids in their seats unless a 'proper' teacher is present.I wisah other countries would follow the English approach as it is l;ight years ahead and allows children to reflect up on the meaning and purpose of life from a variety of viewpoints, religious and secular.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PhilA
shipocaster
# 8792
|
Posted
Agree with Leo.
I haven't taught RE for as long as he has (4 years) but in my experience, teaching in a state school in an ex-mining town in Barnsley, find that the vast majority of students are engaged with the subject and ask many questions and actually want to learn about different people and want to think about life and whether or not there is any meaning to it.
I also believe it is absolutely wrong to attempt to tell the students what to believe. I will talk about my beliefs when appropriate but state them as my beliefs and carefully distinguish from 'beliefs' and 'facts'. I would feel uncomfortable teaching my faith in a school as 'truth' rather than 'belief' because education is about discovering things not being told things.
--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.
Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
How can people seriously be holding up the UK as some kind of model for secondary RE?
Three years of colouring in pictures of festivals followed by two years of "Ethics for Dummies" for those who want it is probably the worst of all possible options.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
jugular
Voice of Treason
# 4174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
I thought Peter Vardy (from over here in UK) was working with some Australian schools to try to introduce a more academic philosophy, religion and ethics course a bit like the one we have over here?
Dr Vardy is working with Dialogue Australasia Network to advance the 'Five Strands' approach to Religious kand Values Education. This is focussed almost entirely around independent religious schools, and has been particularly popular with high-fee, long-established schools.
If something along the lines of the Five Strands approach was included in the new National Curriculum this would be, IMHO, a Good Thing™ from an educational perspective.
Interestingly, though, anecdotal evidence suggests two serious problems with the Five Strands approach in independent religious schools.
Firstly, you can teach it with almost no faith content, depending on which strands get your focus. For example, in a Lutheran School you could teach a course on 'love' which includes ethics, silence and stillness, world religions and philosophy - and only a cursory reference to the bible. This is a tempting option for Heads and staff of religious schools who want to be seen to be doing a bit of religion, but don't really see discipleship as an important responsibility.
Secondly, the Vardy resources all tend to be predicated on Natural Law as the pinnacle of philosophical development. Other views are given air-time, but certainly Vardy himself sells the Natural Law line very strongly. This is unattractive to protestants and lots of liberal Catholics.
To return to the OP, I support the teaching of RE, though I think the 'English model' is preferable to the historical accident that created SRE in Australia. Ethics should also be part of the curriculum, but integrated into other areas. Our curriculum is sufficiently full already and adding a whole new Key Learning Area is just going to make everyone's job harder.
--------------------
We’ve got to act like a church that hasn’t already internalized the narrative of its own decline Ray Suarez
Posts: 2599 | From: Australia | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
.
*Ontario has publicly-funded Catholic schools since this mandated under the Constitution. If they weren't constitutionally protected they would have disappeared a long time ago.
But isn't it the case that the government had discretionary power as to just how much of Catholic education to fund? I seem to remember a heated controversy, mid-to-late 80s, when Bill Davis decided to extend funding of Catholic education to include high school, and this caused a lot of consternation, not only among his dwindling constituency of Orangemen, but among liberal, secular-minded Ontarions in general. It even ended up in the courts as I recall.
Yes, and the courts have ruled that the existence of Catholic schools is constitutionally protected. The funding for Catholic schools was increased until full funding was achieved. The fact that "Public" traditionally meant Protestant was what allowed this to happen.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
How can people seriously be holding up the UK as some kind of model for secondary RE?
Three years of colouring in pictures of festivals followed by two years of "Ethics for Dummies" for those who want it is probably the worst of all possible options.
Where do you get colouring in from?
At Key Stage 3 we have to get kids working to the following levels:
4
For the religions studied, pupils can:
• describe the key beliefs and teachings
of the religion;
• connecting them accurately with other
features within the religion;
• make some comparisons between
religions;
• use specific religious terminology.
They show understanding of:
• what belonging to religions involves;
• how religious beliefs, ideas and
feelings can be expressed in a variety
of forms of behaviour or worship;
• the meanings of some symbols, stories
and language.
