|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: School closures
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Please, go back and re-read the proposals for the EBacc... your two point reply had two errors!
1. RE has not been 'dropped', the legal requirement from the previous legislation that RS be taught in some fashion is still in force, everyone must still do some 'RS' until the end of compulsory school-leaving age (whether schools approach it as a discreet subject, part of citizenship/general studies/humanities etc. has always been a possibility) in no way has RS been 'dropped'.
You are technically correct but you are echoing Nick Gibbs's standard reply to all the howls of protest about the demoting of RE.
Because RE doesn't count as a 'humanity', it isn't IN the EBacc. (Now i have always resisted humanities as a notion - I am so old fashioned that I like separate subjects). So RE GCSE has to go into an option column alongside things like art, drama, design tech. etc. So it is competing with lots of (other popular subjects so won't get enough up[take to be viable.
In my last job, i had all pupils, including at Key Stage 4, for 5% of curriculum time, in line with the Agreeed Syllabus. That is 3 x 50 minute periods in a fortnightly 60 period timetable. Post Gove's EBacc I'd probably lose 2/3rds of that and have 1 50 min period per fortnight - 25 mins per week. That is worse, even, that the old fashioned 1 x 40 min. period. Imagine the caseload - I'd be teaching 1650 different pupils with all the reports, parents evening appointments that would involve.
So RE may not have been 'dropped' but it's certainly been kicked into obscurity.
NO GCSE means no A'level means fewer taking Theology degrees means fewer doing RE for PGCE means a cycle of ever-increasing decline.
According to a teachers' union which i normally have an intense dislike, quote:
90.3 per cent indicated there had been a reduction in the provision of education about religion and belief at their school since the EBacc was introduced.
RE teachers are being made redundant, PGCSE and B. Ed. places for RE have been halved.
I don't believe in Hell but i wish it could be invented to house Michael Gove.
[ 31. January 2013, 15:42: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Certainly, at my school, O level RE was an option - so most people dropped it at age 13. It was daily assembly which was supposed to be compulsory (although most schools found a way around it).
It is therefore a fairly recent development that RE should be taught right up to GCSE (the GCSE short course was particularly popular) - anyone now in their 20s would have had to do this and would therefore assume it has always been so.
No - daily collective worship and Religious education have been compulsory for all pupils on role, including 6th formers, since 1944 and this was reiterated in the 1988 Education Reform Act and in Circular 1/94.
GCSE, however, was new-ish - to stop kids mucking around in non-exam RE we put them through GCSE short or long course. Until Michael Gove, who listens to nobody, killed it with his EBacc nonsence.
Sorry leo but I can't agree. The EBC has not killed of any subject - all it is is an overarching qualification to recognise that a certain degree of ability has been accomplished in 5 core subjects (which for the life of me I can't disagree with the 5 chosen). It neither harms any other subject, nor reduces the choices of learners.
RS has always been one of those subjects that kids either like or don't/think is relevant or don't and no amount of money or research is going to change that, neither is this changing the fact that most schools see it as optional, or something to be put in with a general humanities course, life skills or general studies.
As with the 'scare-stories' about university applications being proven false (and that article seems to forget to mention that the largest group increase in applications is from those who are considered poor and disadvantaged) I imagine that this is all hyperbole and will be proven to be false in the end with little impact on the actual subjects chosen, especially with regards to RS where the legal requirements continue to hold.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
It only appears to be teacher bashing if you elevate this particular group of workers into constantly put-upon saints, who only have children's best interests at heart, working longer hours than anyone else and always doing so efficiently, brilliantly and selflessly.
Now some teachers fit the bill. Others don't.
I wonder how many teachers you know? Or how often you have been to a pub, restaurant or whatever and observed different groupings of people from work.
The likelihood is that the teacher group will be talking about work, kids and so on and they will then leave and do some marking when they go home to make up for the time they lost earlier.
I have worked in four large schools, one grammar, 3 comps. and encountered very few 'bad' teachers, if by 'bad' is mean uncommitted/unwilling to put in long hours. In fact, I reckon there were 3 of them.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
You are technically correct but you are echoing Nick Gibbs's standard reply to all the howls of protest about the demoting of RE.
Because RE doesn't count as a 'humanity', it isn't IN the EBacc. (Now i have always resisted humanities as a notion - I am so old fashioned that I like separate subjects). So RE GCSE has to go into an option column alongside things like art, drama, design tech. etc. So it is competing with lots of (other popular subjects so won't get enough up[take to be viable.
In my last job, i had all pupils, including at Key Stage 4, for 5% of curriculum time, in line with the Agreeed Syllabus. That is 3 x 50 minute periods in a fortnightly 60 period timetable. Post Gove's EBacc I'd probably lose 2/3rds of that and have 1 50 min period per fortnight - 25 mins per week. That is worse, even, that the old fashioned 1 x 40 min. period. Imagine the caseload - I'd be teaching 1650 different pupils with all the reports, parents evening appointments that would involve.
So RE may not have been 'dropped' but it's certainly been kicked into obscurity.
NO GCSE means no A'level means fewer taking Theology degrees means fewer doing RE for PGCE means a cycle of ever-increasing decline.
According to a teachers' union which i normally have an intense dislike, quote:
90.3 per cent indicated there had been a reduction in the provision of education about religion and belief at their school since the EBacc was introduced.
RE teachers are being made redundant, PGCSE and B. Ed. places for RE have been halved.
I don't believe in Hell but i wish it could be invented to house Michael Gove.
For the third paragraph you are preaching to the choir. RS gets less time than any other subject, but that is very much dependent on how the individual schools view it. However, how the EBC affects this nobody knows, and then it is the fault of individual schools if they cut the amount of time given over to the none 5 EBC subjects. Gove can't be blamed for poor timetabling by schools, or a seeming inability for schools to possibly teach kids to an adequate level in the time they already assign to it.
As for it's inclusion in the EBacc and EBC - neither is art, music, drama etc. etc. etc. and until there is demonstratable evidence that these subjects are in decline then you don't have a point there.
