Thread: Should RE be expunged from the EBac? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023805
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Religious Education in secondary schools is facing its biggest threat for twenty-three years. Education minister Michael Gove is introducing an English Baccalaureate whose humanities component includes History or Geography but has excluded RE.

RE will cease to be important in the eyes of pupils as schools will steer them away beause it will no longer contribute to league tables.

RE has much to contribute to ‘the big society’ as it raises moral issues and encourages social cohesion.

In 1988, Kenneth Baker sidelined RE but a concerted campaign led to the raising of its profile. It has become the fastest growing GCSE subject. All this work will be undone at the stroke of a pen so it is to be hoped that Mr. Gove may be urged to think again.
 
Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :
 
Will they replace it with philosophy and ethics or is that going too? It was one of the most popular (non maths/english/science) subjects at one of the schools I taught in.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
I went to secondary school from 1992-1999. During that time RE, when it was taught, was barely worth the name since it had very little, if any, religious content to it. If my experience is a common one, then killing off the whole thing would only make official what is already happening in practice. I would argue, though, that proper religious instruction should be in the curriculum.
 
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 
I think that the EBac is a great idea. It is right that it should be restricted to English, Maths, 2 sciences, a language and either history or geography. They are the core subjects that every 16 year old should be getting. RE is not essential in the same way, which is why it isn't included. If parents want RE for their kids, send them to a school that will do it.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
RE nor essential? 'In the light of the global political situation, surely the objective study of religious issues should be encouraged’ Brian Lightman, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders

A recent poll among 18 to-25- year-olds revealed that RE lessons were remembered as valuable for several years after leaving school.

The Bishop of Oxford: Commitment to religious education by schools is crucial to interfaith understanding and harmonious relations between people of different religious backgrounds. It is also essential to young people’s personal development, enabling them to work out their beliefs and the values they will take into adult life.

Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews: Religious studies has proven itself to be a valuable contribution to the academic curriculum, teaching students to respect themselves and others and, importantly, build identities which contribute favourably to all areas of society. The multi-disciplinary nature of the subject, involving textual study, philosophical thinking, ethics, social understanding and the skills of analysis and reasoning, develops critical thinkers.

Dr Hojjat Ramzy, vice-chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain's education committee: given the challenge posed by Islamophobia.....In our ever-growing multi-cultural and multi-faith society, it's very important that people, especially the younger generation, are aware of the religions and cultures of others.

Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch, the Oxford church historian who presented the BBC series A History of Christianity: Religion matters to most human beings in the world today," he added. "To leave religion to the religious extremists, outside a good education system, is to distort it.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
core subjects that every 16 year old should be getting. RE is not essential in the same way,
So can you tell me why biblical Hebrew and ancient Greek are in the Bac but Urdu isn't? What sort of world is Gove living in? Eton, I suspect.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Oh - and why aren't computer studies, engineering or business studies considered essential?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
Will they replace it with philosophy and ethics or is that going too? It was one of the most popular (non maths/english/science) subjects at one of the schools I taught in.
No philosophy nor ethics.

Tories don't want people to think for themselves or ask awkward questions.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
2 sciences
Only ONE science in the Bac.
 
Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :
 
[Ultra confused]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I went to secondary school from 1992-1999. During that time RE, when it was taught, was barely worth the name since it had very little, if any, religious content to it. If my experience is a common one, then killing off the whole thing would only make official what is already happening in practice. I would argue, though, that proper religious instruction should be in the curriculum.
You shouldn't generalise from your experience in ONE school. In my teaching of RE since 1974, a rigorous knowledge of 6 major world religions has been the cornerstone in the four schools i have worked in and the Agreed Syllabusses of two local authorities I have worked in.

What do you mean by 'proper religious instruction'? The term has overtones of indoctrination and is out of place in a multi-faith and partly secular society.
 
Posted by les@BALM (# 11237) on :
 
I have taught RE in an Comprehensive school. I favour the return of Humanities with a thematic approach and RE being a part of the curriculum.
 
Posted by coniunx (# 15313) on :
 
Just to be clear on this: as I understand it, RE isn't in the eBac as it stands anyway: the only things which qualify for the 'Humanities' element are History, Ancient History and Geography.

There's quite a good argument that RE is just as much a humanity, and that it has as high a relevance in the modern world - at least as high a relevance as ancient history - especially given the centrality of certain approaches in Islamic teaching to current affairs; but it's not in there at present.

Requests have been made to Government to consider this, but they aren't interested; a rather senior local Conservative MP, approached on this, has said they don't want to be seen to do anything which might give faith schools an advantage (which is a slightly odd argument, given that in general faith schools are outperforming the pack on EBac results by a considerable amount anyway).

What is under discussion, apparently, is the removal of RE from the required subjects under the National Curriculum, which is a quite different matter.
 
Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :
 
It is hard to see why RE would be included when the RE GCSEs are pick and mix qualifications with very little rigour, where it is entirely optional whether anything is covered deeply or intelligently.

If I remember correctly, the last time we discussed RE teaching on here, some RE teachers popped up to explain how they didn't believe in teaching "facts" or anything like that, and it was all about expressing opinions and believing that all opinions were equal.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Am I right in thinking that unlike history and geography, RE has no national syllabus unless you're planning to sit a GCSE in it (in which case the syllabus consists of knowing what's on the exam)?

Pace both Anglican't and leo, RE at my school covered Christianity (Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox) quite extensively, Islam and Judaism very superficially, and added a few bits of philosophy and ethics. However, AIUI there was nothing to stop them filling it full of fluffiness as Anglican't describes.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So can you tell me why biblical Hebrew and ancient Greek are in the Bac but Urdu isn't?
Urdu is an option - see here.

The really bizarre omission is IT, because IME if employers care about what specific GCSEs anyone has, they're most likely to be looking for English, Maths, and / or IT.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Am I right in thinking that unlike history and geography, RE has no national syllabus unless you're planning to sit a GCSE in it (in which case the syllabus consists of knowing what's on the exam)?

Pace both Anglican't and leo, RE at my school covered Christianity (Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox) quite extensively, Islam and Judaism very superficially, and added a few bits of philosophy and ethics. However, AIUI there was nothing to stop them filling it full of fluffiness as Anglican't describes.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So can you tell me why biblical Hebrew and ancient Greek are in the Bac but Urdu isn't?
Urdu is an option - see here.

The really bizarre omission is IT, because IME if employers care about what specific GCSEs anyone has, they're most likely to be looking for English, Maths, and / or IT.
Urdu isn't on your link - please clarify.

The reason why RE hasn't a national syllabus is historical - goes back to the 1944 Act and it is locally determined. I have sat on local syllabus groups for the past 33 years and can assure you that they are rigorous - probably more so that National Curriculum syllabuses - the latter were mostly drawn up over two weekends in an hotel after Baker's 1988 Act whereas we meet every 6 weeks and revise/renew/alter our syllabuses every 5 years.

Furthermore, following extensive observations by OFSTED, we had a national framework and a national strategy which lays down the content which must be included in out syllabuses.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
It is hard to see why RE would be included when the RE GCSEs are pick and mix qualifications with very little rigour, where it is entirely optional whether anything is covered deeply or intelligently.

If I remember correctly, the last time we discussed RE teaching on here, some RE teachers popped up to explain how they didn't believe in teaching "facts" or anything like that, and it was all about expressing opinions and believing that all opinions were equal.
Rigour? The following are required in RE and far outdo anything in History or Geography GCSE:

LEVEL 7 provide coherent account of / Analyse/Critically evaluate / Use wide range of evidence
LEVEL 8 Synthesize /Justify in depth / Critically evaluate in depth / Contextualise/Analyse coherently
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
Requests have been made to Government to consider this, but they aren't interested; a rather senior local Conservative MP, approached on this, has said they don't want to be seen to do anything which might give faith schools an advantage (which is a slightly odd argument, given that in general faith schools are outperforming the pack on EBac results by a considerable amount anyway).
RE in faith schools is very limited compared with LA syllabuses. Faith schools narrow down RE and the content should NOT be in the Bac in my view.
 
Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 
AQA 10010932 Urdu GCSE

EDEXCEL 10008949 Urdu GCSE

AQA 5004493X AQA Level 1/Level 2 GCSE in Urdu GCSE

EDEXCEL 50046287 EDEXCEL Level 1/Level 2 GCSE in Urdu GCSE

Are all on the link.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
a rather senior local Conservative MP
Who is this, please?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Urdu is an option - see here.
Urdu isn't on your link - please clarify.[/QB]
Click on "List of qualifications that count in the EBacc". (It's an Excel document so I didn't want to link to it directly.)

Thanks for your other comments, btw.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
What is under discussion, apparently, is the removal of RE from the required subjects under the National Curriculum, which is a quite different matter.
How odd! RE is NOT in the National Curriculum. Never has been.

Plus, Gove said last week that the 'we do not envisage that the current arrangements for RE will change.'
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I went to secondary school from 1992-1999. During that time RE, when it was taught, was barely worth the name since it had very little, if any, religious content to it. If my experience is a common one, then killing off the whole thing would only make official what is already happening in practice.
So should one anecdotal example of bad practice result in killing off all good practice?

On Radio 4 last Saturday, someone said that their nearby academy school diverted all Year 10 and 11 pupils already taking RS into History or Geography and made three RE teachers redundant.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Urdu is an option - see here.
Urdu isn't on your link - please clarify.
Click on "List of qualifications that count in the EBacc". (It's an Excel document so I didn't want to link to it directly.)

Thanks for your other comments, btw. [/QB]
No - it is all English language from different exam boards. I will be delighted if you can prove me to be wrong.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No - it is all English language from different exam boards. I will be delighted if you can prove me to be wrong.
It's a spreadsheet with multiple worksheets. Click on the tab marked "Language".
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Thank you - got it. Good news.

Doubtless OldAndrew will come along and castigate me for my lack of IT skills in reading spreadsheets - to which I say, why isn't ICT in the Bac?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE in faith schools is very limited compared with LA syllabuses. Faith schools narrow down RE and the content should NOT be in the Bac in my view.
So would I be right in concluding that the way RE is regulated would have to be modified before RE could reasonably be included in the EBacc?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I went to secondary school from 1992-1999. During that time RE, when it was taught, was barely worth the name since it had very little, if any, religious content to it. If my experience is a common one, then killing off the whole thing would only make official what is already happening in practice. I would argue, though, that proper religious instruction should be in the curriculum.
You shouldn't generalise from your experience in ONE school.
I know I shouldn't, hence why I wrote 'if my experience is a common one'. I sincerely hope that it is isn't. I appreciate that my knowledge is limited to a seven year period in the last century and I don't pretend that this gives me supreme knowledge of the RE curriculum in 2011.

quote:
In my teaching of RE since 1974, a rigorous knowledge of 6 major world religions has been the cornerstone in the four schools i have worked in and the Agreed Syllabusses of two local authorities I have worked in.
Good.

quote:
What do you mean by 'proper religious instruction'? The term has overtones of indoctrination and is out of place in a multi-faith and partly secular society.
As someone who doesn't believe in many interpretations of a 'multi-faith' society, I have no problem with children being instructed in the fundamentals of Christian faith, what with having an Established Church and all that. I know that you and 99% of other Shipmates will disagree but we all have our quirks.
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
Would someone care to explain to those of us across the pond what is covered in RE? Is it a cultural/historical overview of the origins and tenets of faiths of the world? Or is it focused on teaching school kids about Christianity?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE in faith schools is very limited compared with LA syllabuses. Faith schools narrow down RE and the content should NOT be in the Bac in my view.
So would I be right in concluding that the way RE is regulated would have to be modified before RE could reasonably be included in the EBacc?
Yes - faith schools should be obliged to teach the locally agreed syllabus. The previous government were intending to change the law on this but got cold feet when they considered taking on the RCC and the C of E.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Would someone care to explain to those of us across the pond what is covered in RE? Is it a cultural/historical overview of the origins and tenets of faiths of the world? Or is it focused on teaching school kids about Christianity?
There are two attainment targets:

learning about religion - the scope of content should embrace Christianity in its local,
national and global forms, as well as the five other principal world religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Sikhism), other religions of significance in Britain (the Baha’i, Jain and Zoroastrian faiths) and non-religious or
secular world views such as humanism. Christianity should be taught in each key
stage. In addition, other religions of local significance may be included, where
appropriate.

learning from religion - this is about the relevance of religion to daily life

There are 6 key concepts:

beliefs, teachings and sources
practices and ways of life
expressing meaning
identity, diversity and belonging
meaning, purpose and truth
values and commitments.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I have no problem with children being instructed in the fundamentals of Christian faith, what with having an Established Church and all that.
'instructed' smacks of indoctrination. RE is an educational subject open to pupils of all beliefs and of none. It is suppose to engage them rather than merely impart facts/opinions.

[ 25. January 2011, 14:51: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :
 
Leo - just tried to pm you but your box is full!
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
My union, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, has come out in favour opf RE in the Bac and quoted a bishop as saying:
"The Church of England is pretty astonished at the omission of RE. I want to fire a warning salvo that there will be huge objection from the church and many other parts of society if it is not part of the core curriculum," he told the newspaper.

The Bishop noted that religious education is a tool that can be used to create the kind of cohesive society that we are seeking.

He warned that we neglect the subject "at our peril".

I wonder if the NUT and NAS/UWT will catch up. We're always first at curriculum and many other issues.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
Leo - just tried to pm you but your box is full!
Try again! Had a purge.
 
Posted by Niminypiminy (# 15489) on :
 
Isn't it important to put this discussion in context by recognising that the EBacc is hugely controversial?

It was introduced retrospectively by Gove as an element in the recent league tables of secondary schools (so schools will be judged on their past performance against a standard they had no knowledge of at the time). I suspect it was introduced in this way so as to make any progress made by schools in raising exam results under the previous government seem specious.


It introduces a standard by which all schools and all children will be judged which will not be attainable by a large proportion, a standard that effectively reinstates the core curriculum of a pre-comprehensivisation grammar school.

In that context, pace Leo, the ommission of RE seems to me to be splitting hairs. This isn't because I don't value RE: I do, highly. But it's because it doesn't reflect a broad, balanced, differentiated curriculum which will meet the needs of all pupils.

It's a way of trashing schools that achieve excellence in vocational pathways, for example. It's a way of undermining schools that do amazing things with children who start with staggering cultural and educational disadvantage. And most of all, it's a way of consigning those children who don't get the Ebacc to the bin marked thickies.

Well, speaking as someone who left school with rather less that the equivalent of 5 good GCSEs, let alone an EBacc, and now has a Phd and teaches in a top-rated University department, in my opinion that is a big pile of the stinkiest, rottenest rubbish.

[Edited to say, sorry, emotions ran high and I came over all hell-ish towards the end.]

[ 25. January 2011, 17:37: Message edited by: Niminypiminy ]
 
Posted by Tom Day (# 3630) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Doubtless OldAndrew will come along and castigate me for my lack of IT skills in reading spreadsheets - to which I say, why isn't ICT in the Bac?
As an IT teacher I'd agree! In our school we have just got ICT to become a core subject that everyone must take and then Gove comes out with this.

I don't agree fundamentally with the E-Bac, and this interview with Michael Gove sums it up for me. There are schools who will never get close to 50% of students achieving the E-Bac and therefore it is not a fair measure. By all means have it but to use it to compare schools is plainly unfair. And publishing it this year before schools even had a chance to respond with their curriculum is grammar school biased - in fact I won't be surprised if one of his next announcements is the return to grammar schools.

I'd also agree that it should be a humanities subject, RE (or, as in our school Philosophy and Ethics) is just as important as History or Geography and gives students a chance to look in depth at subjects.
 
Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
It is hard to see why RE would be included when the RE GCSEs are pick and mix qualifications with very little rigour, where it is entirely optional whether anything is covered deeply or intelligently.

If I remember correctly, the last time we discussed RE teaching on here, some RE teachers popped up to explain how they didn't believe in teaching "facts" or anything like that, and it was all about expressing opinions and believing that all opinions were equal.
Rigour? The following are required in RE and far outdo anything in History or Geography GCSE:

LEVEL 7 provide coherent account of / Analyse/Critically evaluate / Use wide range of evidence
LEVEL 8 Synthesize /Justify in depth / Critically evaluate in depth / Contextualise/Analyse coherently
Except for the bit about evidence, those are exactly the sorts of vague phrases used to describe dumbed-down subjects. You could be talking about media studies here quite easily.
 
Posted by Calleva Atrebatum (# 14058) on :
 
It seems bizarre to make RE not count as a humanity for the sake of the 5 GCSEs needed to be awarded the Ebacc (which, as I understand it, isn't a qualification in itself, just the name for doing 5 GCSEs...).

This isn't the same as saying RE should be compulsory at a national level. Clearly it shouldn't; Britain is largely secular and however good the transferable skills learnt in RE are, the same skills can be equally learnt in History or Geography. Individual schools, I think, should be able to make it compulsory if it suits their needs, but it shouldn't be prescribed nationally.

But if a student does RE, whether because they've opted for the GCSE or because their school has made them, it should count as their humanity subject at GCSE. ISTM wrong to say that if a student does RE GCSE, but doesn't do History or Geography, then they haven't done a humanity.

As a tangent, I don't believe making RE an option nationally will diminish its quality nationally; if anything it will raise it, because students opting for it will usually be committed and driven to do this subject.
 
Posted by Marinaki (# 343) on :
 
Where Schools insist on a Humanities subject at GCSE RE has traditionally taken its place in the options box alongside History and Geography.
[A note - Gove originally excluded Geography until persuaded otherwise].
RE is a required core curriculum subject compulsory till 19 years of age for all those still being schooled.
Post 14 in some areas pupils are legally obliged to take at least a short course in RE, in others there is no such requirement in the legally binding Locally Agreed Syllabus, which means they still have to legally provide non-examined RE (often not of good quality - because schools don't take it seriously and will not put their hands in their pockets to fund it well - with good specialist teachers)and a full course RE will also be on offer.
In my current school, we offered History, RE, and Geography as options, and many students take at least two of these.
At the moment I teach both History and RE (I have two degrees which make this possible). They are equally rigorous subjects, and contrary to 'oldandrew's' assertion RE GCSE does require facts - and lots of them. It also requires analytical and evaluative skills.

RE has increased in popularity over the years and strong and rigorous teaching has increased the uptake. This has led to a strong A'Level cohort. We find that many of our academically gifted sixth-formers choose RE - along with Triple Science, or History or other subjects and their results are well respected and recognised by Universities. Many of our past students go on to Oxbridge and Rusell group universities (we are a truly Comprehensive school).
At the last Humanities Faculty meeting the RE department felt like getting up and leaving. We are all well qualified Theologians and Philosophers who encourage critical thinking and rigour. Our subject in the GCSE choices was to be marginalised by History and Geography. History is a strong subject (I also teach it) and is the most popular in school, followed by RE. Many students do most and the topics are comparable. Now Geography which has inconsistent teaching was getting a leg up and students who might choose RE we were told, would be encouraged to do Geography (i.e. glorified colouring in).
RE would be left with those students who didn't want to do it, and would not get the EBacc anyway. Essentially downgrading the subject and making it unsustainable at A'Level. There is no Philosophy GCSE, so this would also impact on a pure Philosophy A'Level too. We did half-joke that at least we could teach Biblical Hebrew, Ancient Greek and Latin and maybe MFL would take us on.

Part of the problem, is the social commentators on RE are basing their views on their half-remembered opinion of the subject often more than a decade ago, and many cases a lot longer. RE has improved immensely and is seen to have equal standing with Geography and History, unfortunately, many schools are forgetting their purpose - the all round good education of children drawing out their skills and talents. Many teachers think they have to kow tow to Govt. demands. The great irony is that power in the NHS is being devolved to the doctors, but in schools - apparently - Headteachers cannot be trusted to, to provide the best education for their students. They have spent too many years obeying the latest Govt. initiative without examining its pedagogical worth.

Another problem is that the Conservatives seem to be aware that RE is a hot potato, best left alone. This attitude will sound the death knell of rigorous examined RE.

The one positive note, however, is that the National Secular Society and the British Humanist Association have both come out in support of RE - as well as the people you would expect, i.e. churches and faith groups

The Ebacc as a whole is ill-thought out (like something written on the back of an envelope and in haste) and wrong headed. In fact Gove is turning back to 1868 and the Education Curriculum of the Taunton Report. His EBacc is a carbon copy of this.

It's sad to see those who celebrate the demise of RE in British schools seem to have such a poor understanding of the subject and how it is taught today.
 
Posted by Marinaki (# 343) on :
 
Some examples of typical RE Papers from each of the exam boards. Students normally follow two units - there is a wide choice of topics -I present the more popular. Remember these are examining mainly 15-16 year olds and there is a time limit. Also, bear in mind that many people on this forum have more than a passing interest in these topics and certainly a lot more than your average teenager. A certain degree of knowledge and analysis is required for top grades- this is clearer in the accompanying mark schemes. All are pdf files:

Edexcel does not make its material public but has sample papers here.

AQA Religious Philosophy and Ultimate Questions (

AQA Christianity

OCR Christianity (1 Paper of Four)

OCR Philosophy and Ethics

OCR Religion and Faith in the Modern World
 
Posted by Marinaki (# 343) on :
 
Typos spotted too late in my first post (having the flu doesn't help)

=Russell Group
=students do both (not most)

There are probably a few others.

[Note to self: Check your work before you hand it in, otherwise you will lose marks]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I have no problem with children being instructed in the fundamentals of Christian faith, what with having an Established Church and all that.
'instructed' smacks of indoctrination. RE is an educational subject open to pupils of all beliefs and of none. It is suppose to engage them rather than merely impart facts/opinions.
The subject was RI, wasn't it? Personally, I wouldn't mind the stress being put on the learning of facts in school above all else.

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Day:
I won't be surprised if one of his [Michael Gove's] next announcements is the return to grammar schools.
We can only hope.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Day:
I won't be surprised if one of his [Michael Gove's] next announcements is the return to grammar schools.
We can only hope.
Support for grammars is like being a libertarian. Libertarians always think they're going to come out on top, grammar school supporters always assume their kids will be a shoo-in.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So can you tell me why biblical Hebrew and ancient Greek are in the Bac but Urdu isn't?
Slight tangent - I know we've established the EBacc allows Urdu as a language, but I think there's actually a good reason to be dubious about its inclusion.

My school, like many others, was obsessed with league tables and - again like many others - developed a policy of encouraging bilingual ethnic minority pupils to sit GCSEs in their other native language. When they got A*s - being bilingual - the school then used them to boost its A*/A tally in the league tables. I am pretty sure that the majority of candidates for GCSE Urdu are entered on this basis. (At least in schools, anyway.)

I have no problem with Urdu-speakers being recognised for their ability, but it's rather dishonest for schools to take the credit when they played almost no part in their pupils' ability to speak Urdu.

Ranking schools on the EBacc - when the EBacc includes GCSEs awarded on this basis - guarantees that schools with a high percentage of ethnic minority pupils will be able to artificially boost their position in the league tables.

In other words: I agree with Niminypiminy, that the EBacc is a badly thought out fudge.

[ 26. January 2011, 12:50: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
I quite like the idea of an EBac in principle, but I have my reservations about the practice.

Both sons would have got the EBac, one from a very competitive Grammar school which is right near the top of the EBac league tables. He genuinely does have a good, rounded academic education, and went on to get an International Baccalaureate, which requires English, Maths and a foreign language plus three other subjects all at levels comparable to A level or higher.

The other was deemed 'non-selective' and went to a wide ability church school. I absolutely insisted that he take French GCSE, much to his disgust. He took the lower paper (maximum grade available being C) and duly got a C. He chose to study history, and the other subjects are compulsory anyway. However, his knowledge of French is absolutely pitiful. It is of no use to him whatsoever. My old B grade O level french from 35 years ago is far, far better.

Unless they improve language teaching, or at least the assessment process, I wouldn't give much credibility to the language element of the EBac.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
Unless they improve language teaching, or at least the assessment process, I wouldn't give much credibility to the language element of the EBac.
As a modern languages graduate, I second that.

I've known people get to A-Level French and look totally flummoxed at the idea of est-ce que to form questions. I've known people get through GCSE German without having heard of the case system!
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
It is hard to see why RE would be included when the RE GCSEs are pick and mix qualifications with very little rigour, where it is entirely optional whether anything is covered deeply or intelligently.

If I remember correctly, the last time we discussed RE teaching on here, some RE teachers popped up to explain how they didn't believe in teaching "facts" or anything like that, and it was all about expressing opinions and believing that all opinions were equal.
Rigour? The following are required in RE and far outdo anything in History or Geography GCSE:

LEVEL 7 provide coherent account of / Analyse/Critically evaluate / Use wide range of evidence
LEVEL 8 Synthesize /Justify in depth / Critically evaluate in depth / Contextualise/Analyse coherently
Except for the bit about evidence, those are exactly the sorts of vague phrases used to describe dumbed-down subjects. You could be talking about media studies here quite easily.
AND History - Level 8: analyse the relationships between events.....wider historical context....analyse and explain ....evaluate them. ....use sources of information critically....reach substantiated conclusions independently. They select, organise and deploy relevant information ....

Geography Lever 8: analyse....awareness of the complexity...use and interpret....support analysis and interpretations....carry
out appropriate investigations to solve problems or test hypotheses and reach valid conclusions based on the interpretation of data.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
My old B grade O level french from 35 years ago is far, far better.

Unless they improve language teaching, or at least the assessment process, I wouldn't give much credibility to the language element of the EBac.
Maybe. I was at a grammar school doing O-levels a little bit more than 35 years ago and there was no way I could have dreamed of passing French. I got a grade 9 at O-level in the end, which is almost the worst you could get. (Grades 1-6 were passes, I think you had to physically assault the examiner to get a 10) So either I was very stupid, or else the teaching was very bad.

And neither seems particularly likely to me - academically the school was pretty much the top of the local area in most things (we were easily the best at science and art, and the only school that could beat us on humanities subjects was our sister grammar school for girls). So the teaching was probably at least OK. And I was average to good at most academic subjects.

So maybe there are people who just don't have the innate ability to do well at languages but are good at other subjects.

(A polite way of saying I think the idea of making a language pass compulsory for a university place stinks)
 
Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:

(A polite way of saying I think the idea of making a language pass compulsory for a university place stinks)
So who has proposed that idea? No-one.
Is it likely to happen? No.
 
Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
My old B grade O level french from 35 years ago is far, far better.

Unless they improve language teaching, or at least the assessment process, I wouldn't give much credibility to the language element of the EBac.
Maybe. I was at a grammar school doing O-levels a little bit more than 35 years ago and there was no way I could have dreamed of passing French. I got a grade 9 at O-level in the end, which is almost the worst you could get. (Grades 1-6 were passes, I think you had to physically assault the examiner to get a 10) So either I was very stupid, or else the teaching was very bad.

Well, at least you got a low grade. SC actually got a pass at grade C - and I assure you, he has no functional French at all. He should have failed. That's what I'm worried about. I wouldn't be concerned about needing a language to get into university - if he can get a C, my cat could as well.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
The Church Times news item relating to this thread is generally available for interested readers.
 
Posted by Tom Day (# 3630) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Day:
I won't be surprised if one of his [Michael Gove's] next announcements is the return to grammar schools.
We can only hope.
Why? I know that I have got no experience of grammar schools - having been educated in a comp, and taught in a comp, but why are grammar schools the answer? Surely you'll then get even more of a have / have not society. Isn't it better to have a mainly inclusive education system where children / teenagers can mix with all abilities - and the more academic can see and learn from the less academic and vice versa? (Yes I know this is probably utopian but then the majority of public services are based on a utopian idea)

As a teacher I like having mixed ability students to teach, and they can help each other progress. Maybe I am being a little optimistic but I do hope that we stick with something like we have at the moment.
 
Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki:

At the moment I teach both History and RE (I have two degrees which make this possible). They are equally rigorous subjects, and contrary to 'oldandrew's' assertion RE GCSE does require facts - and lots of them.

As I recall I did not simply assert it, I said that it was what RE teachers had said on this forum in a previous discussion. This is also consistent with Leo's knowledge-free list of what he thinks makes RE count as rigorous.

quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki:

It also requires analytical and evaluative skills.
Unfortunately, you have now shown us some RE papers and so I stand by my original claim, it is possible to teach RE in a rigorous, academic way, but it is not necessary in order to pass at grade C as, with the right exam board required content, is minimal.

[ 29. January 2011, 05:56: Message edited by: oldandrew ]
 
Posted by Marinaki (# 343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Unfortunately, you have now shown us some RE papers and so I stand by my original claim, it is possible to teach RE in a rigorous, academic way, but it is not necessary in order to pass at grade C as, with the right exam board required content, is minimal.
Really... this specification has no content? or this one? It doesn't say much but I think you'll find content is specified.

Although, the same charge could be made for Geography which is in the Bacc or in some cases History "with the right exam board". There are options popular in some schools such as "History of the Media" and "History of Medicine" as well as the usual lashings of Hitler and the Industrial Revolution.
I fail to see why a belief in a memory test of facts is any way useful or relevant.
(Although GCSEs are in the main a regurgitation of facts across the board, and even the first year of A levels is]

It amazes me, oldandrew's blog "Scenes from the Battleground" complains and complains and complains about education, behaviour and management. Is it really a Battleground? I work in London schools. I've worked in some of the toughest areas of the country, and in some of the best schools in the country (that's with the EBacc criteria too!). It is true because of societal breakdown young people come to school with serious behavioural problems and lacking respect for authority. (Although I think this has been the grip of teachers down the ages). While we cannot fix broken marriages, and drug-addicted parents, general poverty and the like. However,good teaching,that excites and engages them actually has an effect.

Personally, I don't think much of a lesson called Citizenship - often nicknamed "Shitizenship" (I don't think anybody really does). However it was in just such a lesson (all staff teach it) that one of my charges, a boy with a seriously unstable home life, on the verge of being kicked out of school, bright but always in trouble learnt about consumer rights. "What you mean miss the jacket I bought last week and the zip was broken, I can take it back?" Apparently, his experience of dealing with a difficult shop manager and being able to quote the Sale of Goods Act 1979 has now turned him on to becoming a lawyer. Apparently he has become incredibly focussed in History and English lessons, because he needs these to become a lawyer. It might just happen. Although his friend in the same class who knows that all he wants to be is a plumber is just waiting out school until he can get to college, because no real vocational courses exist.

I have taken over some classes where they had six months of useless, child friendly teaching. I've come in, put in place rules, expectations, and "old-fashioned" lessons. After initial distress at not getting their own way, the students have really appreciated it. Of course, it didn't fit what management at that school wanted. Management who chopped and changed at every government initiative (much like many schools now). My results were excellent. However, I didn't stay there long, because I hated the 'target-culture' and ineffectual management. Some of the kids found me years later, now studying for good degrees at University, and have thanked me for actually bothering to teach them!

I don't know what the solution is. I don't think Gove has got it, mainly because of the mixed messages coming out.