Pupils can ask questions and suggest answers
from their own and others’ experiences and ways
of seeing the world about:
• significant experiences of key figures from
the religions;
• puzzling aspects of life;
• beliefs and behaviour;
• spiritual and religious issues;
• reasons why particular things are held to
be right or wrong.
They can:
• refer clearly to the teaching of religions;
• show understanding of different ways of
seeing the world.
5
Pupils can explain how some principal beliefs, teachings and selected features of religious life and behaviour:
• are shared by different religions;
• make a difference to the lives of individuals and communities;
• show how individuals and communities
use different ways to worship and express their religions.
In the light of their learning about religions, pupils can make informed responses to:
• the teachings and examples of key figures in religions;
• questions of identity, belonging and experience, meaning and purpose;
• other people’s values and commitments (including religious ones).
6
Pupils can use their knowledge and understanding to explain:
• the principal beliefs and teachings;
• what it means to belong to a faith community;
• how religious beliefs and ideas can be expressed in a variety of forms;
• some of the diversity of groupings, denominations and traditions for the
religions studied.
They correctly employ a range of specific religious terminology and language.
Pupils can explain clearly:
• the experiences of inspirational people and relate it to their own and others’ lives;
• different religious perspectives on questions of meaning and purpose,
worship and belief and a range of contemporary moral issues.
They relate these to their own and others’ ways of seeing the world.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I would love to be in any one of those classes.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
...
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
Religious education on the premises of public school, and with "released time" to attend said-religious education classes, should NOT at any level be provided BY the State: but only paid for by said-religions offering the classes. The State can accommodate the student by allowing the released time, or not, depending (in some places the religious classes are before or after the regular time blocked out for public education). The point is, the State in no way provides with tax money any part of the religious education: that is the responsibility of the religion. How the student helps pay for these classes is also between the student and the religion....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
What Leo and PhilA are referring to is religious education. Other people seem to have got this confused with religious instruction, or if you want to be pejorative, indoctrination. There is a big difference.
[ 29. May 2010, 17:09: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I would love to be in any one of those classes.
...
Indeed - kids say, 'What are we doing today, sir?' and 'This is my favourite subject because it is about me and what I think, not stuff they pour into your head for exams.'
I think it is a tragedy that kids in other countries don't get the chance to debate life, the universe and everything.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
two years of "Ethics for Dummies" for those who want it is probably the worst of all possible options.
Assuming you are referring to he GCSE short course, this does not meet the requirements for Key Stage 4 and is being replaced. The level descriptors required are (and have been for about eight years so either you or your school are out of touch):
7
Pupils can relate:
• religious beliefs, teachings, practices and lifestyles and their influence on
individuals, communities and society to their historical and cultural contexts;
• to which they also relate the variety of forms of religious expression, including
texts, figurative language, and symbolism.
Using appropriate evidence and examples from different religions and spiritual ways of seeing the world, pupils can evaluate:
• religious and other views on human identity and experience;
• questions of meaning and purpose; • values and commitments.
8
Pupils can use appropriate evidence and examples to analyse and account for:
• the influence of religious beliefs and teachings on individuals, communities
and society;
• different views of religious practices and lifestyles;
• different interpretations of religious expression in texts, figurative language
and symbolism.
In the light of different religious and other views, feelings and ways of seeing the world, pupils can give informed and well argued accounts of:
• their own views, values and commitments regarding identity and experience;
• questions of meaning and purpose;
• contemporary moral issues.
Exceptional Performance
Pupils can distinguish and actively explore:
• different interpretations of the nature of religious belief and teaching, giving a
balanced analysis of their sources, validity and significance;
• the importance for believers of religious practices and lifestyles and of
the issues which are raised by their diversity within a plural society;
• the meaning of language in religion in the light of philosophical questions
about its status and function.
Pupils can make well informed and reasoned judgements about the significance of religious and non-religious views about:
• human identity and experience;
• the nature of reality;
• religious and ethical theories concerning contemporary moral issues.
They explain these views and judgements within a comprehensive religious and philosophical context.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
How can people seriously be holding up the UK as some kind of model for secondary RE?