In schools I have attended/have family at/taught in they provide RS short course as compulsory to fulfill the legal requirement and have RS full-course as an option, so it is already in competition with other subjects, and as pointed out, I have known schools where they don't do it as a discreet subject at all but lump it in with lifeskills or such.
As for RE teachers, I share your dislike for unions, but the teaching profession has been over trained for for years, there are already too many teachers about who don't have jobs and can't get teaching work. The decision to reduce the number of RS specialists is in part also from the fact that it does not have to be taught by a specialist either. Any old teacher can be put in place to teach RS as long as they agree to it... I could never imagine being told to teach art (it would be stick figures all the way) but with the current requirements as they are I'm not surprised, but again that is not the fault of Gove, it is something that has persisted in the education sector for what seesm like ever. Schools are again at fault if they think that by sidelining RS as a subject they can do better.
I think your anger is misdirected, Gove, is not at fault here (yet in any provable fashion) and any problems which RS faces are to be laid squarely at hte feet of school SM and the fact we have been training too many people for too long.
This seems a bnit rambling and not full, but it's home time and I need to get home.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
It only appears to be teacher bashing if you elevate this particular group of workers into constantly put-upon saints, who only have children's best interests at heart, working longer hours than anyone else and always doing so efficiently, brilliantly and selflessly.
Now some teachers fit the bill. Others don't.
I wonder how many teachers you know? Or how often you have been to a pub, restaurant or whatever and observed different groupings of people from work.
The likelihood is that the teacher group will be talking about work, kids and so on and they will then leave and do some marking when they go home to make up for the time they lost earlier.
I have worked in four large schools, one grammar, 3 comps. and encountered very few 'bad' teachers, if by 'bad' is mean uncommitted/unwilling to put in long hours. In fact, I reckon there were 3 of them.
I'm married to a teacher. She's an excellent teacher, of course as are most of the many teachers I know.
You are an unusual teacher in that you don't seem to bitch about your colleagues. When I was at school there was bad teaching. Now my children are at school there is still bad teaching. It's important to say that the majority of teachers are as you describe but for us parents that minority is enough to cause concern. The fundamental point is that teachers are not above criticism.
Now, I've argued with you before about RE and the EBacc. My view is that RE will survive because it remains a privileged subject in the law with its own particular syllabus arrangements by committee of interest groups. It doesn't belong in the core group of subjects but should remain an option for GCSE and A level.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
As for it's inclusion in the EBacc and EBC - neither is art, music, drama etc. etc. etc. and until there is demonstratable evidence that these subjects are in decline then you don't have a point there.
There have been several surveys demonstrating the decline in all these subjects, even to the extent of pupils being dragged out of them mid course and put in EBacc classes. I can't give you chapter and verse because I only monitor my own subject. A quick google at the various subject associations websites would show you.
Because RE has been taught by non specialists in many schools, there is already a massive shortage of Theology Graduates in front of classes, the cuts make this even worse. I have only ever allowed 3 non-specialists to teach a handful of lessons in my department during 30 years as a HOD. I don't see how any non-specialist, with the best will in the world, can teach 6 world religions plus humanism with enough subject knowledge to handle all the stuff that comes up in discussion.
BTW - I don't dislike ALL unions, only that one.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
My view is that RE will survive because it remains a privileged subject in the law with its own particular syllabus arrangements by committee of interest groups.
Its survival will be as a Cinderella subject - the sort of also-ran, joke subject that it used to be before the advances we made in the 1970s. The hidden curriculum message of a subject that has less time than any other is that religion is unimportant. I would prefer that RE were dropped altogether in this case.
As the the committee, there are, in fact, 4 committees required in each LA for both SACRE and for ASC. It is increasingly difficult to get people to serve on these. In my case, because so many secondaries have become academies and do not, therefore, have to follow any agreed syllabus, we cannot get enough secondary colleagues. Even those who would like to serve cannot 'get out' of school because of the squeeze on supply budgets. Thus, I am still serving in SACRE, which I have now done for 35 years. I enjoy it, find it interesting and rewarding but i would love there to be some 'new blood'.
[ 31. January 2013, 16:45: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
My view is that RE will survive because it remains a privileged subject in the law with its own particular syllabus arrangements by committee of interest groups.
Its survival will be as a Cinderella subject - the sort of also-ran, joke subject that it used to be before the advances we made in the 1970s. The hidden curriculum message of a subject that has less time than any other is that religion is unimportant. I would prefer that RE were dropped altogether in this case.'
I can understand your frustration as a specialist but RE is protected far more than other important subjects like music. Perhaps it needs to reinvent itself again. It certainly has to compete for attention but it was ever thus.
The important thing to remember is that Gove's insistence on these five core subjects is nothing new. I remember at my own comprehensive school in the 1970s an insistence that alongside maths and english we had to choose either history or geography, a language and a science. This has been longstanding practice which has only been abandoned in some schools during the past decade. It's a thoroughly good thing that Gove is bringing these subjects back as the absolute core. My only amendment to his plans would be to have a technical baccalaureate for those children who are clearly not going to make the grade academically - this might be something akin to the old O'level/CSE distinction.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
Any old teacher can teach RE? We were probably different being a grammar school... but a department of theology and philosophy graduates (mainly Oxford and London)teaching yr 8 and 9 Plato's cave, Utilitarianism, medical ethics and theology amongst other things. Yes many on the ship might well have insight into some of these topics but our students would have got a raw deal if any old teacher had been teaching them instead!
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
The core subjects at my grammar school in the 1960s and 1970s were Maths, French, and English. Only they were taking into account in streaming, and they were the only exams you had to take at O-level. (You weren't allowed to drop RE and sport of course but didn't have to do exams)
Everything else could be given up at age 13, and we were encouraged not to take exams we weren't expected to do well in. More than encouraged, I was made to give up Geography even though I didn't really want to.