I wonder if schools will now be interested in my skills of Biblical Hebrew and ancient Greek, now that it is in the EBacc criteria, especially given that RE teachers are being made redundant and some schools are now overtly breaking the law by not providing it at all in KS4. Although, I'd much rather be teaching GCSE RS for two hours a week to kids who want to study it, than a half-hour 'discussion lesson' in form time with years 10 and 11, which is what RE is about to revert to.
 
Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki:
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
Unfortunately, you have now shown us some RE papers and so I stand by my original claim, it is possible to teach RE in a rigorous, academic way, but it is not necessary in order to pass at grade C as, with the right exam board required content, is minimal.
Really... this specification has no content? or this one?
Where did this straw man come from? I said that it is possible to get grade C with minimal content. This is not a claim that there is no content in any of the specifications.

quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki:

It doesn't say much but I think you'll find content is specified.

Although, the same charge could be made for Geography which is in the Bacc or in some cases History "with the right exam board". There are options popular in some schools such as "History of the Media" and "History of Medicine" as well as the usual lashings of Hitler and the Industrial Revolution.
Whether the other subjects have been dumbed-down too much is another issue. It might well be including any humanities subject in the EBacc is a waste of time, but whether the standard is too low is a different argument as to whether it is too high. I'd be interested to see if you can find a history paper as dumbed down as some (but not all) of those RE papers were.

quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki:

I fail to see why a belief in a memory test of facts is any way useful or relevant.
(Although GCSEs are in the main a regurgitation of facts across the board, and even the first year of A levels is]
Who simply wants a memory test? By all means test understanding of the knowledge that has been committed to memory. The important thing though, is that knowledge is actually taught. As long as sharing opiniions, and vague thinking skills are commonly thought of as the point of RE then, even if it is interrupted by a bit of rote memorisation in order to pass exams, it does not deserve to be considered an academic subject.

quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki:

It amazes me, oldandrew's blog "Scenes from the Battleground" complains and complains and complains about education, behaviour and management. Is it really a Battleground? I work in London schools. I've worked in some of the toughest areas of the country, and in some of the best schools in the country (that's with the EBacc criteria too!). It is true because of societal breakdown young people come to school with serious behavioural problems and lacking respect for authority. (Although I think this has been the grip of teachers down the ages). While we cannot fix broken marriages, and drug-addicted parents, general poverty and the like. However,good teaching,that excites and engages them actually has an effect.
The emphasis in state schools has been on excitement and engagement rather than learning for decades now. Ask employers and universities what effect it has.
 
Posted by Marinaki (# 343) on :
 
Whatever I say you will still rubbish Religious Studies. I'm sure you could get a C in many subjects with minimal content - possibly even your own. I don't teach to the minimum standard? Do you?

Here's an idea oldandrew ... it is quite possible to make teaching exciting and engaging without dumbing it down or detracting from content. One does not equate the other. Are you suggesting that all learning should be dull and boring? Do you really learn when it is unengaging? One can quite easily teach any subject, of any depth or rigour and ensure that it is either engaging or mind-bashingly dull. I'm guessing we have all had an experience of teachers who could make even the most engaging of subjects as dull as ever, and others who would seemingly dull ones come to life.
Are you suggesting that teaching should not engage students?


What motivates us?

[ 29. January 2011, 10:04: Message edited by: Marinaki ]
 
Posted by Marinaki (# 343) on :
 
A clarification:
Engagement is not the end, but the means for education. Where people go wrong is interpreting that as the end in itself or criticising this as the end in itself.

Personally, I would have a Philosophy GCSE (not the Philosophy and Ethics in RS at the moment). Currently, Philosophy is only available at A'Level.
Why? Philosophy graduates are smarter.
 
Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki:
Whatever I say you will still rubbish Religious Studies.
If you can demonstrate that no RE teacher uses the more dumbed down of the exam papers you linked to, and that the various RE teachers who criticise the teaching of facts are not really RE teachers, then you might have a chance of changing my mind. However, if the facts remain unchanged then how can I possibly accept the RE GCSE as an academic qualification?

quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki:

I'm sure you could get a C in many subjects with minimal content - possibly even your own. I don't teach to the minimum standard? Do you?
I never said you did. The point is not that the content is minimal for the subject, but that it is minimal for a qualification.

quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki:

Here's an idea oldandrew ... it is quite possible to make teaching exciting and engaging without dumbing it down or detracting from content. One does not equate the other.
I've heard this claimed a lot. But when teachers get observed, what's the first thing they do? Pick the most interesting and engaging topic.

There are topics that are just not that interesting and there are massive differences between what students find interesting. I'm yet to meet the teacher who never taught a boring lesson but I have met many teachers who regularly fail to get enough knowledge across because they were trying to "motivate".

quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki:

Are you suggesting that all learning should be dull and boring?
What a ridiculous straw man. I am suggesting that entertainment value is not that important.

quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki:

Do you really learn when it is unengaging?
Yes. I mean, not because it is unengaging, but yes, I have learnt things that didn't immediately engage me.
 
Posted by Marinaki (# 343) on :
 
The topic was not interesting, but you became engaged and that's the point.

If teacher's are being observed properly they have to teach what is in the scheme of work.
I've amazed myself in making some aspects of the industrial revolution engaging. Looking at the way Holy Communion is celebrated in
Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant traditions and
how these reflect differences of belief is not always the most engaging topic for today's teenagers. We make it interesting.
 
Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki:
The topic was not interesting, but you became engaged and that's the point.

If teacher's are being observed properly they have to teach what is in the scheme of work. I've amazed myself in making some aspects of the industrial revolution engaging. Looking at the way Holy Communion is celebrated in
Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant traditions and
how these reflect differences of belief is not always the most engaging topic for today's teenagers. We make it interesting.
Well I'm glad you believe that you can make any topic interesting without harming the amount of learning to be done.

I hope your students feel the same. My experience is that teachers are rarely successful in attempting this because it is not terribly practical in a lot of cases (particularly if you are preparing 20 hours of lessons a week) and because students differ in what they find interesting. On the second point, if they aren't interested in the same TV programmes, why would they all be interested in the same lesson activities?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki:
It amazes me, oldandrew's blog "Scenes from the Battleground" complains and complains and complains about education, behaviour and management. Is it really a Battleground?
Undoubtedly it is for some.

The ineffective teacher has a battle on her/his hands to keep the kids in their seats, or even in the room.

The teacher who believes that pupils are ignorant and bad project a sort of contempt on to the pupils who pick up on it and behave badly.

The teacher who believes that her/his philosophy of education is superior to the ethos of the school and who doesn't follow the standard procedures of classroom management adopted by his/her colleagues gets bad reactions from classes.

The teacher who fails to motivate, believing that motivation is a fad, bores pupils into misbehaviour.

[ 29. January 2011, 18:01: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Marinaki (# 343) on :
 
Differentiation...and working bloody hard (arriving at 7 and leaving at 6 or later - working through lunch running clubs and activities). Fortunately, I work with lots of amazing colleagues who do just that too.
Differentiation is about knowing your students. It's not about different coloured worksheets for ability. I have little truck with that. It's about knowing the individuals in each and every class you teach - knowing if they are fostered, if mum's disabled, if their dog died last week.
I have 423 students on my register. Some I see more often than others. Some are in classes of 30 and others in classes of 15. I make a point of greeting them by name when I see them in the corridor. Luckily I have a good memory for names. All 423!!

Not everything is going to inspire them all the time, but the vast majority of the time the students are enjoying my lessons and making progress, sometimes quite above what their expected grades are. But then I'm a harsh marker and tell them that I expect better. I have taught some of the worst "nutters" in the school, I had a class of boys with a reputation outside school where just one in the classroom would send colleagues up the wall. A quirk of the timetable meant I taught a class of these lads who've all been in trouble with the police. In my class they had their heads down working all lesson - taking in facts, knowledge and information. They did it because they knew I actually liked them, and they didn't want to let me down. I'm not their friend; I'm their teacher. They know that but want to work hard.They also saw the value of what they were learning. They all had predicted grades of well below a C (History ... before you snarl about RE). They all got well above that. It's amazing how hard kids will work just because the teacher actually likes them despite who they are, despite their label. They go off and produce amazing work and projects that I have not asked them to do as homework, much better than any homework I could set, simply because they are interested and know that their teacher will be pleased in their efforts. I rarely give merits or rewards, although I have been known to make a cup of tea for a class just because I can! Usually, the reward is in the learning alone.

I know how well they are doing both from their results and the work they produce and from their own feedback.This is because I get them to write my report every term. This is part of the process of them looking at where they've done well, and what they need to improve, as well as me telling them what they need to do. With the right guidance and continual feedback most kids are able to articulate where they need to improve and with the right encouragement act upon it.

School is about learning and making you smarter. It needn't be tedious and dull. Although that is often the easy option for the teacher who cannot put the time in. I also know that despite one of my subjects not being in the EBacc the kids will still choose it because they see it as interesting and worthwhile and it won't be as boring as colouring in and joining the dots (aka Geography). Schools in their misguided attempts to please the latest Minister of Education will try to force them to do one thing over the other, but students will always choose subjects they enjoy and that they feel they learn something in and will be worthwhile. There has been a huge uptake in RS in the last decade, and that has a lot to do with how the subject has changed and more specialists are teaching it. Students are the first to complain about lessons where they don't learn anything. I once took over from a History teacher who had made the kids sit in silence and copy from the board for hours on end. Their books were filled from end to end with notes. They understood not a jot of it! They wanted to understand it but were not given the opportunity

As for watching the same TV programmes! Most are playing computer games, aren't they?

I really and truly fail to understand why boredom equates with rigour. I certainly do not dumb the curriculum down. It is not necessary. Kids rise more to a challenge. I have taught A Level Philosophy to ordinary working class 13 year old boys, and they've passed with reasonable grades. This was outside of lessons. The topics of themselves are interesting.

I am not alone. The vast majority of my colleagues really push each and every child to reach his full potential in their subject. They do this by making the lessons engaging and challenging.

Every time I read your posts in any forum, oldandrew, I feel so sad that you seem to have such a negative experience of teaching and it all seems such a battle for you.

I love teaching and have little time to post or keep a blog about education.

There are places where it could be a nightmare to teach - I've taught in some rough schools - where senior management are not supportive, but it is also down to what the individual teacher does in their classroom that makes a difference.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Well said, Marinaki.
 
Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

The ineffective teacher has a battle on her/his hands to keep the kids in their seats, or even in the room.

The teacher who believes that pupils are ignorant and bad project a sort of contempt on to the pupils who pick up on it and behave badly.

The teacher who believes that her/his philosophy of education is superior to the ethos of the school and who doesn't follow the standard procedures of classroom management adopted by his/her colleagues gets bad reactions from classes.

The teacher who fails to motivate, believing that motivation is a fad, bores pupils into misbehaviour.
Of course, everyone who disagrees with you about the state of the education system must be a bad teacher.

Perhaps you could follow this stream of ad hominems with one of your claims that your subject is useful because it teaches respect for the views of others and how to engage in rational debate?
 
Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki:
Every time I read your posts in any forum, oldandrew, I feel so sad that you seem to have such a negative experience of teaching and it all seems such a battle for you.
Every time I read a long essay about how wonderful somebody thinks their own teaching is, I think of all the people, usually managers of one sort or another, who I've heard make similar claims in real life only later to discover the truth about their classes and their level of learning. There's no shortage of people willing to declare everything (particularly themselves) to be wonderful and the system not to be broken, but the exam results, the surveys of employers and academics, the attrition rate among teachers, and the surveys asking teachers about their experiences all suggest otherwise.

Do you never have to deal with the horror experienced by kids who have just arrived in this country and literally cannot believe the chaos of an English school (or for that matter student teachers who were educated in other countries)?
 
Posted by Marinaki (# 343) on :
 
My results both in terms of grades and student success in chosen academic and career paths speak for themselves over the past 10 years. Do yours?

On the other point, since I teach in London students from other countries appear quite frequently. (I always ensure that they can have appropriate vocab in their own language until they learn English well enough.) They are not shocked as I do not allow disorder to occur in my classroom, and our headteacher does not allow it to occur in his school - which is fully comprehensive.

Chaos happens when poverty, low aspirations, low expectations are combined with poor teaching and a negative attitude towards charges. The biggest factor in this is the quality of teaching. While it would be easier, I guess, to teach in the leafy suburbs rather than schools where kids come from broken, drug addicted homes, with gang culture rife- the fact still remains, if teaching is poor, behaviour is poor. In my experience young people naturally want to learn and want to be smart. It helps if they have dedicated teachers.

Fortunately, I have nearly always worked in well-run schools.

[ 29. January 2011, 22:48: Message edited by: Marinaki ]
 
Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marinaki:
My results both in terms of grades and student success in chosen academic and career paths speak for themselves over the past 10 years. Do yours?
Yes, thanks. If I hadn't seen how much I can achieve when I teach the way I want to, then I wouldn't be so frustrated at all the forces trying to stop me achieving it - often on the grounds of "engagement", "motivation" and all the rest of the alternatives to learning.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

The ineffective teacher has a battle on her/his hands to keep the kids in their seats, or even in the room.

The teacher who believes that pupils are ignorant and bad project a sort of contempt on to the pupils who pick up on it and behave badly.

The teacher who believes that her/his philosophy of education is superior to the ethos of the school and who doesn't follow the standard procedures of classroom management adopted by his/her colleagues gets bad reactions from classes.

The teacher who fails to motivate, believing that motivation is a fad, bores pupils into misbehaviour.
Of course, everyone who disagrees with you about the state of the education system must be a bad teacher.

Perhaps you could follow this stream of ad hominems with one of your claims that your subject is useful because it teaches respect for the views of others and how to engage in rational debate?
Have you read the context within which I posted that?
 
Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Have you read the context within which I posted that?
The context appeared to be that of you losing it when your educational views come under any kind of challenge.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
No - the context was an answer to a question by Marinaki: 'It amazes me, oldandrew's blog "Scenes from the Battleground" complains and complains and complains about education, behaviour and management. Is it really a Battleground?'
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Surely philosophy would be a more appropriate subject for this EBAC than Religious Studies?

Even leaving aside the question of whether Religious Studies has sufficient academic content, it would seem that philosophy would be a better all-round fit: RS being perhaps rather too focused on a particular strand of ethics.
 
Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
No - the context was an answer to a question by Marinaki: 'It amazes me, oldandrew's blog "Scenes from the Battleground" complains and complains and complains about education, behaviour and management. Is it really a Battleground?'
And this context (a direct reference to my blog and my opinions) makes it look less like an attack on me and people with my views? How exactly?

[ 30. January 2011, 17:15: Message edited by: oldandrew ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I think you are being over-defensive.

The question I answered was about why teaching can be a battleground for some and I outlined typical reasons why someone might find teaching a battleground.
 
Posted by Marinaki (# 343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Surely philosophy would be a more appropriate subject for this EBAC than Religious Studies?

Even leaving aside the question of whether Religious Studies has sufficient academic content, it would seem that philosophy would be a better all-round fit: RS being perhaps rather too focused on a particular strand of ethics.
Currently Philosophy is only available at A'Level and is quite a challenging subject. It also forms a major component of the International Baccalaureate.
That said, the most popular GCSE RS courses are increasingly Philosophy of Religion, and this is often followed through in A'Level where Philosophy of Religion courses are also the more popular ones. This is partly because the course is more accessible to students of all religious/secular backgrounds. The availability of Philosophy in the curriculum currently of course depends on the ability and competence of the teachers. Theologians per se and philosophers don't really have difficulties in teaching philosophy. Some RS graduates, in my experience, do.
There certainly is a place for Philosophy in the curriculum.
 
Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I think you are being over-defensive.

The question I answered was about why teaching can be a battleground for some and I outlined typical reasons why someone might find teaching a battleground.
Have you suffered amnesia? A post ago you were saying it was to be understood in the context of my opinions on my blog.

That said I don't particularly care whether you are insulting me personally, or insulting every teacher who disagrees with you. Either way, it's a very poor argument on the part of somebody who has in the past claimed to be an authority on how to express opinions politely and with respect.

[ 30. January 2011, 20:02: Message edited by: oldandrew ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I think you will find that such a comment was made by Marinaki, not me.
 
Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I think you will find that such a comment was made by Marinaki, not me.
Which comment?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Reading for comprehension was part of the Literacy Strategy before the coalition abolished it.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Much as I dislike spoon-feeding, here is the quotation - actually taken from one of OldAndrew's posts: Originally posted by Marinaki: It amazes me, oldandrew's blog "Scenes from the Battleground" complains and complains and complains about education, behaviour and management. Is it really a Battleground? I work in London schools. I've worked in some of the toughest areas of the country, and in some of the best schools in the country (that's with the EBacc criteria too!). It is true because of societal breakdown young people come to school with serious behavioural problems and lacking respect for authority. (Although I think this has been the grip of teachers down the ages). While we cannot fix broken marriages, and drug-addicted parents, general poverty and the like. However,good teaching,that excites and engages them actually has an effect.
 
Posted by Marinaki (# 343) on :
 
Fellow RE teachers on these boards we'd better make this good - then...
Celebrating RE month

It starts off with a launch at the Houses of Parliament. I'll be writing to my MPs (Home and School) reminding them to go along for the launch. I'll run it by my Headteacher and see if some of the kids could remind the MP (rather than me) and say how we will be celebrating RE in School (and invite them along).
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
To compound the threat, there is to be a 30% cut in initial teacher training places for RE specialists and the bursary is going to be removed.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
There is an Early Day Motion.1375 hoping to get signatures - to put RE into the Bac.

According to the TES, ‘Almost one in three secondary schools is planning to slash the time devoted to teaching RE from September’ and ‘Schools appear to be feeling that it’s quite safe to cut RE without any fear that they will be held to account’ are just two comments which indicate the nature and extent of the problem facing RE.

A NATRE survey - which gathered almost 800 responses from 4,200 state and independent schools - found planned cuts to both short and full-course GCSEs in religious studies from this September. In some cases schools are reported to be ignoring their statutory duty to offer RE at all.
 
Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...a bishop ... saying:
"The Church of England is pretty astonished at the omission of RE. I want to fire a warning salvo that there will be huge objection from the church and many other parts of society if it is not part of the core curriculum," he told the newspaper.

The Bishop noted that religious education is a tool that can be used to create the kind of cohesive society that we are seeking.

He warned that we neglect the subject "at our peril".
Now, I wonder why he would say that - him being a bishop ’n’ all.

See also: four of the five people you similarly cited in your first follow-up to your OP.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Bishops see their role as a sort of conscience for society so they aren't necessarily guarding the interests of the church/faith but speaking out about what is good for young people.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Yesterday, I received a reply from my MP. He quoted Nick Gibb MP, Minister of State for Schools: the Government is in agreement that RE is an essential part of the curriculum and so will remain compulsory for children to take throughout their school life. It is for this reason that RE is not included as a humanity subject in the English Baccalaureate scheme...

I am going to reply on the lines of:

Mr. Gibb is out of touch with what really happens in schools

The BAC WILL affect study in other areas such as RE because it will be perceived by pupils and parents as a second class subject

If schools obey the letter of the law, RE will return to the one lesson per week timetable slot – and less because senior staffs in some schools commandeer pupils out of it to do litter clearance or arranging chairs in the hall
Pupils don’t take it seriously when thus timetables but muck about. – and it is hard for the RE teacher to keep order when such timetable results in him/her teaching about a thousand different pupils and it is difficult to know their names.

Other schools will simply disobey the law and not teach RE at all – who is going to police them to ensure compliance when OFSTED recently said it will no longer inspect compliance – this is to be left to local SACREs but SACREs have no power to require schools to tell them anything.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Mr. Gibb is out of touch with what really happens in schools
I hope you're going to be more polite than this in your letter. Telling people they're out of touch is counter-productive - they're less likely to listen.

But the trouble is that the teaching of RE is so uneven and inconsistent throughout the country that there's no sense putting it in the EBAC. The first step should be to take it out of the hands of local SACREs and give it a greater status in the curriculum.

In my daughter's school it's about right it gets 50 mins each week - I haven't been impressed by the rigour with which it's taught. I'd happily however see the school give up on pointless things like Life Skills and SEAL and TAG and give more time to academic subjects.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
50 minutes per week is below the recommended curriculum time of 5% - it should be 3 x 50 mins per fortnight.

Most SACREs are improving and buy in specialist help if it is lacking. The potential loss of local authorities may threaten to this.

I have sat on two SACREs at different times, totalling 33 years. Both were/are excellent and my current SACRE got a glowing OFSTED report.

If RE were nationalised, it would require a change in the law. No government wants to open such a can of worms. Interestingly, the strongest voice in favour of a national curriculum status for RE is the British Humanist Association.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Another casualty. I heard yesterday from a RE teacher who said: From September 2012 we will not be offering GCSE Full course RS only short course. This will be delivered in Year 10 so the students will not have any taught RS in Years 9 and 11. I had to battle to secure this situation with some colleagues happy to see RS disappear from the
curriculum completely.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
50 minutes per week is below the recommended curriculum time of 5% - it should be 3 x 50 mins per fortnight.

Most SACREs are improving and buy in specialist help if it is lacking. The potential loss of local authorities may threaten to this.

I have sat on two SACREs at different times, totalling 33 years. Both were/are excellent and my current SACRE got a glowing OFSTED report.

If RE were nationalised, it would require a change in the law. No government wants to open such a can of worms. Interestingly, the strongest voice in favour of a national curriculum status for RE is the British Humanist Association.
I'm not complaining that RS in my daughter's school doesn't comply with five per cent of curriculum time for the following reasons. I have no confidence that it is taught well. Furthermore too much curriculum time is already taken away from genuine academic subjects by nebulous and trendy subjects such as Live Skills.

Finally, RS is deeply suspect as an academic subject - it seems to me very often to be a hotch-potch of comparative religions, theology, philosophy. There isn't anything resembling an academic method or an agreed approach to the subject matter.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
The non-statutory National Framework gives a standard approach and methods though there are too many non-specialists teaching it (and Gove has imposed a 30% cut of initial teacher training places which will make it worse).

The conference I attended during the run up to the framework reported: A key issue for primary schools is the development of teachers’ subject knowledge and their understanding of how pupils learn in RE. In many schools RE never features on the school development plan, thus limiting the opportunities teachers have to benefit from CPD even when offered by providers

My experience of involvement with providing CPD is that even when we offer free day courses, the same small number of schools never avail themselves of it. You need to question the head teacher.

The Framework sets out the key skills and subject content - but it depends what you mean by 'academic'. To some, it simply means dry learning of facts. That is Religious Studies.

RE, historically, has always been more than that in England and Wales. It should make a contribution to a child's personal development.

As for 'Life Skills', I think that most parents want their kids to more than pass exams. They need to learn to work collaboratively, in preparation for the workplace. They need to know how to keep safe - crossing roads, knowing about drugs and sex etc.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Reading Spawn's post again, the problem seems to be that the school he is involved with does not follow the agreed approach.

BTW 'comparative religion' has always been frowned on by professionals - we don't compare, simply educate.

The notion of comparison was bought in by evangelicals who wanted to show that Christianity was somehow superior to other religions.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I'm not complaining that RS in my daughter's school doesn't comply with five per cent of curriculum time....Finally, RS is deeply suspect as an academic subject - it seems to me very often to be a hotch-potch
If it doesn't get enough time, it cannot be taught properly - so you shouldn't condemn RE nationally on the basis of one school teaching it badly.

As for a hotch-potch - I think that is something to do with its parent discipline, theology. My theology degree was very traditional and was, itself, a hotch-potch:

Hebrew
Greek
Church History
Philosophy of Religion
History of Biblical Interpretation
Dogmatics

Our prof. said that the Queen of Sciences was like a cuckoo who laid its eggs in others' nests.

But it is an academic subject, recognised and moderated in this country's universities, Russel Group as well as redbrick.
 
Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I'd happily however see the school give up on pointless things like Life Skills and SEAL and TAG and give more time to academic subjects.
TAG?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Welcome back, OldAndrew. I had to look TAG up - google is our friend. Something to do with 'engaging creativity'. You and I might agree for the first time ever that it's a time-waster.

However, the acronym also seems to have something to do with sign language for the deaf.

Yet again, there is some theatre in education group who calls itself 'TAG.

There's also: TAG Toys are designed for all children from one to six years of age, with the clearly defined goal of stimulating the development of sensory motor skills and thinking abilities.

Maybe Spawn will stop buy and enlighten us. I fancy the toys, myself.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by oldandrew:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I'd happily however see the school give up on pointless things like Life Skills and SEAL and TAG and give more time to academic subjects.
TAG?
Sorry, I gave it the wrong acronym. I meant 'G&T' (Gifted and Talented) which as far as I can gather seems to mean taking about a fifth of pupils in each year group out of classes for half a day every term to do team building exercises. I'm very proud of my daughter but I have no illusions that she's genius material. In fact, I'd prefer her to have extra maths and science lessons. I wonder whether schools devote any attention to children who are average or mediocre at School and what the acronym would be?

Leo referred to the need for Life Skills. I just wish schools weren't used as a one-stop-shops to make up for either the failings of parents, or the desire of politicians and bureaucrats to interfere in each and every aspect of life.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
The problem is that many parents are fairly inadequate so these sessions are needed.

Gifted and Talented has grown from dealing with a small number of brilliant, outstanding kids to an understanding that any kids have a particular skill in a particular area and this needs recognition and encouragement.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Unfortunately, because the general public have to hear phrases such as (think Vikki Pollard), 'I'm gif'ed an' talen'ed, inni?', from such a wide group of people, it's become rather a joke.

How would you measure 'Gifted and Talented' in RE, I wonder?
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The problem is that many parents are fairly inadequate so these sessions are needed.
So do we have to cater for incompetent parents because I can tell you that is holding other children back. Just give the help to children who need it and don't make it into a universal thing.

quote:
Gifted and Talented has grown from dealing with a small number of brilliant, outstanding kids to an understanding that any kids have a particular skill in a particular area and this needs recognition and encouragement.
All children must have prizes. What a complete waste of time. Children are only gifted if they do exceptionally well in a subject. Not all children have skills in a particular area some of them are dense and talentless across the board - but no less loveable because of that. In fact, the vast majority of children will go on to make little difference to the world - nothing wrong with that, but they don't need telling that they're gifted and talented when they're not.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I hope you don't believe that praising you children is a waste of time.

Nor that you are such a better parents than all the others, who are 'holding the children back.'
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
How would you measure 'Gifted and Talented' in RE, I wonder?
Checklist for identifying gifted and talented pupils

can reflect on experiences with ease

can enquire with ease:
planning appropriate methods of enquiry
finding out about religion from various sources
applying knowledge
using appropriate forms of questioning
asking insightful questions
listening carefully
acquiring new religious vocabulary
selecting, organising, recording and recalling information

can empathise with ease:

identifying religious phenomenon
appreciating feelings of religiously committed
appreciating forms of worship, beliefs, commitment of others

can reason with ease:
analysing information
responding to assumptions
discerning beyond the obvious and ordinary
classifying arguments
formulating logical arguments
supporting personal views with sound reasons and evidence
displaying original thinking
willing to explore and try to understand conceptual ideas
sensitivity to or awareness of the numinous/mysterious in life
making connections between and within religions
making sense of and drawing meaning from religious symbols, metaphors,
texts and practices

can evaluate with ease:
recognising the significance of religious phenomenon
assessing evidence
considering implications of beliefs and actions

can communicate with ease:
describing religious experiences
displaying a depth of understanding
using appropriate methods to explain religious ideas
using appropriate religious language
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As for 'Life Skills', I think that most parents want their kids to more than pass exams. They need to learn to work collaboratively, in preparation for the workplace. They need to know how to keep safe - crossing roads, knowing about drugs and sex etc.
This may well be a shocking and novel idea, but can't those parents teach their kids those things themselves?

It really pisses me off how more and more parenting is now being done in school rather than by the parents themselves. I mean seriously, how to cross the fucking road being taught in school? Seriously? I mean, that has to be a joke, right?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I hope you don't believe that praising you children is a waste of time.
To me, it would kinda depends on whether they'd done something praiseworthy or not. The impression I get from some of these modern teaching fads is that all children should be praised equally whether they've done anything to merit it or not.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Checklist for identifying gifted and talented pupils

can reflect on experiences with ease

can enquire with ease:
can empathise with ease:
can reason with ease:
can evaluate with ease:
can communicate with ease:
Which age group is that applicable to?

I've snipped it to the headings so y'all don't have to scroll past it all again, but it seems to me that the skills listed in your post should not really come under the T&G heading by the time a pupil is, say, 16. Obviously some pupils won't be able to do them all (there's always a tail end to every bell curve), but to set the bar for "Talented and Gifted" so low seems ridiculous to me.

And of course, if your post refers to primary school kids then it's fair enough. Which is why I'm asking what age range it applies to [Smile] .
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
It was drawn up for Key stage 3, i.e. 11-14-year-olds.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As for 'Life Skills', I think that most parents want their kids to more than pass exams. They need to learn to work collaboratively, in preparation for the workplace. They need to know how to keep safe - crossing roads, knowing about drugs and sex etc.
This may well be a shocking and novel idea, but can't those parents teach their kids those things themselves?
Clearly not - many kids have never been taught to use a knife and a fork before they start school dinners.
 
Posted by kentishmaid (# 4767) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It really pisses me off how more and more parenting is now being done in school rather than by the parents themselves. I mean seriously, how to cross the fucking road being taught in school? Seriously? I mean, that has to be a joke, right?
Erm, weren't we, though? I remember road safety films, policeman coming in to talk about such things and doing cycling proficiency all at my primary school (1983-89).
 
Posted by oldandrew (# 11546) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
As for 'Life Skills', I think that most parents want their kids to more than pass exams. They need to learn to work collaboratively, in preparation for the workplace. They need to know how to keep safe - crossing roads, knowing about drugs and sex etc.
This may well be a shocking and novel idea, but can't those parents teach their kids those things themselves?

It really pisses me off how more and more parenting is now being done in school rather than by the parents themselves. I mean seriously, how to cross the fucking road being taught in school? Seriously? I mean, that has to be a joke, right?
The educational philosopher, R.S. Peters, described attempts to provide this sort of education as making schools into "orphanages for children with parents".

[ 09. March 2011, 18:56: Message edited by: oldandrew ]
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Also there's nothing new about the attitude behind telling every child that (s)he is "gifted". I remember the headmaster of the secondary school to which I was about to go saying to us children "you're all gifted". This was in 1987.

When I think back, I believe that what he really meant was that we are all unique and worthy of regard. But this is to say quite a different thing IMHO.

Interestingly enough, Wilkinson and Pickett in The Spirit Level cite a survey showing that since 1950 people had become much more likely to consider themselves special or important, yet their sense of self-esteem had actually dropped.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It was drawn up for Key stage 3, i.e. 11-14-year-olds.
Well, that's not as bad then. I still think it's setting the bar a tad low, but not as low as I first thought.

