Religious Education - Primary Schools

[agchristie]

Should we share the same concerns as vocal faith leaders or at this young age is it not a bad thing?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11108784/Religious-education-too-weak-in-Anglican-schools.html

[atalanta]

This article seems to take it for granted that church leaders have a right to insist on more thorough indoctrination of young minds. If these leaders were Nazis or North Koreans, insisting on their own ideologies, we'd call it brain-washing, and condemn it utterly.

[douglas9401]

Scaring kids with tales of ghosts in the sky, slaying giants and asking them to believe in giant picnics created from nowt is to give them a poor start in life.
Concentrate on getting them ready for real life, there's plenty of time for fantasy as they grow up.

[birdie1971]

As far as I'm concerned, the phrase, "a religious education" is an oxymoron. But that's by the by.

A fine example of overt bias is in the opening sentence of the linked article, "A study by the Church of England finds that RE is poorly taught in the majority of Anglican primary schools...". Of course it is. What a surprise.

And in a related article, a study by the Fairy Appreciation and other Ridiculous Theories society [acronym unnecessary] have stated that the notion of fairies living at the bottom of your garden is poorly taught in the majority of primary schools.

[Old_Geezer]

Educating is fine, indoctrination not. I suspect that the CofE is asking for the latter what with the emphasis on their own religion and dissatisfaction with the depth of study. Grayling seems to have a good idea. Schools should not get involved with pushing particular religious beliefs but concentrate on facts, the ability to reason, and some areas for preparation for life. Religious instruction, should parents require it for their offspring, should be sought elsewhere.

[naomi24]

These people should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Atalanta for best answer.

[agchristie]

Yes, good answers with an impressive opening indeed from Atalanta.

I shall await any counter-argument from anyone who agrees with the faith leaders' concerns.

[benhilton]

agchristie , the link to the full report ( taken from the CoE website ) is here :
https://www.churchofengland.org/media/2076944/making%20a%20difference%20a%20review%20of%20religious%20education%20in%20church%20of%20england%20schools.pdf
RE is a compulsory subject on the curriculum , successive governments have kept it that way - bear in mind that historically , before the advent of the Welfare State the Churches played a huge role in the provision of education for the less-well-off .
The Church , wanting to see this compulsory subject taught as best as possible in its schools , has produced this report . They are , generally speaking , very happy with the way the subject is taught in the Secondary schools they surveyed , not so happy with the way that it is taught in the Primary schools surveyed .
If the report helps to improve the way this compulsory subject is taught then surely it's a good thing .

[agchristie]

Ben - thanks for the link. It's very comprehensive and I will peruse it in more detail later. I did notice one of the issues relating to teaching primary school children was that although a high priority is given to RE, it is not taught to the same high standard. The report states that although biblical stories are being taught there is a lack of 'theological depth'.

Personally, at such a young age I would question the necessity of teaching to such a profound standard.

[naomi24]

I would question why a subject that has no factual foundation, but is nevertheless taught as fact, is on the curriculum at all. Benhilton?

[Old_Geezer]

Basically, what is the justification for it being compulsory ? Surely an anachronism.

English Language & maths I can understand. I can see an argument for the sciences. Philosophy even. But not a particular religion, which is what the stated concern is about.

[maggiebee]

What surprises me is that if it is all mumbo jumbo, why are so many parents desperate to get their children into church schools?

[DaisyNonna]

Maggie, Church schools often (not always) are very keen on politeness, fair play and hard work. Not found in many Primary schools.

[maggiebee]

Thank you for that Daisy, we don't have church schools in Scotland to my knowledge.

[naomi24]

With a third of all schools faith schools, not for the religion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/9904282/The-parents-who-cheat-at-school.html

[Deskdiary]

Church Schools.

Me, my wife and our two children have attended the local church most Sundays for the past four years.

This has been done solely to ensure our older child gets into the local secondary school, which happens to be affililiated to the church we attend. The school is a 10 minute walk from our house.

The next nearest viable school is a 15 minute drive.

Neither my wife nor I have a religious bone in our bodies.

We have been forced into this absurd situation because the criteria for entrance in to the nearest school is that you must be 'active' within the church, and on the application form (which is separate to the LEA application) the vicar must provide confirmation that you are indeed active.

This would all be fine, of course, if the school was funded by the church. But it is not. The school is a state school and completely funded by the state, i.e, the taxpayer, i.e, me.

Upon on reading this I expect some people will trot out the line "you are hypocrits" or "you are lying to your children" or some other such nonsense. My response would be we are undertaking this absurdity because (a) we have to and (b) all I am concerned about is my daughter gaining a good education in our local school.

Plus, let's face it, when the inevitable question comes about the existence of Santa, I can kill two birds with one stone - I may as quash both fairytales at the same time.

I suspect there are many like us who don't want to get our children in to a chuch school - we want to get our children into a local school which just happens to be associated with the church.

Naomi is spot on - I would question religion being taught as fact. This is on a par to teaching children that leprachauns are real.

[kvalidir]

I would like to see all schools as secular institutions where religions are taught ABOUT, not taught. I see no reason people can't learn about other people's religious beliefs or lack of them be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Rastafarian, humanist, Pagan, Atheist etc etc etc ( sorry if I missed anyone) without any of it being presented a fact. You would get infinitely less fundamentalisation if Faith schools were outlawed and RE lessons as I've described made compulsary.

[Old_Geezer]

Well Des, I'd say you were just trying a work-around of a defect in the system. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it you should not be put in a position where you feel you need to do that in order to get the same 'rights' as others in the local area. Of course the downside is that your kids will, presumably, be continually pushed into believing the faith of that school.

[naomi24]

Whilst faith schools are not obliged to teach anything other than their own religion, many CofE schools do teach about religions other than Christianity. Personally I think RE should be removed from the National Curriculum altogether.

[Cloverjo]

I'm with deskdiary, here. I had my son Christened as it was one of the criteria for access to the local faith school. I am an atheist, but the school is the best in the area and it was necessary to give him the best chance of getting in it. I don't feel bad about that as I know some people didn't even bother getting their children Christened or going through the charade that deskdiary is; they just lied. In the end, the school was over-subscribed and my son didn't get in.

[Cloverjo]

And so I'm not bothered by RE not being taught well in schools. I am interested the theory of religions, but not concerned that Christianity isn't as well taught as the people in the link are saying.