After you were 16 you could stop doing Maths, French, and English. It was mostly only A-levels in the sixth form, and you specialised. You either did arts or sciences, it was almost impossible to mix them in the timetable. Maths, I think could be done with both, but as I was nowhere near good enough to do A-level maths I'm not sure. So even if I had wanted to do a foreign language at A-level I probably would not nave been able to because I did science.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
My experience is the same as ken except that I think it was even more restricted even in the O level year. It might have been possible to do a combination of science and arts subjects, but apart from Maths most of us were encouraged into a one-sided selection of one side or the other.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I object to the dropping of RE - which I'm assuming you had to do at GCSE, surely? Also a language is no longer compulsory at GCSE (although it was dropped in 2007(?) or thereabouts, so definitely a Labour misstep). I did my GCSEs in 2005 and had to do maths, English language, English literature, RE, a science and a language. I also did geography, history and another language (school was a language specialist school).
Please, go back and re-read the proposals for the EBacc... your two point reply had two errors!
1. RE has not been 'dropped', the legal requirement from the previous legislation that RS be taught in some fashion is still in force, everyone must still do some 'RS' until the end of compulsory school-leaving age (whether schools approach it as a discreet subject, part of citizenship/general studies/humanities etc. has always been a possibility) in no way has RS been 'dropped'.
2. A foreign language is compulsory (again under these proposals) in the Ebacc... what foreign language is up to the school (and hopefully more will begin teaching mandarin and spanish).
The Ebacc is a small nucleus of subjects, (with three of them already being compulsory,) that are considered basic, in terms of skills and content, in this day and age for all jobs (English, Maths, Science, foreign language and history/geography) it in no way impeeds students option to choose other subjects (as the jack, whose wages I pay, on Breakfast this morning tried to claim), unless the school has a really slimmed down options choice and already timetables excessively for these core subjects (which raises questions about the schools ability to educate its students competantly) nor will it impede people's options at university as most universities run of the post-16 results as opposed to GCSE. The Ebacc will remain a part of ensuring that the basic necessary skills are taught and as a means of ensuring that schools are adequately equipping kids for the world...
Er, I knew that the Ebacc contained a language, I pointed out that a language is not compulsory *at GCSE*, because it was dropped in ~2007.
There had been reports of Gove dropping RE from the compulsory section of the Ebacc so forgive me for thinking that had already happened.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Certainly, at my school, O level RE was an option - so most people dropped it at age 13. It was daily assembly which was supposed to be compulsory (although most schools found a way around it).
It is therefore a fairly recent development that RE should be taught right up to GCSE (the GCSE short course was particularly popular) - anyone now in their 20s would have had to do this and would therefore assume it has always been so.
No - daily collective worship and Religious education have been compulsory for all pupils on role, including 6th formers, since 1944 and this was reiterated in the 1988 Education Reform Act and in Circular 1/94.
GCSE, however, was new-ish - to stop kids mucking around in non-exam RE we put them through GCSE short or long course. Until Michael Gove, who listens to nobody, killed it with his EBacc nonsence.
We never had a single religious Collective Worship at my school. We did it when my tutor didn't have too many notices to get through in registration, but it was just thinking about ~issues and treated as an annoyance by all the form tutors.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
Any old teacher can teach RE? We were probably different being a grammar school... but a department of theology and philosophy graduates (mainly Oxford and London)teaching yr 8 and 9 Plato's cave, Utilitarianism, medical ethics and theology amongst other things. Yes many on the ship might well have insight into some of these topics but our students would have got a raw deal if any old teacher had been teaching them instead!
The non-specialist teachers in my school's RE department were mostly history graduates. And we definitely didn't get taught all those things! My RE lessons from years 8 and 9 are not very memorable (I remember learning the Islamic story of Ibrahim and Ismail, that's about it). For my GCSE (I did full course and had a brilliant teacher) we studied the Hindu concept of Ahimsa, did a case study of the amazing Hindu temple in Neasden and did a comparative exam on ethical issues in Christianity and Islam.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
Any old teacher can teach RE? We were probably different being a grammar school... but a department of theology and philosophy graduates (mainly Oxford and London)teaching yr 8 and 9 Plato's cave, Utilitarianism, medical ethics and theology amongst other things. Yes many on the ship might well have insight into some of these topics but our students would have got a raw deal if any old teacher had been teaching them instead!
The non-specialist teachers in my school's RE department were mostly history graduates. And we definitely didn't get taught all those things! My RE lessons from years 8 and 9 are not very memorable (I remember learning the Islamic story of Ibrahim and Ismail, that's about it). For my GCSE (I did full course and had a brilliant teacher) we studied the Hindu concept of Ahimsa, did a case study of the amazing Hindu temple in Neasden and did a comparative exam on ethical issues in Christianity and Islam.
Sorry about the confusion over the EBC language bit - it seemed as if you were saying that it was being dropped in the EBC proposals, not that you were celebrating the return of languages.
You probably weren't taught any of those things because few exam boards before A-levels include such philosophy, and even then at A-level, depending on the personal prefrence of the teacher, depends on how such Western philosophy is approached and brought in (one training placement had a Hinduism fan as HoD and everything in the department was Hinduism with a brief mention every now and again to Plato etc. to reinforce the Hinduism stuff - it really was just the HoD preferance rather than a local, cultural need for an overteaching of Hinduism.)
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
Any old teacher can teach RE? We were probably different being a grammar school... but a department of theology and philosophy graduates (mainly Oxford and London)teaching yr 8 and 9 Plato's cave, Utilitarianism, medical ethics and theology amongst other things. [...]
The non-specialist teachers in my school's RE department were mostly history graduates. And we definitely didn't get taught all those things![...]
Same here! I went to a grammar school, but if we had a "department of theology and philosophy" it must have been fully invisible. The RE teacher I remember best was indeed a history teacher. And a very nice person. She was a member of a tiny Pentecostal Church that met in a genuine tin tab that was on the edge of the school grounds. (I went once. Very, very nice people, singing lots of hymns out of books that looked like they were printed in the 1920s and compiled in the 1890s. Lots of Moody and Sankey and Fanny Crosby.)