I guess I just think that if you're going to single out some kids as "gifted and talented", it should actually be the gifted and talented ones rather than half or more of the class.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
This may well be a shocking and novel idea, but can't those parents teach their kids those things themselves?
Clearly not - many kids have never been taught to use a knife and a fork before they start school dinners.
Really? Really???

Fuck. Me. Blind. Is it any wonder the country's gone down the pan, round the u-bend, along a few miles of sewer and out into the ocean when parents can't even be arsed to teach their kids how to eat? [Disappointed]

quote:
Originally posted by kentishmaid:
I remember road safety films, policeman coming in to talk about such things and doing cycling proficiency all at my primary school (1983-89).
I remember having those films/talks as part of assemblies, and cycling proficiency was always done on a voluntary basis after school. They were never timetabled lessons taking valuable teaching time away from proper subjects.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Also there's nothing new about the attitude behind telling every child that (s)he is "gifted". I remember the headmaster of the secondary school to which I was about to go saying to us children "you're all gifted". This was in 1987.

When I think back, I believe that what he really meant was that we are all unique and worthy of regard. But this is to say quite a different thing IMHO.
Precisely, it's a very different thing to design a whole 'Gifted and Talented' programme and take children out of their lessons in order to do so. A waste of everybody's time.

Same goes for schools taking on the role of surrogate parents. They've always done visits from police, firefighters, dentists, cycling proficiency, the difference now is that it's locked into the curriculum rather than being a regular but occasional variation.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I have just spent the day at a conference with RE advisors and inspectors. The outlook gets more bleak by the day.

RE specialist advisors are losing their jobs because of LA cuts or else are being redeployed out of RE to general duties.

In initial teacher training, half of the RE experts are being sacked before October.

Anecdotal evidence is that as kids in year 9 do their choices, the top third are being told that they are 'the BAC group/ and steered away from RE.
That means that only average below kids are likely to do GCSE full or short course so the results in 2 years' time will be poor and then it is likely that RE will get blamed for poor results. (Plus Gove doesn't like modular courses so short courses are likely to get axed anyway.)

The Association of School and College Leaders have said that the BAC should include religious education according to this.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is it any wonder the country's gone down the pan, round the u-bend, along a few miles of sewer and out into the ocean when parents can't even be arsed to teach their kids how to eat? [Disappointed]
Do you know any reception/infant teachers? Ask them.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is it any wonder the country's gone down the pan, round the u-bend, along a few miles of sewer and out into the ocean when parents can't even be arsed to teach their kids how to eat? [Disappointed]
Do you know any reception/infant teachers? Ask them.
But given that children in reception can be very young four-year-olds, reception teachers expect to spend that year socialising them and cleaning up after them. It's a very young age to start school but it doesn't mean that the school has to continue its surrogacy role into secondary education.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Four years old is quite young to be eating with a knife and fork. Five years old is probably more realistic.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Is it any wonder the country's gone down the pan, round the u-bend, along a few miles of sewer and out into the ocean when parents can't even be arsed to teach their kids how to eat? [Disappointed]
Do you know any reception/infant teachers? Ask them.
That wasn't a comment about the teachers.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
The Commons Select Education Committee debated the EBAC on 22nd March and there was overwhelming support for MORE RE, not less, from both head teachers and employers who were called to give evidence.

I don't know what status a select committee has, however.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kentishmaid:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It really pisses me off how more and more parenting is now being done in school rather than by the parents themselves. I mean seriously, how to cross the fucking road being taught in school? Seriously? I mean, that has to be a joke, right?
Erm, weren't we, though? I remember road safety films, policeman coming in to talk about such things and doing cycling proficiency all at my primary school (1983-89).
And in my primary school (1961-1968)
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
The Select Committee can't effect direct changes on the EBac but can only try to influence the Government. The Committee will in due course publish a report with recommendations. The Government will then respond to the report, also in writing. It is usual to try to respond in a positive manner, although it won't make the Government change its mind if it really doesn't agree with the recommendations.

A Select Committee has less leverage in these post hoc studies than in what is known as pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft bill before it is introduced into Parliament. A strong report from pre-legislative scrutiny can be a warning shot to the Government that it may have to reconsider some of its proposals if it wants to avoid a battle during the bill's passage through Parliament.

(BTW I read the transcript and although there was broad support for RE being an option in the EBac, I didn't see much comment on the amount of RE in schools, let alone overwhelming support for more.)

[All in response to Leo.]

[ 25. March 2011, 11:25: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I listened to the debate on the net and one of the women, at the start, said there was a need for MORE RE and this was echoed by others - but i haven't seen a transcript.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
Transcript
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
Will they replace it with philosophy and ethics or is that going too? It was one of the most popular (non maths/english/science) subjects at one of the schools I taught in.
No philosophy nor ethics.

Tories don't want people to think for themselves or ask awkward questions.
Not all Tories, it seems.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Indeed - and that EDM has a lot more signatories than the average.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Transcript
Thanks - most helpful though my memory was more optimistic - the bit I latched on to was: It is quite clear from picking up any newspaper that we need to be able to understand people of other cultures, other religions and other faiths, and just to drop, or effectively marginalise, a subject as crucial as RE, by revaluing other subjects, is foolish.
Matt Brady: I would agree as well. I believe that RE should gain parity in terms of its relationship with history and geography, and I totally support that view.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Just dug this out from the TES 4/2/11

GEOGRAPHY - Beset by 'uninspiring teaching'
Geography - one of the pillars of the new English Baccalaureate - is a subject in decline, with student numbers and teaching standards on the wane, according to Ofsted.
The subject is afflicted by "uninspiring teaching" and insufficient challenges in secondary schools, according to a report released by the inspectorate today.
Pupils' knowledge of places is described as "exceptionally weak", with more than half of schools failing to use fieldwork to "nurture a love of geography".
New figures reveal 90,000 fewer students took GCSE geography in 2010 than in 1995 - a drop of more than one-third.
Ofsted's report concluded that a "focus on factual recall rather than on exploring ideas failed to capture students' interest".
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
For those who missed it, there was a debate about RE and the EBac last Tuesday. It was in response to the large numbers of signatures for the EDM and for the REACT petition – the PM had agreed to debate any petitions with such a large number of signatures.

Despite the usual ignorance, many of our points were put forward by various participants (well done us for all our lobbying). Although Nick Gibb gave the standard response, this debate has put the issue on the map.

I was at last week’s NASACRE AGM and a positive spin was put on our future by John Keast (new chair of the REC) and Tory Cllr Guy Horden from Birmingham has been in regular contact at No.10 arguing our cause.

You can read the debate at and

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110517/halltext/110517h0002.htm here here

[ 20. May 2011, 14:59: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Education ministers claim to be monitoring how the EBacc affects RE and we are now staring to get evidence on this. A report by the National Association of Teachers of RE, at , based on evidence from over half of all state maintained secondary schools in England, states that ‘A quarter of all academies and community schools are not providing statutory RE for 14 – 16 year olds…… is predicted to increase during 2011 – 12’. and that ‘GCSE RE entries between 2010 and 2011 have dropped by more than a third in academies and community schools’
Regarding to sample, they stated: ‘It is reasonable to assume that the majority of responses come from schools with enthusiastic and active RE teachers. Schools without subject specialists and where little RE is taught are less likely to be represented in the sample. Therefore the overall picture and in particular the negative effects of the EBacc proposals on RE are very likely to be even more damaging than this survey reveals.’ this site
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I wonder who the hell Michael Gove thinks he is.

The House of Commons Select C'tee on Education said that the BAC was ill-conceived, especially for leaving out RE.

Gove refused to even meet the Bishop of Oxford, Chair of the national Society.

Are cabinet ministers answerable to parliament or what?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
GCSE results today. Saw this article: Headmistress: Pupils should be 'proud to fail the baccalaureate'...."Surely religious studies, the study of world faiths, is all about developing our cultural understanding of the human race yet it doesn't count." Full article here.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
GCSE results today. Saw this article: Headmistress: Pupils should be 'proud to fail the baccalaureate'...."Surely religious studies, the study of world faiths, is all about developing our cultural understanding of the human race yet it doesn't count." Full article here.
I find these sentiments pretty ugly and partisan from this headteacher. As I recall back in the 70s and 80s a kind of informal EBAC operated in any case. Children were strongly encouraged to do a science, a language, a humanity (history or geography - RE was even back then a secondary and softer option) together with Maths and English as the basis for their O Levels.

Schools have evidently not been encouraging these core subjects and Gove has stepped up with some non-statutory arrangements to reinforce them. It's pretty non-controversial stuff really, unless you have a vested interest (as an RE teacher, or a member of your local SACRE). On the other hand, if there was a tried and tested Theology GCSE I'd be strongly encouraging them to include it in the Baccalaureate.

[ 25. August 2011, 16:16: Message edited by: Spawn ]
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I mostly agree with Spawn (don't all die of shock) about how it used to be. However, what makes it seem worse is that, in the immediate past to the present, RE has been increasing in importance in the curriculum, some would say to its rightful place. So to suddenly about-turn, and make it a fringe subject again, does seem rather odd.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
It's pretty non-controversial stuff really, unless you have a vested interest (as an RE teacher, or a member of your local SACRE). On the other hand, if there was a tried and tested Theology GCSE I'd be strongly encouraging them to include it in the Baccalaureate.
OK, I could be said to have a vested interest, having taught RE for over 30 years and as a SACRE member for most of that time. However, I am retired and my involvement with SACRE is voluntary, unpaid yet time-consuming. I do it because I care passionately for the right of young people to be given the chance to think theologically and to consider the relevance of faith.

It is ironic that Biblical Hebrew (which I would encourage but at a later age) is in the EBAC yet there is no requirement to understand Christianity nor the other major faiths and belief systems which make up current Britain.

It is also ironic that some church people/Christians don't care whether future generations should be ignorant of the Christian faith, especially in this 400th anniversary of the KJV which has shaped our culture.

[ 25. August 2011, 18:02: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
If this article is at all correct, RE as a subject is becoming more popular. Yet they want to can it? [Confused]
 
Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :
 
It certainly is gaining in popularity - I think partly because of the option to teach "philosophy and ethics" as modules.

In our school (ok fairly unique with 3 very well qualified subject specialists) each year RS competed with history for "recruiting" the most to GCSE. RS often won.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
So philosophy and ethics are included in the subject and you think that's what makes it popular?

Interesting.

Here we have Philosophy as a separate subject from RE in high school.

And it was only last year that we introduced an official A level equivalent subject for year 12's in RE.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
If this article is at all correct, RE as a subject is becoming more popular. Yet they want to can it? [Confused]
The article is correct but it reflects A level numbers for those who have just finished it.

There is a drastic reduction in numbers opting for it this coming school year, because of the BAC. There will be a further reduction because many A level RE sets won't be large enough to be viable so even those who opted may find themselves steered on to a different subject - with more redundancies of RE teachers to follow in addition to those which have already happened.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
if there was a tried and tested Theology GCSE I'd be strongly encouraging them to include it in the Baccalaureate.
How about GCSE (AQA specification A). looks at the Gospel of Mark in paper 1 and in paper 2 at the sacramental and ethical teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and its relevance for life today.

Other options include: Key Beliefs, Life Issues, Planet Earth, Questions of meaning - God & Death, The Existence of God, The Characteristics of God, Revelation and Enlightenment, The Problem of Evil, The Compatibility of Science and Religion, The Afterlife

Edexcel GCSE Religious Studies - covering believing in God, matters of life and death, marriage and the family, and religion and community cohesion. Also St Mark’s Gospel and its effects on the lives of Christians in the UK, covering discipleship, conflict and argument, death and resurrection, and the identity of Jesus.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Only 2 years ago, they were still offering funding incentives to RE PGCE students as RE was considered, alongside Maths, Science and Languages as a shortage subject. So you can see how fast the tide has turned.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
It turned when Michael Gove took over. He doesn't seem to listen to anyone, let aloe engage them in debate. He leaves that to Nick Gibb who speaks like a broken record.

I am wondering, in retrospect, whether we should have opposed the wder raft of his education policies, such as the dismanting of local authorities and they democratic function, rather than the single issue.

[ 27. August 2011, 10:02: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am wondering, in retrospect, whether we should have opposed the wder raft of his education policies, such as the dismanting of local authorities and they democratic function, rather than the single issue.
Who is the 'we'?

If the 'we' is the church, then you are barking up the wrong tree. The most significant aspect of Gove's reforms is the rolling out of the academy programme. The Church is involved with many academies.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am wondering, in retrospect, whether we should have opposed the wder raft of his education policies, such as the dismanting of local authorities and they democratic function, rather than the single issue.
Who is the 'we'?

If the 'we' is the church, then you are barking up the wrong tree. The most significant aspect of Gove's reforms is the rolling out of the academy programme. The Church is involved with many academies.
By 'we' I meant the RE community. However, the church should probably been more wide-ranging in its criticism and I do not believe it should be involved in academies.

What do you think of the theology GCSEs I mentioned above, which I posted to answer an earlier post of yours?
 
Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

Here we have Philosophy as a separate subject from RE in high school.

And it was only last year that we introduced an official A level equivalent subject for year 12's in RE.
We also have Philosophy as a separate subject at A level. However as a high school subject RS will include philosophy of religion and ethics.

I'm aware Australia is only recently introducing what we call RS as an academic subject. What we teach here is miles different from what some states teach as a sort of sunday-school subject (bearing more in common to what used to be religious instruction in private schools in the UK a long time ago I believe).

Certainly I believe Peter Vardy from the UK and some of his colleagues have done a lot of work with some states to introduce good religious studies into the Australian system (including a good friend/colleague of mine who nearly moved to Australia to help implement good practice in the subject). I've looked at some of their work and it is still different to what is taught here. Broader and less academic - however we specialise much earlier here so I believe it may suit the system there better.

I was quite interested in the comparisons a few years ago as I have married an Australian and wondered what and where I would teach/work if I moved across. Some potentially exciting career opportunities but we decided to stay here!
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
By 'we' I meant the RE community. However, the church should probably been more wide-ranging in its criticism and I do not believe it should be involved in academies.
Which academies should the church not be involved in? The academies which have successfully turned around failing inner city schools? Or the ones which are putting more money into the education of children because they've been able to reduce their overheads. In the case of my local newly converted primary academy - they've avoided laying off a member of staff as a result of conversion.

What do you mean by the church not being involved in academies? Surely if the church can be involved in private schooling it can and should also be involved in academies? Or should we simply shun them? Even the unions (blindly opposed to them) continue to represent academy teachers.

quote:
What do you think of the theology GCSEs I mentioned above, which I posted to answer an earlier post of yours?
The headings you posted looked interesting and promising.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
By 'we' I meant the RE community. However, the church should probably been more wide-ranging in its criticism and I do not believe it should be involved in academies.
Which academies should the church not be involved in? The academies which have successfully turned around failing inner city schools? Or the ones which are putting more money into the education of children because they've been able to reduce their overheads. In the case of my local newly converted primary academy - they've avoided laying off a member of staff as a result of conversion.

What do you mean by the church not being involved in academies? Surely if the church can be involved in private schooling it can and should also be involved in academies? Or should we simply shun them? Even the unions (blindly opposed to them) continue to represent academy teachers.

quote:
What do you think of the theology GCSEs I mentioned above, which I posted to answer an earlier post of yours?
The headings you posted looked interesting and promising.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
By 'we' I meant the RE community. However, the church should probably been more wide-ranging in its criticism and I do not believe it should be involved in academies.
Which academies should the church not be involved in? The academies which have successfully turned around failing inner city schools? Or the ones which are putting more money into the education of children because they've been able to reduce their overheads. In the case of my local newly converted primary academy - they've avoided laying off a member of staff as a result of conversion.

