Why RE is essential

[ProfessorDavey]

Explain this then
https://www.gov.uk/national-curriculum/other-compulsory-subjects

Did you bother to read it:

Sex and relationship education is only compulsory from year 7 (i.e. age 11).

There are no other subjects that are compulsory beyond the age of 16, except RE.

RE is the only subject which must be on the curriculum from 5-18. No other subject is - not English, Maths, Science, Languages, Humanities, PE etc, etc, etc. Only RE.

Do you think that is right Vlad?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you think it is right or wrong that children in schools learn that some people consider morality to be relative and changes over time and with culture etc. Plus also that they learn that other people consider morality to be objective and therefore does not change.

Maybe in the sixth form when pupils have had a grounding in hegemony, democracy, ethos as a real thing, religion, Harris's scientific morality,  perhaps.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Did you bother to read it:

Sex and relationship education is only compulsory from year 7 (i.e. age 11).

There are no other subjects that are compulsory beyond the age of 16, except RE.

RE is the only subject which must be on the curriculum from 5-18. No other subject is - not English, Maths, Science, Languages, Humanities, PE etc, etc, etc. Only RE.

Do you think that is right Vlad?

You didn't bother to read sections 1,2 and 3 RE is one of OTHER compulsory subjects.
RE is also a subject where a parent can opt to withdraw. So much for compulsory.

[ProfessorDavey]

Maybe in the sixth form when pupils have had a grounding in hegemony, democracy, ethos as a real thing, religion, Harrises scientific morality,  perhaps.

So what do you think they should be taught up to 16?

Only that morality is objective? That would be totally inappropriate as it would only provide one side of the argument. While I accept that learning must be age appropriate - I do not accept that there is an age where only one side of the argument can ever be provided. If a child is old enough to learn that some people consider that morality is objective, then they are also old enough to learn that other people consider that morality is relative.

[ProfessorDavey]

You didn't bother to read sections 1,2 and 3 RE is one of OTHER compulsory subjects.

Go on then - find me another subject that must be on the curriculum from the age of 5-18. Prove me wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Go on then - find me another subject that must be on the curriculum from the age of 5-18.

You said that as though it was a bad thing.

Again parents have a right to withdraw children. In what way then can RE can be termed compulsory.

[ProfessorDavey]

You said that as though it was a bad thing.

I think it is bizarre that the only subject that must be on the curriculum from the age of 5 to 18 is RE.

Again parents have a right to withdraw children. In what way then can RE can be termed compulsory.

Which is also a sign of failure of the approach - I'd be in favour of a broadening, as I have suggested to make the topic much more appropriate to all pupils, and I'd also be in favour (on the basis that it had been broadened) for it to be compulsory, without parental opt out. But only up to the age of 16.

How are you getting on in finding another subject that must be on the curriculum from 5 to 18?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have not said that one shouldn't teach that morality is whatever one thinks it is or roll your own morality or morality according to taste but post 16.

It sounds as useful to our youth as eating as much Ice cream or crisps as you like or observe whatever rules you want to.

[ProfessorDavey]

I have not said that one shouldn't teach that morality is whatever one thinks it is or roll your own morality or morality according to taste but post 16.

It sounds as useful to our youth as eating as much Ice cream or crisps as you like or observe whatever rules you want to.

What do you think that a 14 year old should learn:

A: That some people think (and some moral codes are based on the concept) that morality is objective and therefore fixed over time and across cultures, while other people think (and some moral codes are based on the concept) that morality is relative and may change over time and across different cultures.

Or

B: That morality is objective and fixed over time and across cultures

Or

C: That morality is relative and may change over time and across different cultures.

For what it is worth - I think A.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What do you think that a 14 year old should learn:

A: That some people think (and some moral codes are based on the concept) that morality is objective and therefore fixed over time and across cultures, while other people think (and some moral codes are based on the concept) that morality is relative and may change over time and across different cultures.

Or

B: That morality is objective and fixed over time and across cultures

Or

C: That morality is relative and may change over time and across different cultures.

For what it is worth - I think A.