Three years of colouring in pictures of festivals followed by two years of "Ethics for Dummies" for those who want it is probably the worst of all possible options.
Where do you get colouring in from?
Experience.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
At Key Stage 3 we have to get kids working to the following levels:
And level descriptors are, of course, an infallible guide to what actually happens in the classroom?
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What Leo and PhilA are referring to is religious education. Other people seem to have got this confused with religious instruction, or if you want to be pejorative, indoctrination. There is a big difference.
Yes and I think a comparison between the Australian and UK systems highlights the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches:
As far as Religious Education is concerned the UK model is much better. Leo is quite right - professionally trained teachers operating within an overall curriculum will be much better. Volunteers will never be able to reproduce that.
However, I think the deeper question is about the aims of such education. I have no problem with the UK model (comparative) as far as religious education is concerned but wonder if the method is presenting a view of religion which is about orthodoxy and not orthopraxis. Religious instruction, on the other hand, will not divorce the two.
My experience of UK RE is that it is a pretty effective turn-off for religion unless one is already a practitioner. It's a bit like comparing paid professionals teaching swimming in the classroom (entirely theoretical) with volunteers teaching it in a local pool. One hopes the professionals will be better teachers but only the volunteers will allow the pupils to experience what swimming actually is.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
How can people seriously be holding up the UK as some kind of model for secondary RE?
Three years of colouring in pictures of festivals followed by two years of "Ethics for Dummies" for those who want it is probably the worst of all possible options.
Where do you get colouring in from?
Experience.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
At Key Stage 3 we have to get kids working to the following levels:
And level descriptors are, of course, an infallible guide to what actually happens in the classroom?
Yes because children have to be assessed and the level attained has to be reported.
Agreed Syllabuses are drawn up so as to help teachers select the subject content suitable to enable students/pupils meet the targets set.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What Leo and PhilA are referring to is religious education. Other people seem to have got this confused with religious instruction, or if you want to be pejorative, indoctrination. There is a big difference.
Indeed there is. My second teaching placement was at a Catholic school where the children received religious instruction for half an hour every morning. I opted out of teaching that as I did not feel sufficiently qualified to instruct catholics in their faith. However, my present placement includes religious education in the timetable and this is much easier to teach. In the UK model two elements are involved when teaching RE: about the faith and of the faith. I recently taught a Year 1 class (5-6 year olds) RE and I had to introduce them to Judaism. Part of the time was given over to what Judaism was about, where Jews worshipped, etc, and part given over to day-by-day issues arising from Judaism, for example keeping promises. There is no obligation on the part of the teacher to believe anything in order to teach RE but a teacher must be sensitive to and respectful of the beliefs of the children.
My first adventure into RE teaching - during my present placement - brought an argument among a number of the children the following morning as they were waiting to be let into the classroom. I had to deal with a couple of upset children whose backgrounds were actively Christian because one child was telling them how stupid they were to believe in God at all and another was stating categorically that humans came from apes. Even at the ages of 5 and 6, religion (and lack of it!) causes strife!
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
I agree with the approach described by Leo which I think of as phenomenology of Religion.
When I was on the exec of the Queensland Council of Parents and Citizens Association back in 1997 I though we were moving toward that, and it would have complemented the philosophy classes that were being introduced in primary schools. However, an internet search failed to mturn up anything.
In a multicultural society it is good to be able to understand/appreciate/respect the people you have say to day contact with. Not that I am am saying that that will happen automatically because of these classes.
But I do think it would be better than my school division where we 90% had a christian service and a rabbi came along for a Jewish service for the other 10%.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
In a multicultural society it is good to be able to understand/appreciate/respect the people you have say to day contact with. Not that I am am saying that that will happen automatically because of these classes.
But I do think it would be better than my school division where we 90% had a christian service and a rabbi came along for a Jewish service for the other 10%.
It is definitely time for a general religious education in Australian schools.
When can I start?
[ 10. June 2010, 07:09: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Dogmatic religion should not have a place in any school that is paid for by the taxpayer.
Simple as that.