What do you mean by the church not being involved in academies? Surely if the church can be involved in private schooling it can and should also be involved in academies? Or should we simply shun them? Even the unions (blindly opposed to them) continue to represent academy teachers.
I don't believe the church should be involved in education at all, really.

However, if it is, it should be creaming off secondary children from local authority schools.

Academies that claim to have ;turned around' have done so by expelling large numbers of difficult pupils who then go on to local authority schools and create problems there.

In a word, church schools operate by disadvantaging local authority schools.

As for saving money on overheads, this is short term. The local authority services that they no longer use result in redundancies, for example virtually all but a handful of RE advisors have been made redundant since April this year. In the long term, academies will need tobuy in services at a much higher price because they are no longer provided by the LA but by private contractors working for profit instead of seeking to serve people.

[ 31. August 2011, 16:14: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
There has been a trend over the last 20 years for pupils at grammar schools and high achievers in comprehensives to take more and more GCSEs. In my area, taking 11 subjects is quite common. Presumably, then, these pupils will still be free to take RE as one of their 10 or 11 options. It is the lower achievers who will be guided and coached through the minimum 5.

What this says to me is that RE is going to be a niche subject only for the most intelligent. And there is something deeply worrying about that. I'd like to see one of the requirements in the EBac for two half-subjects, one of which could (should?) be RE. There has been a precedent for this with half-GSCEs already.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I don't believe the church should be involved in education at all, really.
Fair 'nuff. Church schools were however pretty much all that was there before the state took an interest in education. And I don't think the church is going to get out of education any time soon - it's seen as part of the church's mission just about everywhere.

quote:
However, if it is, it should be creaming off secondary children from local authority schools.
I assume there's a 'not' missing from this sentence. Many Church schools are themselves 'controlled' by the Local Authority.

quote:
Academies that claim to have ;turned around' have done so by expelling large numbers of difficult pupils who then go on to local authority schools and create problems there.
Hang on, this is a sweeping statement that demands to be backed up by evidence. The academies I am familiar with have not expelled large numbers of difficult pupils and in fact use exclusion as a last resort.

quote:
In a word, church schools operate by disadvantaging local authority schools.
That's more than a 'word'. And you're going to have to provide more evidence for this than a mere assertion.

quote:
As for saving money on overheads, this is short term. The local authority services that they no longer use result in redundancies, for example virtually all but a handful of RE advisors have been made redundant since April this year. In the long term, academies will need tobuy in services at a much higher price because they are no longer provided by the LA but by private contractors working for profit instead of seeking to serve people.
Even a short term saving is better than the current waste of money I have personally seen in the local authority. But the more academies there are the more competition there will be for their custom. Furthermore, by federating together they are increasing their buying power. The academy I am involved with is continuing to buy some valuable services from the Local Authority.

Your argument seemes to be that private is bad, and public is good. In fact in many cases private contractors are motivated by the desire to serve people as well as to make profits. Sometimes (of course not always) they serve people more effectively and efficiently than the public sector.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I don't believe the church should be involved in education at all, really.
Fair 'nuff. Church schools were however pretty much all that was there before the state took an interest in education. And I don't think the church is going to get out of education any time soon - it's seen as part of the church's mission just about everywhere.
Christians, individually, should be involved in local authority schools rather than hiving themselves off into separate institutions. Incarnation, salt and light etc. Something the free churches have always done.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Academies that claim to have ;turned around' have done so by expelling large numbers of difficult pupils who then go on to local authority schools and create problems there.
Hang on, this is a sweeping statement that demands to be backed up by evidence. The academies I am familiar with have not expelled large numbers of difficult pupils and in fact use exclusion as a last resort.
The Association of Teachers and Lecturers has a paper on this but I have to go out soon so haven't time to locate. Meanwhile, St. George comp in Bristol, taken over by Ray Priest and turned into an academy purged one tenth of its pupils on a single day, if I remember it correctly.

[ 31. August 2011, 18:21: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
In a word, church schools operate by disadvantaging local authority schools.
That's more than a 'word'. And you're going to have to provide more evidence for this than a mere assertion.
Why do I need to back up something so obvious? If you take the best kids out of the state system, you leave the state with sink schools.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Association of Teachers and Lecturers has a paper on this but I have to go out soon so haven't time to locate. Meanwhile, St. George comp in Bristol, taken over by Ray Priest and turned into an academy purged one tenth of its pupils on a single day, if I remember it correctly.
Too much of what you say consists of hearsay and incorrect, half-memories. You really do need to give some evidence. There may be examples of academies 'purging' or being highly selective but I don't believe these are widespread practices.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Why do I need to back up something so obvious? If you take the best kids out of the state system, you leave the state with sink schools.
I'm not talking about church schools in the private sector, I'm talking about church schools in the state system - including LEA 'controlled' schools. They and the academies are part of the state system.

Some C of E schools do indeed have admissions policies which favour a 'better class' of pupil, but others don't. My problem with your posts is that you are making sweeping statements. You don't seem to realise that even among church schools there are huge variations and approaches.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
The 2 C of E schools near me are both part of the state system and operate no special selection process - with the exception of a special unit for children with autism in one of them.

Looking at their ofsted reports they both have a slightly higher percentage of "free school dinners" and "non-English first language" children than the other schools in the area.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
The selection process only comes into play if the church schools are over-subscribed. In our parish the church schools are not over-subscribed and therefore accept everyone who applies. You also don't get parents coming to church in order to get their kids into the school. Which has its advantages and disadvantages.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
The two near us are over-subscribed but they select on the same parameters as the state schools in the area (i.e. distance, order of preference specified and siblings).
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Why do I need to back up something so obvious? If you take the best kids out of the state system, you leave the state with sink schools.
I'm not talking about church schools in the private sector, I'm talking about church schools in the state system - including LEA 'controlled' schools. They and the academies are part of the state system.

Some C of E schools do indeed have admissions policies which favour a 'better class' of pupil, but others don't. My problem with your posts is that you are making sweeping statements. You don't seem to realise that even among church schools there are huge variations and approaches.
The state FUNDS VA and VC schools but it thereby subsidises parents who don't want their kids to mix with 'the riff raff' - in secondary.

In know that primary is different.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
leo, you're making sweeping generalisations again. The local secondary school here is a VA school and it's the school that people try not to send their children to - the church attendance requirement is not for that school but a Jewish foundation school.
 
Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :
 
There area *lot* of schools in the situation that Leo mentions though. Certainly in the borough I was in on the edge of London to get into the C of E primary you had to go to church at least 3 out of 4 sundays to be in the first bracket. I went to a church a little way away and I wasn't ever sure if I was still counted. The secondary was similar. In both cases they were much much much better schools than a lot of the others on offer.

Where I live now the primary C of E takes on church attendance and distance and we are too far (its actually too far away for me to go to) but its the best in the area and parents do go to church to get their children in.

Secondarywise the only schools I'd be "happy" my child going to locally are the grammar school and the C of E school. I will be keeping my church attendance up [Biased]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
[QUOTE] the academies are part of the state system.

No they are not. The whole point of academies is that they are not run by the LA

 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Association of Teachers and Lecturers has a paper on this but I have to go out soon so haven't time to locate. Meanwhile, St. George comp in Bristol, taken over by Ray Priest and turned into an academy purged one tenth of its pupils on a single day, if I remember it correctly.
Too much of what you say consists of hearsay and incorrect, half-memories. You really do need to give some evidence. There may be examples of academies 'purging' or being highly selective but I don't believe these are widespread practices.
So consider this (thoughn this thread is about the inadequacy of the EBac):
quote:
According to the latest figures, academies expel 5.5 pupils in every thousand, compared to 2.4 in other secondaries in England.
says this. and this:
quote:
"Our range of concerns about academies is huge," she said. "But they remain secretive societies, exempt from the Freedom of Information Act but given the right to exclude children willy-nilly. "Is it right that academies that permanently exclude still pick up the same level of funding from Government but the local authority has to foot the bill for the excluded to be educated elsewhere?"
quote:
One academy recently excluded 11 pupils in one go following a serious breakdown in discipline.
A study by the Institute of Education, part of the University of London, also warned that academies were taking fewer poor pupils as they are gradually taken over by those from middle-class families.
The proportion of poor pupils at academies eligible for free meals dropped from 45 per cent in 2003 to 29 per cent in 2008.

Researchers also suggested schools were excluding pupils in an attempt to boost results.
At Southampton's Oasis Academy Mayfield 11 pupils were recently expelled for bad behaviour. The Harris academy in Peckham, South London, temporarily excluded the equivalent of 28 per cent of its pupils in one 12-month period two years ago and the West London Academy in Ealing expelled 17.
here.

quote:
Academies expelled pupils at twice the rate of other secondary schools last year, official figures have revealed. There were also 3,990 fixed period exclusions - which may involve the same youngster more than once. Those temporary suspensions were 16% of the school population, compared with 10% in other secondary schools.
here.

And, for more detail:
quote:
The practice has helped academies to "massage" their exam results at the expense of neighbouring schools - which have to take in the excluded pupils, teachers' leaders claim. At the West London academy in Ealing, 22 pupils were excluded in 2004-05, nearly 2 per cent of the school's pupils, compared to just under 0.5 per cent in the rest of the authority.

How academies expel more pupils
West London, Ealing
Permanent exclusions: 22
percentage of pupils: 1.95
Percentage of pupils excluded in equivalent LEA schools: 0.49
Capital City, Brent
Permanent exclusions: 11
Percentage of pupils: 1.21
Percentage of pupils excluded in equivalent LEA schools: 0.49
Djanogly City, Nottingham
Permanent exclusions: 11
Percentage of pupils: 0.70
Percentage of pupils excluded in equivalent LEA schools: 0.42
Northampton, Northamptonshire
Permanent exclusions: 9
Percentage of pupils: 0.72
Percentage of pupils excluded in equivalent LEA schools: 0.25
King's, Middlesbrough
Permanent exclusions: 7
Percentage of pupils: 0.67
Percentage of pupils excluded in equivalent LEA schools: 0.18
Business Academy, Bexley
Permanent exclusions: 7
Percentage of pupils: 0.51
Percentage of pupils excluded in equivalent LEA schools: 0.26
Unity City, Middlesbrough
Permanent exclusions: 6
Percentage of pupils: 0.53
Percentage of pupils excluded in equivalent LEA schools: 0.18
Stockley, Hillingdon
Permanent exclusions: 4
Percentage of pupils: 0.68
Percentage of pupils excluded in equivalent LEA schools: 0.31
City, Bristol
Permanent exclusions: 4
Percentage of pupils: 0.37
Percentage of pupils excluded in equivalent LEA schools: 0.24
City of London, Southwark
Permanent exclusions: 3
Percentage of pupils: 0.83
Percentage of pupils excluded in equivalent LEA schools: 0.27
here.

quote:
NEARLY a sixth of all Liverpool children expelled from school last year were academy pupils. Council figures show the Academy of St Francis of Assisi, in Kensington, booted out three pupils last year. North Liverpool Academy, Anfield, permanently excluded eight youngsters. It was better news for the city’s schools, where expulsions have remained below 60 for two years and more than halved since 2003. And today education chiefs and head teachers expressed fears academies were taking the “easy option” to improve their standing and results knowing expelled pupils will be rehoused at council-run schools and referral centres.
here.

For the adverse effect of academies on LA schools,
quote:
Academies that expel large numbers of disruptive pupils are having a potentially bad impact on neighbouring schools, according to a review of the government's flagship programme in England. The Institute of Education's findings '''
here.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
It is hard to see how excluding such a small percentage of children has a direct effect on exam results - unless it is because those few children have a very detrimental effect on the rest of the class.

In which case...
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
[QUOTE] the academies are part of the state system.

No they are not. The whole point of academies is that they are not run by the LA
It's a pretty strange definition of the State that excludes the Department of Education. Academies are indeed not run by LEAs but they are run by central government. Therefore, they are 'state schools'.

With reference to your post about exclusions, the percentages are so small as to make your earlier talk about 'purges' absolutely nonsensical. It strikes me that an alternative explanation in the slight disparities between Academies and LEA schools is a tougher attitude towards discipline and disruption on the part of academies.

[ 01. September 2011, 23:42: Message edited by: Spawn ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I used 'state' as a shorthand for LA. LAs are democratically accountable, academies are not.

Also, given that this thread is about RE, academies can teach any curriculum they want and some do not do any RE, e.g. some Oasis schools argue that they have a 'Christian ethos' so do not need RE, thus depriving pupils of their entitlement.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I used 'state' as a shorthand for LA. LAs are democratically accountable, academies are not.
In case you hadn't noticed governments are democratically accountable in the same way as Local Authorities.

In any case, Academies in practice are accountable in just the same way as any other school through their governing bodies, and through their results. Furthermore, I have found as a parent governor that they are far more financially accountable to the taxpayer than are LEA schools.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
LAs are nearer the ground and people can talk to their councillors.

Academy governors don't have to consult their teaching staff and can change their pay and conditions.

Bristol City Council reckons that academies have taken about £9 million out of the budget that is supposed to be for all children, for schools run by the council we elected.

My union, ATL, says:
quote:
Martin Freedman added: “Academies are unaccountable to local communities. The report shows little evidence they collaborate with neighbouring schools, they do not have a timetable for improved results, and the DCSF has admitted in the past academies have been able to award large contracts to their own sponsors.
Academies are funded by the public purse but will normally want to please their sponsors and their businesses rather than the people who live in the area.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
LAs are nearer the ground and people can talk to their councillors.
They are not as near to the ground as you imagine. Our LEA is over an hour away from us and always felt incredibly distant. And people can talk to their MPs, they often find it easier because there are regular surgeries. I know who my MP is but I'm not sure who my councillors are?

quote:
Academy governors don't have to consult their teaching staff and can change their pay and conditions.
That is simply not true. Existing staff of a converting academy are transferred with their pay and conditions intact. If there are any future changes to pay and conditions there is still a statutory obligation to consult with staff and their representatives.

quote:
Bristol City Council reckons that academies have taken about £9 million out of the budget that is supposed to be for all children, for schools run by the council we elected.
Explain how this can be so given that academies are funded on a per pupil basis according to the same funding formulas as before?

quote:
Academies are funded by the public purse but will normally want to please their sponsors and their businesses rather than the people who live in the area.
Most of the good/outstanding schools now converting to academy status don't have sponsors. Academies had to have sponsors in the earlier wave of conversions under New Labour. Academies have to comply with company and charity law.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
I know who my MP is but I'm not sure who my councillors are?
Yes, but you would know who they were if it was important to you. Its hardly difficult to find out.

Unlike your MP, your local councillors are almost certainly actually local to you. Its a long time since we had any who didn't live within a short walk of where I do. (OK, so does our MP... but its less likely)

And the councillors probably don't spend half the year in Westmnister. Not really a problem if you live in Inner London, but I imagine it could be one in Deepest Devon.

And unlike the MPs they might well actually have time to talk to you, and they probably do know the local schools. Some of them will probably have been to them themselves or their own kids will have.

There is something to be said for having your public services and public property managed by people you might meet in the street or the pub or the supermarket checkout queue.

quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Academies have to comply with company and charity law.
Everybody is supposed to comply with the law. I'd rather our schools - and other local institutions - went a bit further than that and actually did the things we want them to do. Where "we" is the people who live here and use those services, not some central government ministry miles away in Westminster.