I'd agree. But not in the stupid counterproductive way you sound like you'd risk.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'd agree.

Great - then we have agreement.

But not in the stupid counterproductive way you sound like you'd risk.

And what would that be then Vlad?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Great - then we have agreement.
And what would that be then Vlad?

I've already Expressed my fears as to what can be taught too early.

[ProfessorDavey]

I've already Expressed my fears as to what can be taught too early.

So do you think that morality is objective and fixed over time and across cultures is suitable to be taught earlier than that morality is relative and may change over time and across different cultures?

If so please justify.

To my mind neither should be taught without reference to the other, to provide balance. So once it is age appropriate for children to learn one, then they are old enough to learn the other.

Note this is not the same as implying that there aren't rules that exist within a culture or a setting (e.g. a school) that need to be adhered to. The presence of rules within a society tells us nothing about whether morality is considered to be objective or relative.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So do you think that morality is objective and fixed over time and across cultures is suitable to be taught earlier than that morality is relative and may change over time and across different cultures?

If so please justify.

To my mind neither should be taught without reference to the other, to provide balance. So once it is age appropriate for children to learn one, then they are old enough to learn the other.

Note this is not the same as implying that there aren't rules that exist within a culture or a setting (e.g. a school) that need to be adhered to. The presence of rules within a society tells us nothing about whether morality is considered to be objective or relative.

We need to teach RE, we need to teach the principles of citizenship, we need to teach ethos we must teach the law of the land we must even teach the principled campaigns of the BHA and NSS we must teach the great ethical movements and then we should go into moral realism and moral irrealism.

A disconnect between dogma and praxis of moral irrealism should be left to when such contradictions can be more maturely held.

[ProfessorDavey]

We need to teach RE, we need to teach the principles of citizenship, we need to teach ethos we must teach the law of the land we must even teach the principled campaigns of the BHA and NSS we must teach the great ethical movements and then we should go into moral realism and moral irrealism.

A disconnect between dogma and praxis of moral irrealism should be left to when such contradictions can be more maturely held.

Then I think we are basically in agreement.

Thinking about this over the past day or so, my feeling is that we should embed all these elements under the broad umbrella of 'citizenship', which would be a developing curriculum strand throughout compulsory education ages. This would, of course, involve learning about religions (the major ones, not just a single one), both in terms of culture, practice and belief but also linked to morality and ethics - the latter needing to be taught alongside non religious ethical approaches.

It would also include what is currently describes as 'British Values' (I hate the term as they are no more British than most other developed nation values) eg. respect tolerance, rule of law, democracy elections etc etc. We would also include the PHSE strands too.

All aspects need to be taught in an age appropriate manner.

This citizenship strand should be compulsory and without parental opt out.

If kids want to learn more about religion etc they are free to study RE or Philosophy and Ethics at GCSE or A level.

If faith schools are to continue to exist they should also be required to cover this curriculum.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then I think we are basically in agreement.

Thinking about this over the past day or so, my feeling is that we should embed all these elements under the broad umbrella of 'citizenship', which would be a developing curriculum strand throughout compulsory education ages. This would, of course, involve learning about religions (the major ones, not just a single one), both in terms of culture, practice and belief but also linked to morality and ethics - the latter needing to be taught alongside non religious ethical approaches.

It would also include what is currently describes as 'British Values' (I hate the term as they are no more British than most other developed nation values) eg. respect tolerance, rule of law, democracy elections etc etc. We would also include the PHSE strands too.

All aspects need to be taught in an age appropriate manner.

This citizenship strand should be compulsory and without parental opt out.

If kids want to learn more about religion etc they are free to study RE or Philosophy and Ethics at GCSE or A level.

If faith schools are to continue to exist they should also be required to cover this curriculum.

Talking of faith schools would that include schools whose customers had been blessed by Mammon?

[ProfessorDavey]

Talking of faith schools would that include schools whose customers had been blessed by Mammon?

And which schools might those be?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And which schools might those be?

Independent schools into which admission is down to means to pay. Should they have the same curriculum?