Comparative religion, OTOH, should be taught, although in my view mainly from a phenomonological and sociological perspective.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
And level descriptors are, of course, an infallible guide to what actually happens in the classroom?
Yes because children have to be assessed and the level attained has to be reported.
Are you serious?
Are you actually claiming that all grades given to students are based on an analysis of level descriptors?
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
<tangent>
Nice to see you back, oldandrew and I'm glad to see the teaching battleground website has lost none of its edge.
</tangent>
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
And level descriptors are, of course, an infallible guide to what actually happens in the classroom?
Yes because children have to be assessed and the level attained has to be reported.
Are you serious?
Are you actually claiming that all grades given to students are based on an analysis of level descriptors?
Yes. Then a sample of teachers' assessments are moderated within departments. They, in turn, are inspected by OFSTED during a subject inspection (less often than before.)
That being said, some (very few) Agreed Syllabus conferences have voted to ingore the National Framework.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Are you serious?
Are you actually claiming that all grades given to students are based on an analysis of level descriptors?
Yes. Then a sample of teachers' assessments are moderated within departments. They, in turn, are inspected by OFSTED during a subject inspection (less often than before.)
That being said, some (very few) Agreed Syllabus conferences have voted to ingore the National Framework.
Are you talking abour coursework, or actually claiming this is how things are done in general before any grades are given in reports and the like?
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
In Scotland state schools provide a general education for children of the adult citizens who are often taxpayers.State Schools provide an education in the name of the parents who are the 'first educators' of their own children.
In the past most state schools provided a form of religious education based on bible teachings,because most parents wished their children to learn about this.In most secondary schools in Scotland there is somewhat less emphasis on bible teachings as fewer parents are interested in their children learning about this.
Since most of the bible teachings concurred with the views of the various Protestant bodies most of the public schools were in the past called,in popular parlance, 'Protestant' schools. In 1918 virtually all Catholic schools and about three episcopalian schools were transferred into the public system.The existence of Catholic schools depends upon the wishes of parents.If a sufficient number of parents wish a Catholic school then the state will set up a school which has a 'Catholic' ethos,but which is open to those of all'persuasions' and for which children ,provision must be made.Muslim parents often opt for Catholic schools rather than 'non-denominational' schools. Religious education in public Catholic schools is not what it was 50 years ago when one learned and re-learned the catechism. Whilst presenting christianity as a living faith and the cornerstone of many people's lives it has to show other possibilities and cater for those who come from nominally Catholic families and indeed from non Catholic families as well as for those for whom Catholicism is important.
Specifically Catholic schools supported by the state are sometimes attacked as divisive,but they need not be seen as that - they can be seen as an enrichment of the wider community offering aslightly different view of general education -in accordance with the wishes of the parents of the children.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
+Chad
Staffordshire Lad
# 5645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Dogmatic religion should not have a place in any school that is paid for by the taxpayer.
Simple as that.
Is it?
What about voluntary aided schools which are jointly funded by the taxpayer and by a foundation?
Such schools are 90% funded by the state and 10% by the foundation.
In the case of the CofE 10% is a hell of a lot of money.
In my diocese alone the Borad of Education oversees nine secondary schools, two academies and 192 primary schools. 10% of that is a hell of a lot of money.
The Board of Education also provides support services over and above those provided by the Local Authority. That's a lot of personnel and, still more money.
In the case of my parish we contribute at least 33% of the cost of the insurance for two aided primary schools.
There is also a local CofE charitable trust which provides financial assistance on request.
I think that gives us the right to put our mouth where our money is!
Having said that, none of the religion taught in either of the primary schools or the secondary school could be described as dogmatic in any perjorative sense. It's all according to the relevant syllabus.
[ 15. June 2010, 09:27: Message edited by: +Chad ]
--------------------
Chad (The + is silent)
Where there is tea there is hope.