OK, in my case its only about 6 miles away - but you know aht I mean. They still have interests and agendas that are different from people living in, well, just about anywhere else.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
LAs are nearer the ground and people can talk to their councillors.
They are not as near to the ground as you imagine. Our LEA is over an hour away from us and always felt incredibly distant. And people can talk to their MPs, they often find it easier because there are regular surgeries. I know who my MP is but I'm not sure who my councillors are?
quote:
Bristol City Council reckons that academies have taken about £9 million out of the budget that is supposed to be for all children, for schools run by the council we elected.
Explain how this can be so given that academies are funded on a per pupil basis according to the same funding formulas as before?
I meet my two (LibDem) councillors every six weeks as I am one of the spokespeople for my neighbourhood association. I also used to meet the leader of the Tories weekly at church before he 'poped'.

Re-formulas, for every pupil's funding taken out of LA coffers, there is less money available for contingencies and LA advisors and other services. Since LAs have to work with less money, there is less give and take over special needs, PRUs etc.

Going back to RE - you say that parliament is democratically accountable and, thus, so are academies. Well, nowhere in the Tory of LibDem manfifestos was there any mention of removing a child's entitlement to RE. Yet academies and free schools do not have to teach RE and, if they do, they are not answerable to the democratically elected Standing Advisory Council on RE (made up of councillors, representatives from the faith communities and of teachers. So they are undemocratic.

The EBAC was also not in any manifesto - nobody voted for a government which was going to kill of RE while promoting Biblical Hebrew and Ancient Greek (the latter two being in the EBAC, the former not).
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Academy governors don't have to consult their teaching staff and can change their pay and conditions.
That is simply not true. Existing staff of a converting academy are transferred with their pay and conditions intact. If there are any future changes to pay and conditions there is still a statutory obligation to consult with staff and their representatives.
Under TUPE, staff transferring to an academy will continue their current conditions of service. However, TUPE has been known to last for ONE DAY. After that, staff can be made to work longer hours and on Saturdays – the old 195 days / 1265 directed time and STPCD disappear – and some academies offer less maternity leave than LA schools because they are not bound by the Burgundy Book.

New teachers often have less sickness entitlement as their service in LA schools is often not taken into account.

Governors do not have to ask teachers or parents for their opinions about academy status.

Schools with an Ofsted judgement that is less than ‘outstanding’ need to have an external sponsor.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
There is something to be said for having your public services and public property managed by people you might meet in the street or the pub or the supermarket checkout queue.
That is so true. Which is why academies are so attractive - schools run by staff and parents locally.

quote:
Everybody is supposed to comply with the law. I'd rather our schools - and other local institutions - went a bit further than that and actually did the things we want them to do. Where "we" is the people who live here and use those services, not some central government ministry miles away in Westminster.
Or a Local Authority 60 miles away.

But with our local academy we now have a school which is run by people who actually use the service.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Under TUPE, staff transferring to an academy will continue their current conditions of service. However, TUPE has been known to last for ONE DAY. After that, staff can be made to work longer hours and on Saturdays – the old 195 days / 1265 directed time and STPCD disappear – and some academies offer less maternity leave than LA schools because they are not bound by the Burgundy Book.

New teachers often have less sickness entitlement as their service in LA schools is often not taken into account.
Probably about time to remove some Spanish practices from education. Nevertheless in our local academy we haven't changed teachers pay and conditions and we're not going to. We certainly couldn't do it without consultation.

quote:
Governors do not have to ask teachers or parents for their opinions about academy status.
An untruth. We statutorily undertook an extensive consultation with the LA, Unions, staff and parents before we became an Academy. We took this very seriously and travelled 60 miles to meet with Union representatives as they had no time to come to the school and meet the governors alongside the staff they represent.

Interestingly enough the Union reps were not so doctrinaire as their official statements indicate. They were interested in our conversion particularly when we told them we were planning to employ an extra teacher in a new classroom. Their interest could have been influenced by the fact that most of their meetings that day were to do with representing teachers who were facing redundancy.

quote:
Schools with an Ofsted judgement that is less than ‘outstanding’ need to have an external sponsor.
Another untrue statement. Schools which are 'good, with outstanding features' can convert to academy status without an external sponsor.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
You assertion of untruths flies in the face of the documentation and the practice in many places. If I am mistaken, and you are right, I'd like some evidence from you.

Meanwhile, remember that this thread is about Religious Education.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
You assertion of untruths flies in the face of the documentation and the practice in many places. If I am mistaken, and you are right, I'd like some evidence from you.
You're the one making incorrect assertions. I'm merely putting you right. I've just been through an academy conversion of a 'good school with outstanding features'. We undertook a consultation process and a TUPE transfer. I don't see how TUPE arrangements could only last one day because a consultation is required before changing pay and conditions. If you are in any doubt about what I am saying from direct experience then by all means consult the Department of Education website.

quote:
Meanwhile, remember that this thread is about Religious Education.
I'm more than happy to keep addressing the points you are making about academies unless a host directs me otherwise.

In an earlier post about the funding formula you stated:

quote:
Re-formulas, for every pupil's funding taken out of LA coffers, there is less money available for contingencies and LA advisors and other services. Since LAs have to work with less money, there is less give and take over special needs, PRUs etc.
You and I are on different planets. To my mind there is more money for a child's education if we have less LA advisers and a cut back in other services.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Anecdotal evidence about one academy won't do. I have been a trade union rep. for about 30 years and have been to endless meetings to listen to the woes of staff in academies.

Meanwhile, this thread is about RE - my original mention of academies was to point out that they are not obliged to teach it, which robs children of their entitlement.

As for advisors, without them, teachers, especially non-specialists in primary schools, are limited to their own knowledge, gleaned from a mere half day during ITT which was devoted to RE.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Anecdotal evidence about one academy won't do. I have been a trade union rep. for about 30 years and have been to endless meetings to listen to the woes of staff in academies.
So my direct experience this year of an academy conversion under the 2010 Academies Act is merely anecdotal evidence, while your experience as a trade union rep is not. It looks to me that your experience is past its sell-by-date. You claim that only 'outstanding' schools can convert and you are wrong. You claim that TUPE arrangements can be changed without consultation and you are wrong. You claim that schools can convert to academy status without undergoing consultation and you are wrong. I've pointed you to a very easy to navigate DfE FAQ page. Why don't you go and check it out.

quote:
Meanwhile, this thread is about RE - my original mention of academies ...
If I'm out of order responding to your factual errors about academies then I'm sure a host will let me know.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Maybe you should start a new thread on the benefits of academies and why it is a good thing to decimate local authorities.

Meanwhile, you haven't said why it is a good thing that academies do not have to teach RE or have collective worship.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
It is interesting that Spawn has been keen to sing the praises of academies while not answering my questions about academies not offering RE or collective worship.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is interesting that Spawn has been keen to sing the praises of academies while not answering my questions about academies not offering RE or collective worship.
It is more interesting to me that you gloss over your errors.

To attempt to address your question, I have come across enough LA schools which ignore the requirement for collective worship and treat RE as a Cinderella subject to be fairly relaxed about academies setting their own priorities in this area. My daughter's community school never has a whole school assembly, and her year group gatherings don't seem to have anything that can be described as religious content - though I know that any trendy cause or campaign ticks the 'Christianity' box as far as you are concerned.

I don't know whether academies are neglecting RE and collective worship. It doesn't follow that just because they don't have to include RE and collective worship that they are not doing so. The primary academy I am involved with still follows the curriculum. I suspect that the church academies are probably doing a pretty good job. In short, I believe that all schools should make an effort to include RE in the curriculum and make imaginative choices for school worship. Yet in practice schools are making a variety of choices and should have a great deal more freedom than they do at present.

Not sure that's a very good answer. For once, I'm sitting on the fence.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
any trendy cause or campaign ticks the 'Christianity' box as far as you are concerned.
Climate change?

Or should 'worship' not have any relevance to the world that God made and loves?
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
any trendy cause or campaign ticks the 'Christianity' box as far as you are concerned.
Climate change?

Or should 'worship' not have any relevance to the world that God made and loves?
Well if it was an assembly about caring and valuing the world that God made and loves, rather than infecting children with pessimism, catastrophism and anxiety then I'm all for it.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Glad to hear it. Pessimism achieves nothing. Because assemblies have to be 'broadly Christian', it should always, as is Christianity, be characterised by hope. The fall is trumped by the incarnation; the creation awaits the new creation etc.
 
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Glad to hear it. Pessimism achieves nothing. Because assemblies have to be 'broadly Christian', it should always, as is Christianity, be characterised by hope. The fall is trumped by the incarnation; the creation awaits the new creation etc.
We agree on something. Let's quit while we're ahead.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
From the Press Association - PM has ‘open mind’ on RE in EBacc — 6.9.11
quote:

David Cameron has left the door open to adding religious education to the Government’s new flagship English Baccalaureate
In a question and answer session at the Free School Norwich, Mr Cameron was asked whether RE should be included in the Baccalaureate.
He replied: “There’s been a concerted write-in campaign to Members of Parliament from churches, charities and others suggesting this. I don’t have a closed mind on this, and I’m sure Education Secretary Michael Gove never has a closed mind.
“The balance here is to have something in the EBacc that’s this set of subjects that colleges really want to know about and that employers are enthusiastic about, to have a sort of quality benchmark going through the system.” He added: “I think we can keep an open mind, but it’s right to start with a pretty strict list of subjects that both colleges and employers say ‘those are the absolutely essential ones I want to know about’.”
Andrew Jones in the Guardian
quote:
Today an estimated 56% of the world’s population believe in an Abrahamic god and another 21% follow another of the world’s major religions, which suggests we still have a duty to educate children about humanity’s beliefs. As we live in a world where politics, culture and religion are often fused together. and even those societies that separate church and state often have God embedded in their cultural politics, would it not be a shame if future generations of British children had little serious interest as to what these beliefs are. Like history and geography, RE is a humanities subject that tells us a lot about the world and its inhabitants at a time of increased globalisation and interdependence...

 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Simon Schwama, the Government's History tsar, was interviewed by a student from Cambridge about whether he thought that history was so important that it should be in the EBacc while RE was excluded. He said that RE was vital and that there's no way kids can understand history without it.

[ 24. September 2011, 15:25: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Rowan Williams, reported in yesterday's Church Times, called for a 'robust defence' of RE.

John Sentamu, in the Lords said that 'this an odd moment to be thinning our or dumbing down the religious and ethical content of the school curricula.'
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
According to The Independent today
quote:
leaders of the Government's academies are warning that the new English baccalaureate could jeopardise their freedom to determine their own curriculum – one of the main boasts made by Mr Gove for his academies programme.

 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Michael Gove is going to give every school a single copy of the KJV.

I now there have to be cuts but one book to be shared by 900 pupils?
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Perhaps, as in days of yore, it will need to be chained?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Michael Gove is going to give every school a single copy of the KJV.
Michael Gove is going to give every school a single copy of the KJV. AND he has written a preface to it. Who does he think he is? John Prescott joked, ‘Hello @god Just wondered if you were happy with Michael Gove writing a foreward to your book?’

Gove said, ""It's a thing of beauty, and it's also an incredibly important historical artefact. It has helped shape and define the English language and is one of the keystones of our shared culture. And it is a work that has had international significance." so why has he cut Religious education, thereby denying kids knowledge of this book?

A vicar wrote to the Guardian to say, "What better way could there be to consign the living word to oblivion than to bury it in Jacobean-speak?"
 
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
I feel that the omission of RE from EBac is a philistine move of the worst kind and it shows Gove misunderstands it's importance. I refer you to a quote from Hansard (October 2011) and I have written to my own MP Nick Gibb who is a Schools Minister.

Hansard quote below.

Saul the Apostle

Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): What assessment he has made of the potential effect on student choices of the English baccalaureate. [74423]

The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove): A survey of nearly 700 schools indicates that the English baccalaureate is having an immediate impact on subject choices. The numbers of students electing to study modern foreign languages, geography, history, physics, chemistry and biology are all up.

Tony Baldry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that secondary schools report a significant decline in the number of students opting to study religious studies? The reason given is that it is not included in the E-bac. This year, will he at least give thought to whether, in the humanities, there could be a choice of two out of three subjects—geography, history and religious studies? If religious studies is not included in the E-bac, it will be increasingly marginalised.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I feel that the omission of RE from EBac is a philistine move of the worst kind and it shows Gove misunderstands it's importance. I refer you to a quote from Hansard (October 2011) and I have written to my own MP Nick Gibb who is a Schools Minister.
You have an advantage in the Gibb is your own MP. In any correspondence I have had with him, he merely parrots Gove's position.

Glad you took the trouble to write.

This battle has been lost but the war isn't yet over!

[ 19. December 2011, 15:41: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by Right-Believing Queen (# 16832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:

A vicar wrote to the Guardian to say, "What better way could there be to consign the living word to oblivion than to bury it in Jacobean-speak?"
I'm afraid I don't understand this point (entirely my fault, I'm sure). Could you explain it?
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
The Bible is supposed to be the living word of God. To dress it up in fancy olde English so that kids cannot understand it means that they will assign it, and Christianity as a whole, to a quaint relic of the past which has nothing to do with their lives today.
 
Posted by Right-Believing Queen (# 16832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Bible is supposed to be the living word of God. To dress it up in fancy olde English
Surely the Authorized Version isn't 'dressed up in fancy olde English'. It was written in the English of its time, which is modern English. The last point is of crucial importance: the English of the AV is only very slightly different from that of spoken and written today, and easily comprehensible to anyone with even a basic command of English. The same is not really true of the English Bible of Tyndale, or of Luther's German Bible.

quote:


so that kids cannot understand it means that they will assign it, and Christianity as a whole, to a quaint relic of the past which has nothing to do with their lives today.
Do you have any hard evidence for this rather alarming assertion. I personally have never met anyone who has ever had the slightest difficulty with understanding Jacobean English (and I like to think that I have a rather diverse set of friends, not all of them native English speakers). The only reference I can think of is from 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy', where a young boy in the prep school where Jim Prideaux teachers struggles to pronounce the word 'shew'.

If you'll forgive me, your assertion smacks more of an élite conception of what the illiterate masses know than it does of actual experience with these masses.

Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure that one of the kids on last week's episode of 'Glee' read from the Gospel of Luke, according to the Authorized Version (or the KJV, as Americans are wont to call it). So, we can add Lima, Ohio, to the places where the yoof know their thees and thous. Bristol must be a very strange place, if what you say is true.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Right-Believing Queen:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Bible is supposed to be the living word of God. To dress it up in fancy olde English
Surely the Authorized Version isn't 'dressed up in fancy olde English'. It was written in the English of its time, which is modern English.
No it wasn't - much of its language was quaint by the standards of its day because it used lots from older translations like Tyndale's, Wycliffe's etc.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Right-Believing Queen:
quote:


so that kids cannot understand it means that they will assign it, and Christianity as a whole, to a quaint relic of the past which has nothing to do with their lives today.
Do you have any hard evidence for this rather alarming assertion.
Yes, my 30+ years teaching Religious Education (Secondary, Grammar School for 2st 4, comprehensive the rest). Only the Good News Bible (which I personally loathe) could be used if 3/4 of the lesson wasn't to be sidetracked into explaining old words.

Also 20 years working in the university church here - I always encouraged the use of the KJV to match the language of BCP Evensong until a postgrad English Literature student asked me to explain much of the lessons on a particular day.
 
Posted by Right-Believing Queen (# 16832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:


Also 20 years working in the university church here - I always encouraged the use of the KJV to match the language of BCP Evensong until a postgrad English Literature student asked me to explain much of the lessons on a particular day.
I spend a lot of time with undergraduates, and, if that is true, it's utterly atypical. Certainly, the undergraduates at King's College, Cambridge don't seem phased by the Authorized Version, nor do the choristers for that matter.

Bristol must be very unusual place indeed.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I haven't spent all my career in Bristol.