I can't really remember the lower school RE lessons. I think they were probably a mixture of Bible stories and class discussions about ethics. (I vaguely remember something about striking and Yorkshire Miners when the 1972 miner's strike was on. And I think we were once asked to write an essay about what we thought about life after death. The Comparitive Religion side of RE was just coming in when I left in 1975 so I missed it. We had a rather old-fashioned curriculum, other schools may have done more of that sort of stuff.
The RE O-level I did was a very good course but it was nothgnlike the sort of stuff Leo and Emma were talking about. Quite the opposite. It was really a Biblical Stiudies course. I remember doing Luke and Acts in some detail. There were some OT books as well, but I'm not sure which. And we got that all-time favourite essay question: "It has been said that the Acts of the Apostles could have been called "The Acts of the Holy Spirit". Discuss". I think we were taught it by that History teacher and also an English teacher.
If you had done RE at A-level I think the person who taught it would have been our chemistry teacher. Maybe because he had Greek. He never taught me RE as far as I remember, but did teach chemistrty, and was one of the best teachers, no, probably the best teacher we ever had. Stunningly brilliant. He was British Israelite, and he was widely rumoured to be Living in Sin (as some people still called it as recently as then) with a senior teacher at the nearby girl's school.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I thought the issue about the EBacc/EBC was its use as a measure of schools' performance. Schools will be graded according to the number of pupils achieving the EBacc/EBC. Therefore, in order to maintain high rankings in the school league tables it will be critical for them to invest primarily in EBacc/EBC subjects.
A student who gets A grades in, say, English, mathematics, history or geography, the sciences and music (or RE) will fail to get an EBacc, and affect the schools rankings accordingly. Thus subjects such as music and RE are likely to suffer the fate currently suffered by history and geography.
It is likely that schools will focus less on and invest less in non-EBacc subjects in order to focus more on EBacc subjects, because it is on the basis of EBacc subjects that schools' performance will be assessed.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
If RE was supposed to be compulsory up to age 18 in the 1970s, then a significant number of schools didn't obey (they were more likely to obey the assembly requirement, but even then daily assemblies didn't often happen - they were replaced on certain days by 'form time' which could be almost anything). Perhaps schools got round it by pleading that they could cover the two requirements at once by holding assemblies with overtly religious content?
Although we could drop RE at 13, we did have to attend assembly and we also had to attend Sports lessons.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
We never had a single religious Collective Worship at my school. We did it when my tutor didn't have too many notices to get through in registration, but it was just thinking about ~issues and treated as an annoyance by all the form tutors.
Depends how you define it. Circular 1/94 insisted that it had to be worship 'of a deity' but it has no legal standing, being only advisory. John Patten issued this circular because a lot of schools interpreted 'worship' as thinking about things of worth - provoking a response, in silence, from pupils is sufficient for it to be such 'worship'.
I had a paper, and later a book, published arguing the theology, pedagogy and legality of this approach and quite a few LAs used my paper as part of their worship guidance. (I don't own the copyright on it so cannot quote in sufficient length to explain in detail.)
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
I guess it is a case of wait and see...
Pleanty of school already ignore the collective worship and compulsary RS requirements - or find ways around them, and so it is those schools who are most likely to neglect it further if necessary.
But in good schools with good SM then I imagine (as I say we'll have to wait and see) RS will continue to get the attention and respect it deserves (certainly from SM if not from the kids themselves).
As I say somewhere else in this thread, if schools don't think that they can successfully impart the skills and knowledge which will be required for the EBC exams already with the staff and resources they have then I think there is a problem in those schools already and you have to wonder why they would not be able to accomplish what needs accomplishing in the time they already alot to it. The inclusion of a compulsory language might reduce the number of option choices from 5 to 4, or require some good option tables, but nothing worse beyond that I don't think.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
RE doesn't belong in the core group of subjects but should remain an option for GCSE and A level.
RE was the ONLY core subject originally. Kenneth Baker ADDED other subjects in 1988.
It is only now that it is no longer core.
I know that you have told me before that RE should not be core but I don't think you have ever given me any reasons. Why is its knowledge base or its skills set inferior to, e.g. history?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
RE doesn't belong in the core group of subjects but should remain an option for GCSE and A level.
RE was the ONLY core subject originally. Kenneth Baker ADDED other subjects in 1988.
It is only now that it is no longer core.
I know that you have told me before that RE should not be core but I don't think you have ever given me any reasons. Why is its knowledge base or its skills set inferior to, e.g. history?
You are certainly not right that RE, as opposed to Religious instruction or indoctrination, was the original core subject. I've already said that the tradition of regarding the Ebacc subjects as core has a long pedigree.
The merits of learning about our past (history) and our environment (Geography) don't need any defence. It is important to learn about the beliefs people have and I would be on your side if I genuinely believed that RE was being downgraded. In my view, this is merely the status quo. There is still special protection for RE that there isn't for other important subjects.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Partly agree about RE, RI, RK etc. but you haven't said why its subject knowledge and skills-set are inferior to the other subjects.
Nor is your speculation about it not being downgraded supported by any evidence - the evidence, in survey after survey, including that of the House of Commons Select Committee on Education, points to massive downgrading.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
cc subjects as quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
RE doesn't belong in the core group of subjects but should remain an option for GCSE and A level.
RE was the ONLY core subject originally. Kenneth Baker ADDED other subjects in 1988.
It is only now that it is no longer core.
I know that you have told me before that RE should not be core but I don't think you have ever given me any reasons. Why is its knowledge base or its skills set inferior to, e.g. history?
The merits of learning about our past (history) and our environment (Geography) don't need any defence. It is important to learn about the beliefs
Your language shows a very reductionist, materialist view of education - just learning about stuff. It is a banking model, the transmission of facts.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Partly agree about RE, RI, RK etc. but you haven't said why its subject knowledge and skills-set are inferior to the other subjects.
Nor is your speculation about it not being downgraded supported by any evidence - the evidence, in survey after survey, including that of the House of Commons Select Committee on Education, points to massive downgrading.