[ProfessorDavey]

Independent schools into which admission is down to means to pay. Should they have the same curriculum?

Interesting question.

To an extent there is a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune. So where schools are state funded then there should be significant oversight of the curriculum, but perhaps less so for independent schools which should probably have greater flexibility.

That said I think there does need to be a broad framework - so, for example I think all schools should be register (I think they currently are, or are supposed to be) and all schools should be subject to Ofsted inspection, regardless of whether they are state or private. I think there does need to be a significant focus on ensuring that the education received by all kids has a broad and balanced curriculum, and that includes children who are home schooled. And a broad and balanced curriculum should surely include the elements I mentioned that I would like to see in a broadened 'citizenship' curriculum.

While I suspect most independent schools are fine on the 'broad and balanced' curriculum requirement there is certainly concern over some islamic and jewish independent schools that effectively teach little else than religion. That is wrong and should not be allowed, as failing to provide kids with an appropriate educations is, in effect, a safeguarding issue as it is neglect.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Interesting question.

To an extent there is a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune. So where schools are state funded then there should be significant oversight of the curriculum, but perhaps less so for independent schools which should probably have greater flexibility.

That said I think there does need to be a broad framework - so, for example I think all schools should be register (I think they currently are, or are supposed to be) and all schools should be subject to Ofsted inspection, regardless of whether they are state or private. I think there does need to be a significant focus on ensuring that the education received by all kids has a broad and balanced curriculum, and that includes children who are home schooled. And a broad and balanced curriculum should surely include the elements I mentioned that I would like to see in a broadened 'citizenship' curriculum.

While I suspect most independent schools are fine on the 'broad and balanced' curriculum requirement there is certainly concern over some islamic and jewish independent schools that effectively teach little else than religion. That is wrong and should not be allowed, as failing to provide kids with an appropriate educations is, in effect, a safeguarding issue as it is neglect.

I can't be the only one to notice you banging on about a unified curriculum only to change tune once sponduliks is mentioned like the classic sketch of the maitre D' unable to accommodate a diner until a 50 dollar bill is flourished.

[ProfessorDavey]

I can't be the only one to notice you banging on about a unified curriculum only to change tune once sponduliks is mentioned like the classic sketch of the maitre D' unable to accommodate a diner until a 50 dollar bill is flourished.

I think it was pretty clear that I was talking about state schools when discussing the unified curriculum. But I think I also made it clear that regardless of where kids are educated they should (indeed have a right to) receive an education which covers those elements, hence;

'a broad and balanced curriculum should surely include the elements I mentioned that I would like to see in a broadened 'citizenship' curriculum'

However I think that independent schools, and indeed home learners, can have a greater degree of flexibility in how they deliver it, but it still needs to be delivered.

[ippy]

Surly teaching religion in our schools, lends religion an unwarranted status, it's only worth a mention when it comes up in history lessons, because is a part of humankind's history and as such it would be senseless to try to write it out of its place in our shared history.

It might be better to start references to the various religions, dating from the annuals of the enlightenment days, for students over the age of seven years onwards, I'd be happy wit that.

Regards ippy 

[Nearly Sane]

Surly teaching religion in our schools, lends religion an unwarranted status, it's only worth a mention when it comes up in history lessons, because is a part of humankind's history and as such it would be senseless to try to write it out of its place in our shared history.

It might be better to start references to the various religions, dating from the annuals of the enlightenment days, for students over the age of seven years onwards, I'd be happy wit that.

Regards ippy

So no need to think about the fact that are people are religious today

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Surly teaching religion in our schools, lends religion an unwarranted status, it's only worth a mention when it comes up in history lessons, because is a part of humankind's history and as such it would be senseless to try to write it out of its place in our shared history.

It might be better to start references to the various religions, dating from the annuals of the enlightenment days, for students over the age of seven years onwards, I'd be happy wit that.

Regards ippy

What are'' the annuals of the enlightenment days?''

[Aruntraveller]

What are'' the annuals of the enlightenment days?''

The Beano - it enlightened me for many a good year.