Its uni is a Russell Group uni. but probably has less ex-public schoolkids than Cambridge.
 
Posted by Right-Believing Queen (# 16832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I haven't spent all my career in Bristol.

Its uni is a Russell Group uni. but probably has less ex-public schoolkids than Cambridge.
Oh, please. We're talking about King's College, that well known bastion of Marxism, [url= http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/wiki/King%27s_College,_Cambridge#Student_Statistics]where over 3/4s of the students come from state schools[/url]


You'll have to find another reason to explain the appalling ignorance of Bristol students. Well, actually, you don't, as you've only cited the case of one student, a case that could be, and indeed almost certainly is, very atypical. For some reason, though, you seem to want to portray it as typical.

[ 20. December 2011, 19:30: Message edited by: Right-Believing Queen ]
 
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
I must admit I am surprised at the omission of RE from Ebac. After all if taught correctly RE can be a vital part of a persons generic and specific education. A lively and demanding subject on all sorts of levels.

The current Tory party is much more diverse under Cameron and maybe Gove and his pals felt that the mix they chose was the right one, misguided IMHO. I shall be interested to receive the reply to my letter from Schools Minister Nick Gibb who is my local MP.

I was reminded of the only Duke of Wellington quote I know (he who defeated Napoleon at Waterloo and he said:

''Educate men without religion and you make of them but clever devils.''

Saul the Apostle
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I gather it's quite common for prospective Humanities students to be warned off Bristol becaue they give (allegedly) place more emphasis on Science courses. I have no idea if this is true, but it might explain why the more savvy students choose other Universities. Certainly people with active enquiring minds reading English Literature should not have too much trouble interpreting the KJV - after all it's much more intelligible than Chaucer.

Regarding the teaching of RE as a compulsory subject, I'm surprised it was brought in, in the first place, up to age 16 - but then to drop it, having brought it in, seems complete nonsense. I guess that is one of the weaknesses of a constantly changing government.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Right-Believing Queen:
You'll have to find another reason to explain the appalling ignorance of Bristol students. Well, actually, you don't, as you've only cited the case of one student, a case that could be, and indeed almost certainly is, very atypical. For some reason, though, you seem to want to portray it as typical.
I was an associate tutor at Bristol Uni for 27 years and have been on the staff of the university church for 20 years - maybe you need to get out and about more.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Regarding the teaching of RE as a compulsory subject, I'm surprised it was brought in, in the first place, up to age 16 - but then to drop it, having brought it in, seems complete nonsense. I guess that is one of the weaknesses of a constantly changing government.
Point of information: RE is compulsory up to age 18/19. That still stands in law - even if it isn't in the EBac, schools still have to 'deliver' it - what is now happening is that it is taught as an occasional one-off rather than as an exam. subject.

Now that Ofsted doesn't do subject inspections, nobody is policing compliance.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
John Keast, chair of the RE Council, has accused Gove of 'dismantling' RE and of putting 2/3rds of teacher training courses in it at risk. RE content has also been removed from the National Curriculum website.

He suggests that it is ironic that Cameron has underlined the significance of the religious dimension which underpins personal and communal values.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Regarding the teaching of RE as a compulsory subject, I'm surprised it was brought in, in the first place, up to age 16 - but then to drop it, having brought it in, seems complete nonsense. I guess that is one of the weaknesses of a constantly changing government.
Point of information: RE is compulsory up to age 18/19. That still stands in law - even if it isn't in the EBac, schools still have to 'deliver' it - what is now happening is that it is taught as an occasional one-off rather than as an exam. subject.

Now that Ofsted doesn't do subject inspections, nobody is policing compliance.
This is really nothing new. My experience of education was that the legal duty wasn't being delivered as far back as the mid 70s - we were not taught Divinity, as it was then called, beyond the first year of secondary, and only certain days had full school assemblies, which were the only occasion collective acts of worship took place. If a law is being observed mainly in the breach then it is starting to look like an ass and it is time to question whether that law should be repealed.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I'm talking more about RE as an examinable subject. The numbers went up in the 1990s, partly due to the half-GSCE which many more students took because RE was a compulsory subject, not just at assembly, and so therefore they might as well get examined in it and have it as one of their qualifications than choose an additional subject. (Probably due as much to laziness as religious fervour amongst the students..... but it did help a significant amount towards acceptability, it was OK to be seen to study RE, even if you were male.)
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
That is true but not the whole picture.

Yes, the short course meant kids said that they mas as well do the exam but it also led to an increase in A' level numbers because they found the GCSE so interesting.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
it also led to an increase in A' level numbers because they found the GCSE so interesting.
So even more sad that many will now be much less likely to discover this.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
More bad news. At a meeting yesterday, I was told hat only half of a PGCE cohort from a prestigious course got jobs at the end of their course, finishing July 2011. RE jobs were now being advertised as needing to include PSHE and Citizenship (the future of all 3 subjects is in doubt).

Most of the appointments were to those with some training in Citizenship and/or PSHE. So that adds yet further to the shortage of RE specialists.

It's hard to remember that, a mere two years ago, RE teaching was encouraged with a golden hello and extra bursaries because it was a shortage subject.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
More bad news. At a meeting yesterday, I was told hat only half of a PGCE cohort from a prestigious course got jobs at the end of their course, finishing July 2011. RE jobs were now being advertised as needing to include PSHE and Citizenship (the future of all 3 subjects is in doubt).

Most of the appointments were to those with some training in Citizenship and/or PSHE. So that adds yet further to the shortage of RE specialists.

It's hard to remember that, a mere two years ago, RE teaching was encouraged with a golden hello and extra bursaries because it was a shortage subject.
Only a slight tangent, but very related to that. I'm aware of at least three schools (and I'm sure it's more common than that) where a large number of non EBac subjects are being wiped out as examination subjects since they are not attracting enough pupils at options time. It's not related to RE at all I don't think - I think the general issue is that the EBac is hammering any subject that's not included in it.
 
Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :
 
I'm begining to feel a bit glad that I've got a psychology degree as well so I do have a choice as to what I teach when I go back into teaching but it's such a shame.

"Philosophy and Ethics" was as popular as history (and both more popular than geography) at the last place I taught.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
More bad news. At a meeting yesterday, I was told hat only half of a PGCE cohort from a prestigious course got jobs at the end of their course, finishing July 2011. RE jobs were now being advertised as needing to include PSHE and Citizenship (the future of all 3 subjects is in doubt).

Most of the appointments were to those with some training in Citizenship and/or PSHE. So that adds yet further to the shortage of RE specialists.

It's hard to remember that, a mere two years ago, RE teaching was encouraged with a golden hello and extra bursaries because it was a shortage subject.
Only a slight tangent, but very related to that. I'm aware of at least three schools (and I'm sure it's more common than that) where a large number of non EBac subjects are being wiped out as examination subjects since they are not attracting enough pupils at options time. It's not related to RE at all I don't think - I think the general issue is that the EBac is hammering any subject that's not included in it.
I think that is true and, with hindsight, maybe all our subject specialists should have joined together to fight the EBac rather than going it alone.

However, the difference is that RE IS statutory but Gove has ignored and undermined that by recent decisions to remove, without any legal backing, that statutory nature e.g. in free schools and academies and by not allowing it to have any role in the curriculum review.

[ 25. January 2012, 19:23: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Now we have a report which says that
quote:
the subject was under-resourced, overlooked and overburdened.
The Dept. of Ed says, wrongly
quote:
it was "down to schools themselves to judge how it is taught".
No it isn't - it's up to OFSTED and SACRE.
More here.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
According to the Church Times
quote:
A NEW All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) to provide backing at Westminster for religious education in schools
so hopes are now being pinned on that.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Despite pressure from the RE Council and the bishop of Oxford, the government is still refusing to include RE in the curriculum review. Instead, it suggests that the RE Council do its own review. On the plus side, it means that we professionals continue to 'own' our subject and have a large input. on the minus side, it hints of ours being an 'also ran' subject.

They HAVE listened to ther shortage of RE specialists by increasing ITT numbers.

However, around here, this uni. trains Citizenship teachers. Both Citizenship and RE have uncertain futures so schools are hedging their bets by appointing Citizenship specialists to RE posts, thinking them to be more flexible if they have to be redeployed to another subject area. meanwhile, RE teachers are likely to remain unemployed (each advertised post is currently attracting 100+ applicants) unless they move to another part of the country.
 
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :
 
Leo said:
quote:
I think that is true and, with hindsight, maybe all our subject specialists should have joined together to fight the EBac rather than going it alone.

However, the difference is that RE IS statutory but Gove has ignored and undermined that by recent decisions to remove, without any legal backing, that statutory nature e.g. in free schools and academies and by not allowing it to have any role in the curriculum review.
Maybe I'm being too conspiratorial here, but the agenda of this and previous government's is to talk clean & positive about the place of God, religion and the family, but to do **** all when it comes to actual real legislation.

I wrote to my MP Nick Gibb about the role of RE and the EBac. Gibb who is a Cameron patsy and Junior Schools Minister. All I got was waffle in reply.

Saul
 
Posted by Emma Louise (# 3571) on :
 
100 applicants!? I'm hoping to go back to work in the next year or two and hoped to work locally... this may not happen...
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Leo said:
quote:
I think that is true and, with hindsight, maybe all our subject specialists should have joined together to fight the EBac rather than going it alone.

However, the difference is that RE IS statutory but Gove has ignored and undermined that by recent decisions to remove, without any legal backing, that statutory nature e.g. in free schools and academies and by not allowing it to have any role in the curriculum review.
Maybe I'm being too conspiratorial here, but the agenda of this and previous government's is to talk clean & positive about the place of God, religion and the family, but to do **** all when it comes to actual real legislation.

I wrote to my MP Nick Gibb about the role of RE and the EBac. Gibb who is a Cameron patsy and Junior Schools Minister. All I got was waffle in reply.

Saul
Yes - everyone is getting waffly replies - usually that don't address the issue. I am in regular contact with about 150 'RE people' and they're all saying the same.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
100 applicants!? I'm hoping to go back to work in the next year or two and hoped to work locally... this may not happen...
Depends where you are. My city is especially hard because the uni trains both RE and Citizenship teachers so that doubles the competition.

Also, people regard this as a beautiful city and don't want to move away after their PGCE.

Ask around - if you know of any HODs or senior management who shortlist - they'd know what sort of volume they're getting.

Applicant numbers vary from time to time. The last time i had a post going in my dept. (about 8 years ago), i only had 4 applicants. I wouldn't have shortlisted ANY of them in normal circumstances.

10 years before that, I had about 50 applicants and agonised about the procedure - bundles of paper all over my living room floor, each representing a real human being.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Right-Believing Queen:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Bible is supposed to be the living word of God. To dress it up in fancy olde English
Surely the Authorized Version isn't 'dressed up in fancy olde English'. It was written in the English of its time, which is modern English. The last point is of crucial importance: the English of the AV is only very slightly different from that of spoken and written today, and easily comprehensible to anyone with even a basic command of English. The same is not really true of the English Bible of Tyndale, or of Luther's German Bible.

quote:


so that kids cannot understand it means that they will assign it, and Christianity as a whole, to a quaint relic of the past which has nothing to do with their lives today.
Do you have any hard evidence for this rather alarming assertion. I personally have never met anyone who has ever had the slightest difficulty with understanding Jacobean English (and I like to think that I have a rather diverse set of friends, not all of them native English speakers). The only reference I can think of is from 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy', where a young boy in the prep school where Jim Prideaux teachers struggles to pronounce the word 'shew'.

If you'll forgive me, your assertion smacks more of an élite conception of what the illiterate masses know than it does of actual experience with these masses.

Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure that one of the kids on last week's episode of 'Glee' read from the Gospel of Luke, according to the Authorized Version (or the KJV, as Americans are wont to call it). So, we can add Lima, Ohio, to the places where the yoof know their thees and thous. Bristol must be a very strange place, if what you say is true.
I have just read an article about the king James Bible he has given to schools. Apparently it weighs a lot and it is printed in ye olde script with ye olde spellings e.g. 's' is printed as 'f'.

So when the little darlings read that phrase in the psalms: 'thereout suck they no small advantage'.....
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Despite pressure from the RE Council and the bishop of Oxford, the government is still refusing to include RE in the curriculum review. Instead, it suggests that the RE Council do its own review. On the plus side, it means that we professionals continue to 'own' our subject and have a large input. on the minus side, it hints of ours being an 'also ran' subject.
Of course. Who would expect otherwise? No likely government is going to abolish compusolry RE and the "act of worship" (though the current crop of Tories are a bit less unlikely to than Labour was or will be). But no likely goernment is going to waste any time or much money on what they see as one of the most unimportant parts of school curriculum. So they will leave it up to the schools to sort.

Remember they do not want schools to teach RE. Neither do they want schools not to teach RE. They don't give a fart one way or the other. What they want to be able to do is to stand up in front of a TV camera and say they care about RE even though they don;t. So they will pass laws to make it compulsory. mumble a few platitudes about educating the whole person and upholding our mainly Christian heritage, and then ignore it and hope it will go away.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Right-Believing Queen:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The Bible is supposed to be the living word of God. To dress it up in fancy olde English
Surely the Authorized Version isn't 'dressed up in fancy olde English'. It was written in the English of its time, which is modern English. The last point is of crucial importance: the English of the AV is only very slightly different from that of spoken and written today, and easily comprehensible to anyone with even a basic command of English. The same is not really true of the English Bible of Tyndale, or of Luther's German Bible.

quote:


so that kids cannot understand it means that they will assign it, and Christianity as a whole, to a quaint relic of the past which has nothing to do with their lives today.
Do you have any hard evidence for this rather alarming assertion. I personally have never met anyone who has ever had the slightest difficulty with understanding Jacobean English (and I like to think that I have a rather diverse set of friends, not all of them native English speakers). The only reference I can think of is from 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy', where a young boy in the prep school where Jim Prideaux teachers struggles to pronounce the word 'shew'.

If you'll forgive me, your assertion smacks more of an élite conception of what the illiterate masses know than it does of actual experience with these masses.

Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure that one of the kids on last week's episode of 'Glee' read from the Gospel of Luke, according to the Authorized Version (or the KJV, as Americans are wont to call it). So, we can add Lima, Ohio, to the places where the yoof know their thees and thous. Bristol must be a very strange place, if what you say is true.
I have just read an article about the king James Bible he has given to schools. Apparently it weighs a lot and it is printed in ye olde script with ye olde spellings e.g. 's' is printed as 'f'.

So when the little darlings read that phrase in the psalms: 'thereout suck they no small advantage'.....
The KJV is also useless when it comes to phonics, which Gove is so keen on.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
It gets worse. The latest news is that it ill have seven papers: English language, English literature, maths pure and applied (with an additional maths option), chemistry, physics and biology.

History AND (not 'or') Geography to follow later.

Even if the 'old' GCSEs remain for the other subjects, very few pupils are likely to be entered for them so while GCSE RE is still an option outside the EBacc., I can't see many takers.

[ 18. September 2012, 17:40: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
It's really starting to bite now. According to a survey of my subject association, the National Association of Teachers of RE:
quote:
that one third of schools are failing to provide Key Stage 4 pupils with their legal entitlement to RE, and that a quarter of schools have cut posts for specialist RE teachers......Two-thirds of schools reported a drop in entries for the GCSE full course in RS, and more than half said that they had no entries for the RS short course for 2014. In one fifth of schools and academies, teachers were given less time in RS than in other subjects to prepare students for exams.
Their spokesperson said
quote:
Educationally successful nations such as Singapore, often cited as an example by Mr Gove, increasingly perceived the importance of RE, and were increasing their provision in the subject

 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0