Do I have to establish that RE is inferior in terms of subject knowledge and skills-set? I think RE is important and should continue to be part of the curriculum - in a statutory way. It should be one of the options but in my opinion it's not quite as foundational as history and geography.
In your other post you set up a dichotomy between skills and facts. They both go together. If you don't transmit facts you can't master skills. I'm uneasy with a doctrinaire approach. As a history graduate I can't see how you can teach skills in a vacuum.
On a tangent, I don't know enough about it but would be interested in knowing whether the history curriculum neglects the study of historical religiosity because that is thought to be covered by RE. Religious education needs to be applied to other subjects. How can you possibly appreciate art, music, literature, history, philosophy and even our environment without an understanding of the beliefs which have shaped us, our culture and our world?
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Partly agree about RE, RI, RK etc. but you haven't said why its subject knowledge and skills-set are inferior to the other subjects.
Nor is your speculation about it not being downgraded supported by any evidence - the evidence, in survey after survey, including that of the House of Commons Select Committee on Education, points to massive downgrading.
Do I have to establish that RE is inferior in terms of subject knowledge and skills-set? I think RE is important and should continue to be part of the curriculum - in a statutory way. It should be one of the options but in my opinion it's not quite as foundational as history and geography.
You have repeatably claimed that 'Gove is right' but have not produced any arguments as to why. It amounts to Gove is right - because I agree with him...because RE is not important - because i have seen some bad examples of it - therefore Gove is right - because i agree with him.
Any why are History and Geography more 'foundational' that RE?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
On a tangent, I don't know enough about it but would be interested in knowing whether the history curriculum neglects the study of historical religiosity because that is thought to be covered by RE. Religious education needs to be applied to other subjects. How can you possibly appreciate art, music, literature, history, philosophy and even our environment without an understanding of the beliefs which have shaped us, our culture and our world?
KSS 3 & 4 history covers stuff like the Reformation but there is very little about religious motives beyond caricatures such as 'catholic = bad' and 'protestantism = good because you can think for yourself.
Then again, there is little in most LA RE syllabuses about the Reformation.
RE isn't there to service other subjects because it isn't about the past so much as about the future, equipping young people in their own spiritual quest and giving them the skill to evaluate.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Your language shows a very reductionist, materialist view of education - just learning about stuff. It is a banking model, the transmission of facts.
This may well be true, but the learning of facts & figures etc. is just as important as learning the skills and theory of knowledge that accompany them.
The question that the SoS, school SM and teachers need to answer is 'how do we achieve the right balance between skill development and knowledge learnt?' - under the last Labour administration there seemed to be too greater a swing towards the skills and a lack of focus on actually learning about events and facts, certainly in the humanities subjects, and maybe this does represent a swing back towards knowledge over skills, but until I see a curriculum I can't really say either way.
However, the subjects looked at by the EBacc as a measure of school performance, and the proposed EBC qualification, are those that have a demonstratable worth in terms of the breadth of skills developed and the knowledge learnt. Nobody would argue that English or Maths is unimportant in either of those two categories, nor is science in the types of analytical skills it develops. Languages are becoming increasingly important, and the skill set, and knowledge, of humanities has always be highly prized, especially in that once bastion of excellence, the Civil Service who would hire more humanities graduates than any other subject because of the skills and knowledge that they develop.
RE is already a core curriculum subject, it will continue to remain a core subject by law, and the only people who are letting down RS are the schools themselves, not Gove, not even the last Labour government. The issues around the position of RS are solely at the feet of schools who do not live up to their legal duty, nor care about it as a subject.
As I say further up thread, and I will continue to repeat, if schools feel that they need to allocate even more time than they allocate already to the 5 EBacc/EBC subjects to ensure that kids are achieving the best they can in those subjects then they are evidently doing something wrong now in terms of pedagogy and teachers abilities.
Gove is right to swing the pendulim back towards knowledge, whether too much I don't know I haven't looked at an EBC curriculum yet, and at least Gove has not produced endless initiatives like the stream of Labour SoS who produced over-lapping initative after initative.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Your language shows a very reductionist, materialist view of education - just learning about stuff. It is a banking model, the transmission of facts.
This may well be true, but the learning of facts & figures etc. is just as important as learning the skills and theory of knowledge that accompany them.
Is it though? When the facts and figures are so close to our finger tips. Maybe we are beginning to 'outsource' a large part of our memory stores to smart phones and computers - leaving more space for creativity and innovation?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
RE isn't there to service other subjects because it isn't about the past so much as about the future, equipping young people in their own spiritual quest and giving them the skill to evaluate.
See this is the problem... that New Labour skill focus that I mentionin the post above this (sorry for hte double post)...
Whilst a large part of RS should be about allowing kids the opportunity to think about themselves, find their own path, it is also about the dissemination of knowledge (since legally all subjects have a duty to promote the spiritual, emotional, social part fo the child).
RS is about studying religion, that doesn't mean by rote or blackboard exercises, but by actually learning something about religion - 'why do Islamists commit suicide bomb attacks in Israel and around the world' is as valid a topic in RS as 'what choices do you think are ethical in your worldview' they both require knowledge to a certain degree, the former more than the latter and the former is not about personal development as much as about understanding why religions believe what they do, how that knowledge can help us to form a society that understands each other and doesn't want to kill apostates or crusade for Jerusalem. The knowledge is just as important as the skills which are being developed, and the two cannot be divorced.
Education is not about creating a bunch of Einsteins (not everybody has the intellect to be a doctor etc.) it is about helping kids to fulfill their potential, to understand themselves, but also to understand others to create a better society in which to live - unfortunately your view seems more intent on producing kids that think about themselves and know little about the beliefs of others (although the way that RS is censored at times, this is not surprising).
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
You have repeatably claimed that 'Gove is right' but have not produced any arguments as to why. It amounts to Gove is right - because I agree with him...because RE is not important - because i have seen some bad examples of it - therefore Gove is right - because i agree with him.