Posts: 2698 | From: The Backbone of England | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Returning to the OP, and going broader, I would hold that education is indoctrination. Children are indoctrinated about what someone thinks is a 'healthy lifestyle' with all the food policing and exercise zealotry that goes with it. Children are indoctrinated to vacuous technology such computers, digital art and internet surfing rather than picking up a book. I don't see parents objecting to computer class and wanting to start up a replacement with books, nor do I see carnivorous parents objecting to stylish vegetable ideas in health classes and wanting offer of classes in meat cutting. So why is religion so special?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crśsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
Children are indoctrinated to vacuous technology such computers . . .
Most computers these days use microchips.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
Returning to the OP, and going broader, I would hold that education is indoctrination. Children are indoctrinated about what someone thinks is a 'healthy lifestyle' with all the food policing and exercise zealotry that goes with it. Children are indoctrinated to vacuous technology such computers, digital art and internet surfing rather than picking up a book. I don't see parents objecting to computer class and wanting to start up a replacement with books, nor do I see carnivorous parents objecting to stylish vegetable ideas in health classes and wanting offer of classes in meat cutting. So why is religion so special?
It's an irregular verb.
I educate.
You teach.
He indoctrinates.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Here is the way a school teaches youngsters religion:
This school "is a multi-faith community and we value the variety and diversity of faiths within our school. RE lessons aim to teach the children to understand and respect world religions and encourage tolerance and spiritual awareness. There is a daily act of collective worship. Parents have the right to withdraw their child from assemblies and RE if they so wish, after consultation with the Headteacher. Children who are withdrawn from RE are given alternative work."
It does give really interesting info and examples and performances about many religions - and is really useful re anti-racism etc. This is a state school, not a specific religion one.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE is supposed to be anti-indoctrination in that it encourages to think, question, evaluate and ...
... colour in?
You've talked about colouring in before - anecdotally, we always thought they did that in geography.
Do you have some contempt for RE, that you belittle it?
Have you ever witnessed a class colouring in? Was it a lesson you were covering, because the absent teacher thought you couldn't cope with teaching something demanding?
OFSTED reported on colouring in at Key Stage 3 in schools which were about to go into special measures and no lesson would get a decent grade that used that method, unless it was some exercise in colour coding statements as a brief starter.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
This school "is a multi-faith community and we value the variety and diversity of faiths within our school. RE lessons aim to teach the children to understand and respect world religions and encourage tolerance and spiritual awareness.
Note the assumption that all "world religions" are equally valid and entitled to "respect". Are they? I'm not sure why anything should be entitled to respect just because it happens to be a religion. RE as currently taught in UK schools isn't 'non-indoctrination' (IMO almost all education contains a degree of indoctrination...its hard to comvey anything at all without implying hierarchies of ideas or subscribing to agendas). Its just indoctrination in a particular largely relativist view of religion as a series of interchangeable ethical/ritual systems, occasionally marred by nasty 'extremists'. It is designed to serve a particular purpose, just as traditional RE curriculums were. Its dangerously niave to argue that modern secular RE is somehow value free.
[ 16. June 2010, 16:54: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PhilA
shipocaster
# 8792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE is supposed to be anti-indoctrination in that it encourages to think, question, evaluate and ...
... colour in?
You've talked about colouring in before - anecdotally, we always thought they did that in geography.
Colouring in the A to Z is the geography course at KS3 isn't it? If you own a compass and can colour between the lines, you get to do GCSE.
PE is GCSE catching and throwing, English is all about reading a comic and watching a film about Shakespeare, and GCSE Art is all about colouring in with posh pencils...
It is easy to belittle each others subject and we can all point to crap teachers in various subjects who make that subject boring, turning the kids off and making up grades as they go along. It happens in nearly every school and those teachers give all other teachers in that subject a bad name.
Yes RE has a murky past with a previously poor reputation but if that still holds as in any way true, then the RE department you are familiar with is shit and needs to re-staff.
--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.
Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE is supposed to be anti-indoctrination in that it encourages to think, question, evaluate and challenge.
All school subjects were supposed to encourage those when I was at school, except for PE of course.
And to tell the truth most did - certainly all the sciences, and RK (as we called it then), and English. History and Geography depended on who you got as your teacher, and I never was good enough at languages to "question, evaluate and challenge" anything much in French or Latin.