Any why are History and Geography more 'foundational' that RE?
I have mischievously had a few shots at you which may have given the impression that I don't think RE is important. For that I apologise.
There is a certain amount of subjectivity here. A case can be made for every subject under the sun being important. But you draw the line somewhere. I maintain that it is easier to make a non controversial case for the study of our past and our world/environment being core than it is for the study of beliefs. That is not because I don't think that RE is not important, my faith is the matter of the utmost importance but not everyone agrees with me. The fact is that parents can withdraw their children from RE. I think this says something for the uphill struggle you have to make in persuading everyone that RE is as important in the humanities as history and geography.
So, I'd put the shoe on the other foot and ask how you as a specialist persuade Gove that RE is so important that it just has to be a core subject? I don't get the sense that many parents or children are bothered one way or the other for this to be a vote-threatening issue for the conservatives.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
KSS 3 & 4 history covers stuff like the Reformation but there is very little about religious motives beyond caricatures such as 'catholic = bad' and 'protestantism = good because you can think for yourself.
I am surprised that after all your vigorous and correct defence against caricatures of RE, you so easily fall into a fashionable caricature of another subject. The History Orders both in England in in Wales require proper teaching of the Reformation, including accurate understanding of the motives behind it, both religious and political.
Protestations that this is in your experience not done properly will be met with a blizzard of experiences of crap RE teaching.
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Your language shows a very reductionist, materialist view of education - just learning about stuff. It is a banking model, the transmission of facts.
This may well be true, but the learning of facts & figures etc. is just as important as learning the skills and theory of knowledge that accompany them.
Is it though? When the facts and figures are so close to our finger tips. Maybe we are beginning to 'outsource' a large part of our memory stores to smart phones and computers - leaving more space for creativity and innovation?
But there are so many professions where the facts and figures need to be at the front of your mind - you would be worried, for example, if your surgeon turned around and said they needed to check a website before performing your operation - they need to knwo some facts about anatomy to perform the surgery, i nthe same way the anaesthetist needs that knowledge fo drugs and complications of the top of their head incase anything goes wrong during said surgery.
If kids don't learn how to store and recall specific knowledge when they are young, and that being the best time to do it, then they wont have the skills to do the jobs that require it later on.
Yes, I personally am a great fan of being able to say, oh I know which book to look in for that knowledge, without knowing it all entirely myself, but if I can't recall facts and figures in a discussion then it will be pretty boring as well...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
KSS 3 & 4 history covers stuff like the Reformation but there is very little about religious motives beyond caricatures such as 'catholic = bad' and 'protestantism = good because you can think for yourself.
I am surprised that after all your vigorous and correct defence against caricatures of RE, you so easily fall into a fashionable caricature of another subject. The History Orders both in England in in Wales require proper teaching of the Reformation, including accurate understanding of the motives behind it, both religious and political.
Protestations that this is in your experience not done properly will be met with a blizzard of experiences of crap RE teaching.
Furthermore when I studied the reformation for my history A 'level over two decades ago the Whig version of the reformation had already been superseded by Scarisbricke et. al.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Your language shows a very reductionist, materialist view of education - just learning about stuff. It is a banking model, the transmission of facts.
This may well be true, but the learning of facts & figures etc. is just as important as learning the skills and theory of knowledge that accompany them.
Is it though? When the facts and figures are so close to our finger tips. Maybe we are beginning to 'outsource' a large part of our memory stores to smart phones and computers - leaving more space for creativity and innovation?
But there are so many professions where the facts and figures need to be at the front of your mind - you would be worried, for example, if your surgeon turned around and said they needed to check a website before performing your operation - they need to knwo some facts about anatomy to perform the surgery, i nthe same way the anaesthetist needs that knowledge fo drugs and complications of the top of their head incase anything goes wrong during said surgery.
If kids don't learn how to store and recall specific knowledge when they are young, and that being the best time to do it, then they wont have the skills to do the jobs that require it later on.
Absolutely they do. It's what us teachers spend a lot of time teaching them.
My son is a pilot and needs to know every wire and sprocket within the plane, not just how to fly it.
But that's not what I am saying. We really don't need to store as much 'stuff' any more in ordinary life. Our ways of working will change as a consequence - and maybe for the better.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Absolutely they do. It's what us teachers spend a lot of time teaching them.
My son is a pilot and needs to know every wire and sprocket within the plane, not just how to fly it.
But that's not what I am saying. We really don't need to store as much 'stuff' any more in ordinary life. Our ways of working will change as a consequence - and maybe for the better.
You are right, we don't need to know as much stuff straight of (depending on the circles you move in and what careers you choose) but it is an important skill taht needs to be developed, even if it is only for the sake of being able to hold a conversation with somebody which tends to rely, especially in regards to current affairs, holding onto not only the immediate topic but the backstory as well.
I might not be fully understanding your point though, so, if I can ask, can you spell the exact point you are trying to make out for me, because I don't believe that us not storing much stuff is actually a good thing - it is an unfortunate (but totally logical and understandable) development of our modern culture, probably beginning in the industrial revolution and the division of labour inparticularly. ie. 'All I need to know is how to do my little bit rather than how the whole thing is done.'
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I am trying to say that if we put more of our effort into creativity and innovation rather than memorising then maybe we'll become a more balanced society?
We certainly need to learn about RE - but learning from RE is just as crucial imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I am trying to say that if we put more of our effort into creativity and innovation rather than memorising then maybe we'll become a more balanced society?
We certainly need to learn about RE - but learning from RE is just as crucial imo.
(I'm sorry if I get a little frustrated and angry for a while. I've been reading the Kakangelicalism thread and the angery emotions that are wildly flying around in that thread have settled on me atm. - they should pass soon, and then I'll be serene again - in fact it's already happening! ![[Smile]](smile.gif) )
And so there is a balance to be sought. My position is that htat balance cannot be found and maintained if you do not learn about to then learn from (in England you can't accomplish AT2 successfully if you have not mastered AT1 as well.)
There is a way to learn about in a creative fashion, allowing for the creativity and innovation to shine through even whilst learning about something, it is no cope-out, nor a cheat, but an emminantely useful lesson to get the kids to actually produce a lesson themselves as if they were to be expected to teach it so that they have to use their creativity and innovation to decide what needs to go in and how to present it and learn during it, but they also must learn the information to actually be competant to do it if ever called to. To encourage creativity and innovation does not mean that learning facts and figures has to go by the way side, the only way, IMO, to be able to learn from a topic, is to understand it.
Even when it comes to self-awareness of their own morality and belief systems there is a great value in learning what others believe, especially when it comes down to the philosophy of religion aspects, a kid has a vague view of thier personal systems, but without a wide knowledge of other systems they cannot adequately express those things they hold, nor understand some of the ramifications of their belief systems in the philosophical sphere, they are just corks bobbing in an ocean with no grounding or points of refrence from which to explore and build.
[ 02. February 2013, 14:02: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Your language shows a very reductionist, materialist view of education - just learning about stuff. It is a banking model, the transmission of facts.
This may well be true, but the learning of facts & figures etc. is just as important as learning the skills and theory of knowledge that accompany them.
Is it though? When the facts and figures are so close to our finger tips. Maybe we are beginning to 'outsource' a large part of our memory stores to smart phones and computers - leaving more space for creativity and innovation?
But there are so many professions where the facts and figures need to be at the front of your mind - you would be worried, for example, if your surgeon turned around and said they needed to check a website before performing your operation - they need to knwo some facts about anatomy to perform the surgery, i nthe same way the anaesthetist needs that knowledge fo drugs and complications of the top of their head incase anything goes wrong during said surgery.
If kids don't learn how to store and recall specific knowledge when they are young, and that being the best time to do it, then they wont have the skills to do the jobs that require it later on.
Yes, I personally am a great fan of being able to say, oh I know which book to look in for that knowledge, without knowing it all entirely myself, but if I can't recall facts and figures in a discussion then it will be pretty boring as well...
Since secondary school teaching has such a focus on exams, facts and figures (and quotes and so on from subjects without facts and figures!) are taught more than transferable skills. This is a problem for employers.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Since secondary school teaching has such a focus on exams, facts and figures (and quotes and so on from subjects without facts and figures!) are taught more than transferable skills. This is a problem for employers.
I hardly think the problem for employers is that too many facts are taught. It's clear that the emphasis has been on skills for a number of years. I just wish such a dichotomy was not set up by ideologues. We need both facts and skills.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by AberVicar:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
KSS 3 & 4 history covers stuff like the Reformation but there is very little about religious motives beyond caricatures such as 'catholic = bad' and 'protestantism = good because you can think for yourself.
I am surprised that after all your vigorous and correct defence against caricatures of RE, you so easily fall into a fashionable caricature of another subject. The History Orders both in England in in Wales require proper teaching of the Reformation, including accurate understanding of the motives behind it, both religious and political.
Protestations that this is in your experience not done properly will be met with a blizzard of experiences of crap RE teaching.
Fair point. I was basing my 'caricature' on some Yr. 9 history lessons I'd covered (back in the day when teachers did cover).
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
There is a way to learn about in a creative fashion, allowing for the creativity and innovation to shine through even whilst learning about something, it is no cope-out, nor a cheat, but an emminantely useful lesson to get the kids to actually produce a lesson themselves as if they were to be expected to teach it so that they have to use their creativity and innovation to decide what needs to go in and how to present it and learn during it, but they also must learn the information to actually be competant to do it if ever called to.
Agree - I often put the pupils in groups to research and present a topic. For example, in year 9:
Aims to understand how people express their beliefs differently (a) from other members of the same religion and (b) from members of a different religion or life stance (e.g. Humanism)?
Prior learning At KS1 they may have considered ‘IE How do you celebrate events special to you?’, AT KS2 ‘PL How do religions differ and what do they have in common?, ‘PL How do people of faith celebrate and mark significant events in their faith?’ ‘EL How and why do people worship?’ In Yr. 7 they may have studied different expressions of worship in a secular age.
I didn't want to plough through 3 of 4 rites of passage over 6 religions so got 7 groups of 4 kids each to research, e.g. weddings - one religion each (plus humanism). Give them acetates, marker pens etc.
During their presentations, the other groups 'rated' them using OFSTED-like criteria.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
So, I'd put the shoe on the other foot and ask how you as a specialist persuade Gove that RE is so important that it just has to be a core subject? I don't get the sense that many parents or children are bothered one way or the other for this to be a vote-threatening issue for the conservatives.
Gove has refused to meet RE professionals, church reps. etc. His EBacc consultation was risible - he did not ask whether people agreed with it but simply asked how was the best way to go about it.
On the supposed superiority of Geog over history, it's interesting that Ofsted's report concluded that a quote:
focus on factual recall rather than on exploring ideas failed to capture students' interest
TES 4/2/11
I'd also ask why Latin, Greek and Biblical Hebrew are in the EBacc - I found all three of these 'useful' and still use them but I am unusual.
The Arts & Humanities Research Council [2011] GLASGOW UNIVERSITY RESEARCH REPORT: RE
quote:
emphasizes skills of debate, reflection, and creative discussion in contrast to
an increasingly exam-driven curriculum in other subject areas
NASACRE: RE quote:
challenges pupils to question and explore their own and others’ understanding of the world.
raises questions of identity, meaning and value and encourages people to reflect on their experiences, behaviour and opinions.
contributes positively and powerfully to the spiritual, personal, social, moral and cultural development of pupils.
Teaches children and young people about Christian and other religions’ beliefs, practices and responses to Ultimate Questions so that they can understand the world better and develop their own sense of place within it.
RE has a key role to play in enabling pupils to achieve and preparing them for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of life
From various MPs at an early day motion debate: quote:
Fiona Bruce: Religious issues are frequently at the top of any news agenda. Today’s RE helps young people make sense of that and wider world affairs. It also promotes community cohesion, as it allows young people, who are growing up in a diverse society, to discuss and understand the views and opinions of people whose beliefs and values differ from their own, in the safety of the classroom environment.