But, apart from PE where unthinking obedience was the expected norm, the only sunbjects that required much in the way of rote learning rather than questioning and challenging were maths, languages (at my pathetic level), and history (when taught by some but not all of the teachers - well, one in particular to be honest)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I did an RE GCSE before focusing on science for the remainder of my eduction, but I remember it as a class where I was first taught to think through an argument and to debate emotive issues with objectivity. Too much of the rest of my education at secondary level was rote learning.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE is supposed to be anti-indoctrination in that it encourages to think, question, evaluate and ...
... colour in?
You've talked about colouring in before - anecdotally, we always thought they did that in geography.
Do you have some contempt for RE, that you belittle it?
Have you ever witnessed a class colouring in? Was it a lesson you were covering, because the absent teacher thought you couldn't cope with teaching something demanding?
Last time I had an RE cover I was given a photocopied sheet out of a book entitled "Big questions" explaining that big questions like "Does God is exist?" were ones for which there is no right answer.
The reason I keep mentioning colouring in is because you seem to be trying to sell a picture of RE that is all about philosophical thinking and absorbing vast amounts of relevant knowledge about other cultures.
No, I don't think that in reality there is nothing but colouring in, but there is very little evidence for your description as a claim about what happens in bog standard schools. It is not as if people need to have good degrees in philosophy or theology in order to be RE teachers or that the curriculum requires in-depth knowledge of any specific religion. What we tend to see is a multiple choice subject where departments are free to pick what they look at, and not surprisingly, asking kids what they think about animal rights, or making vague comments about all religions, is much more popular than getting them to familiarise themselves with the doctrines, history, or texts of particular religions.
It is a scandal (in both history and RE teaching) that English teachers find themselves having to explain to students of Shakespeare what the Reformation was.
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I suspect oldandrew's point has had force for some time. One anecdote does not make a point, but a C of E clergyman I know well told me this story recently. The late Christmas Eve service has become very popular in recent years and it's by no means unknown for folks to turn up "having drink taken"; my friend say he tells servers not to let go of the chalice.
But that's not his story. At a service last year at which he was presiding, a young woman, smartly dressed and clearly sober, looked at the chalice and asked in a well-spoken voice "do you have white?". As he observed, she clearly had no idea what she was saying or doing. [He said, "not on this occasion" - which I thought was pretty smart- and moved on discreetly. Tried to find the young woman at the end - but she'd left. Possibly critical at the lack of choice on offer?]
I don't think that could have happened thirty of forty years ago. Initially, the story made me chuckle, but pretty soon I was asking the "why" questions.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrAlpen
Shipmate
# 12858
|
Posted
I have lurked my way with interest through this thread (and wasted far too much time on oldandrew's blog), but I don't think I've seen any examination stats for the number of young people voting with their feet and taking up RE. My data points are either old or anecdotal, but I believe GCSE RE is in the top ten most popular. There's a lot more than colouring-in needed to achieve this.
I would say oldandrew's picture is about what I remember from my own childhood, but having had two children of my own go through our local school system, my experience is that it is taught at least as well if not better than the other humanities, commands a strong following and has charismatic and committed teachers. Only one data point, but I have often discussed with my wife how surprised we are by its popularity.
In addition, my wife is a primary sector RE specialist, and in my thoroughly objective opinion quite easily the best teacher in the school!
So if RE is in such dire straits the national stats don't back it up (as far as I know: please correct me if you know better), and my local anecdotal experience is much more positive too.
Posts: 68 | From: Yuk | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE is supposed to be anti-indoctrination in that it encourages to think, question, evaluate and ...
... colour in?
You've talked about colouring in before - anecdotally, we always thought they did that in geography.
Do you have some contempt for RE, that you belittle it?
Have you ever witnessed a class colouring in? Was it a lesson you were covering, because the absent teacher thought you couldn't cope with teaching something demanding?
Last time I had an RE cover I was given a photocopied sheet out of a book entitled "Big questions" explaining that big questions like "Does God is exist?" were ones for which there is no right answer.
The reason I keep mentioning colouring in is because you seem to be trying to sell a picture of RE that is all about philosophical thinking and absorbing vast amounts of relevant knowledge about other cultures.