“In an increasingly confusing world, Religious Studies gives young people perhaps their only opportunity to engage seriously not only with the most profound philosophical questions concerning human existence and the nature of reality, but also with the most fundamental ethical dilemmas of our day”.
Where else will our young people obtain that?
RE lessons also develop transferrable skills such as critical analysis, essay structure and general written and verbal language skills. Those benefit other subjects as pupils learn how to express and articulate their views and, equally importantly, to respect those of others. Questioning, reasoning, empathy, philosophy, values and insight are all highly valuable skills fostered within RE learning. One student told me:
“It focused my thinking on areas of abstract thought, it improved and developed my analytical skills and logical reasoning”—
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): At this particular time in our history, when there is so much conflict still in the world, many teachers and parents believe a spiritual literacy and understanding of religion is hugely important and must continue in Britain… Mrs Pat Wager, head teacher at Sacred Heart Catholic high school in Fenham, which is my old school. She said:
“RS cannot be excluded from a domain entitled ‘Humanity’—RS is the pre-eminent humanity and yet it has no place.”
Hansard
The Bishop of Oxford: quote:
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: quote:
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,"
Professor Diarmaid MacCulloch: quote:
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.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
Sorry to have taken several days to respond. None of the quotes you've posted do anything other than promote RE as a worthwhile and important subject.
How do you address the following questions. That the syllabus is set locally by interested groupings? That it isn't a subject with an academic pedigree (ie it's a hotch-potch of perfectly repsectable academic disciplines drawn together somewhat randomly)? And that it's a subject children can be withdrawn from?
[ 05. February 2013, 20:15: Message edited by: Spawn ]
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Well, the brown stuff has just hit the fan - the new, shiny, "knowledge-based" core curriculum is out. See here.
I'd have to look at the detailed proposals to critique the other subjects, but "emphasising the importance of translation" is well out of fashion in language teaching. The aim is to produce people who can speak and write the target language fluently; concentrating on getting your pupils to translate chunks of text is one of the less effective ways to achieve this. And I wasn't aware that the requirement to study the language's literature had been dropped, so trumpeting this as a Big Improvement is disingenuous to say the least.
It would be nice if he'd bothered to ask anyone who researches language learning and/or teaches languages instead of writing down what he remembers of his own schooldays on the back of an envelope.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Sergius-Melli: quote:
...you would be worried, for example, if your surgeon turned around and said they needed to check a website before performing your operation...
<tangent> Actually I'd rather have a surgeon who checked facts that s/he wasn't sure of than one that went ahead regardless, especially if the Dread Disease I was suffering from was rare.
I might be slightly concerned if I got into an aeroplane and discovered the pilot was still reading the flight manual. Perhaps that's the real reason why they lock the door to the flight deck...
</tangent>
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Sorry to have taken several days to respond. None of the quotes you've posted do anything other than promote RE as a worthwhile and important subject.
How do you address the following questions. That the syllabus is set locally by interested groupings? That it isn't a subject with an academic pedigree (ie it's a hotch-potch of perfectly repsectable academic disciplines drawn together somewhat randomly)? And that it's a subject children can be withdrawn from?
What is wrong with local? As for 'interested groupings', it ensures balance between various factions: churches 'other' religions' elected councillors? It makes it democratic, which is more than can be said for other subjects. AND there are national guidelines - true, they are not compulsory but any ASC which doesn't give heed to them will disadvantage students when it comes to exams.
Hotch potch? Theology was the Queen of Sciences for that reason. A well-rounded education. In schools, it is a meta-cognitive subject which illumines all the other subjects. God doesn't live in a box.
No academic pedigree? Theology is older than most of the other university subjects.
The right to withdraw ought to be scrapped since the subject no longer 'instructs' people in a particular faith. The only reason this hasn't happened is because it is a hot potato - the 1988 ERA already attracted religious fruitcakes before it considered changing the 1944 provisions. It would be a rerun of the 'Rome on the rates' outcry in the board schools era.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
And even if you argue, as I would, that RE is not theology so much as religious studies it does have a perfectly reasonable academic pedigree with a number of universities (both pre- and post-1992 institutions) offering undergraduate and masters degrees.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
What is wrong with local? As for 'interested groupings', it ensures balance between various factions: churches 'other' religions' elected councillors? It makes it democratic, which is more than can be said for other subjects. AND there are national guidelines - true, they are not compulsory but any ASC which doesn't give heed to them will disadvantage students when it comes to exams.
Hotch potch? Theology was the Queen of Sciences for that reason. A well-rounded education. In schools, it is a meta-cognitive subject which illumines all the other subjects. God doesn't live in a box.
No academic pedigree? Theology is older than most of the other university subjects.
The right to withdraw ought to be scrapped since the subject no longer 'instructs' people in a particular faith. The only reason this hasn't happened is because it is a hot potato - the 1988 ERA already attracted religious fruitcakes before it considered changing the 1944 provisions. It would be a rerun of the 'Rome on the rates' outcry in the board schools era.
Nothing wrong with local arrangements or self-interest on the part of religious organisations but I think these factors pose some questions. Can we be sure that all authorities have the same rigorous standards or that there is sufficient balance? RE is not identical to theology. The right to withdraw is too well-established.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
The right to withdraw is too well-established.
Also, to withdraw the right to withdraw would conflict with certain minority religious groups position on these things. Since religion is a matter of personal conscience, it is up for the family to decide what, if any, interaction with other religious beliefs (however presented) is acceptable, adn some minority religious groups have a blanket ban on studying other faiths.
There is also the point that, the low take-up of the right to withdraw probably has less to do with rejection of RS as a subject, or conflict with personal beliefs, and mor to do with the fact that parents eventually realise thath it is their responsibility to design a curriculum and produce work for their little sprog to do in the time that they are not spending in RS. Apathy and sloth are amazingly good at ensuring kids stay in RS lessons.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