No, I don't think that in reality there is nothing but colouring in, but there is very little evidence for your description as a claim about what happens in bog standard schools. It is not as if people need to have good degrees in philosophy or theology in order to be RE teachers or that the curriculum requires in-depth knowledge of any specific religion. What we tend to see is a multiple choice subject where departments are free to pick what they look at, and not surprisingly, asking kids what they think about animal rights, or making vague comments about all religions, is much more popular than getting them to familiarise themselves with the doctrines, history, or texts of particular religions.
It is a scandal (in both history and RE teaching) that English teachers find themselves having to explain to students of Shakespeare what the Reformation was.
It is very difficult to set work for cover lessons when you don't know who will be standing in so it tends to be easy work that will keep the pupils occupied and give the supply teacher less than a hard time. It doesn't necessarily reflect what happens in a lesson taught by a specialist.
People DO have to have degrees in Theology, RS or Philosophy in order to be accepted on to a PGCSE course (or at least they have to here, where I was an associate tutor on the PGCE course for 30 years).
'Bog standard' schools have to follow the same syllabus as any other community school. (VAs, academies and Independents don't). Most Agreed Syllabuses give very little in the way of 'multiple choice'. The trend has been towards more detail and prescription. I don't know which LA you are in - if I did, I'd look at its syllabus and probably prove that you are wrong.
As for pupils giving their opinion on animal rights etc., I was involved in a consultation, for the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, on changes to GCSE and A' level specs. As far as I can recall, very few marks are allocated for a pupil's opinion and that these have to be backed up by reasons. I think, out of 25, 10 marks would go for Christian doctrine(s) about animal rights, a further 10 for another religion e.g.Islam and a further 5 for evaluating these.
As for it being a 'scandal' that they don't know what the Reformation was, RE is about process, not content. I don't think the issues of the Reformation(s) is relevant to helping young people theologise. Reformation Studies belongs to 'Church History' and most church historians say that there is no such thing as 'Church History', only 'History' so the topic belongs in the History curriciulum (though I have serious misgivings about the way it is taught at KS3, i.e. Protestants = good; Catholics = bad.)
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldandrew
Shipmate
# 11546
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As for it being a 'scandal' that they don't know what the Reformation was, RE is about process, not content. I don't think the issues of the Reformation(s) is relevant to helping young people theologise.
Up until that point I had almost started to believe you about the demands of RE (well except the bit about what degrees the teachers need). Now you tell us the single historical event in the last 1000 years that shaped religion in this country is not relevant to their understanding of religion. It kind of demolishes the idea that they are learning anything important about religion in this country.
If the content of RE is that obscure then no wonder you are making the bizarre claim that there is a "process" of religion that allows us to dispense with the content of religion.
Does this process involve crayons, by any chance?
--------------------
Teaching Blog at: http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/
Posts: 1069 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
quote:
This school "is a multi-faith community and we value the variety and diversity of faiths within our school. RE lessons aim to teach the children to understand and respect world religions and encourage tolerance and spiritual awareness.
Note the assumption that all "world religions" are equally valid and entitled to "respect". Are they? I'm not sure why anything should be entitled to respect just because it happens to be a religion. RE as currently taught in UK schools isn't 'non-indoctrination' (IMO almost all education contains a degree of indoctrination...its hard to comvey anything at all without implying hierarchies of ideas or subscribing to agendas). Its just indoctrination in a particular largely relativist view of religion as a series of interchangeable ethical/ritual systems, occasionally marred by nasty 'extremists'. It is designed to serve a particular purpose, just as traditional RE curriculums were. Its dangerously niave to argue that modern secular RE is somehow value free.
They all enjoy the performances done at special religious happening times, and some of them who don't belong to that particular religion often also perform - dancing, singing, speaking, acting, drawing, making things...
And by getting them to "respect" religions, that is also to prevent racism and to not be against a person because they are in a particular religion.
It also helps them to genuinely understand what goes on in all sorts of peoples' lives.
They can, of course, think, decide, believe what they choose...
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
