Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Sunday, June 17, 2007 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version Print | Comments

Document Call for 'post-9/11' RE teaching

by Robert Pigott, BBC

Thanks to Alan C. for the link.

Reposted from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6758317.stm

classRE teachers must provide children with a more sophisticated understanding of the subject in a post-11 September world, Ofsted says.

After a five-year inspection of RE classes which began in the year of the attacks on the US, Ofsted says rote learning of RE is no longer adequate.

It says teachers should include ways in which religion is not always a force for good.

Throughout the UK, increasing numbers of pupils are opting to study RE.

Ofsted says that in England, which it covers, RE is being taught better.

'Standard responses'

In many schools, religion is linked with contemporary religious and moral issues, such as whether the war in Iraq was morally justified.

But all too often, say the inspectors, the exam system encourages "standard, mechanistic responses" running the risk of "trivialising significant religious issues".

It says students are often denied the profound understanding they need of the impact of religion on society.

"Religion is much more in the media than it has been in recent years" says Ofsted's Director of Education, Miriam Rosen, "and this is, of course, because of events like the bombings in London in July 2005 and the New York incident back in 2001.

"This has raised people's awareness of religion and raised the importance of considering religion's role in society, and the impact of it."

One of the most radical suggestions in Ofsted's report is that religion should be taught warts and all. The inspectors called on teachers not to shy away from controversy, but to accept in their classes that religion could be a force for bad as well as for good.

"Pupils should be taught that religion is complex," says the report, "and should be given the opportunity to explore that ambiguity."

'Solve issues themselves'

Angus Dawson, RE teacher at Royal Manor Arts College in Portland, has long found that pupils enjoy the ambiguity of religion, enjoying the "struggle between ideas" where there are often no right answers.

"We embrace the idea that religious ideas lead to conflict," said Mr Dawson. "The skills we teach (pupils) allow them to unpack the ambiguity and tension between ideas in a clear and straightforward way and to solve the issues for themselves."

But that level of achievement is too rare says Ofsted.

Miriam Rosen said: "They're not really concentrating on teaching about the role of religion in society and its contribution towards community cohesion. The very best are, but this is not consistently done."

RE has long suffered a lack of specialist teachers, but Ofsted focuses on weakness in how progress is assessed, and the way the curriculum is planned, for the inadequacies in the subject.

It says that lessons often fail to build on prior learning. There is no national curriculum in RE.

Instead, all 151 local authorities are responsible for developing their own locally agreed syllabus. Ofsted says that hinders attempts to raise standards in RE, and consistency, across the country.

And those improvements are overdue. Ofsted says only a quarter of schools - albeit on its fairly small sample - were recorded as producing "good" achievement or better in pupils. One in eight were failing to produce even "adequate" achievement.

Comments 1 - 21 of 21 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #50339 by adamhaar on June 17, 2007 at 1:47 am

Wouldn't it be nice if they taught *about* religion, especially all the different religions of the world, past and current.

Other Comments by adamhaar

2. Comment #50340 by BMMcArdle on June 17, 2007 at 1:54 am

This article seems biased towards religion.
Isn't "community cohesion" analogous to tribalism?

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

3. Comment #50341 by PaulJ on June 17, 2007 at 1:59 am

 avatarBack in the late sixties when I attended a grammar school in Buckinghamshire, we were taught about other religions, also about how the bible stories were not necessarily to be taken literally (I remember a highly plausible explanation of the phrase "an angel came to me and said..."), and we looked briefly at something called 'situational ethics').

I don't recall ever being examined on the subject.

Other Comments by PaulJ

4. Comment #50342 by Father on June 17, 2007 at 2:01 am

In this competitive age many clever children choose to study RE for the following reason;
If you have any intelligence at all, very good grades can be had more easily than in any other subject.
My daughters,"who are atheist", chose to study RE and got very good grades. I quote them here "all you have to do is have an opinion and you get good grades easily". This seems to be the opinion of their classmates also.
Pressure on them for good grades makes them choose subjects that will fill that role.
So, far from being popular because people feel religious, "at least to my knowledge", RE is being studied for easy good grades and, maybe, understanding of the crazy events in world we live in now.

Other Comments by Father

5. Comment #50343 by GodlessHeathen on June 17, 2007 at 2:40 am

 avatarSo, RE = Religious Education?

What is that exactly?

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

6. Comment #50346 by SteveN on June 17, 2007 at 2:58 am

 avatarWell, I think making 'The God Delusion' or 'God is Not Great' (or maybe sections thereof) part of the curriculum would be a great way to teach a more realistic view of the role played by religion in world affairs. If children and younger adults were to be exposed to the idea that religion is not the source of morality and ethics, that in fact it is often the antithesis of modern morality, they might be inclined to question their automatic tolerance of all things religious in later life.
"It says teachers should include ways in which religion is not always a force for good."
I think the BBC is confusing 'not always' with 'virtually never'.

Other Comments by SteveN

7. Comment #50355 by NJS on June 17, 2007 at 5:50 am

I read the "not always a force for good" and laughed .

I'd love to ask the person who wrote it when it ever was.

Other Comments by NJS

8. Comment #50360 by bamboospitfire on June 17, 2007 at 7:24 am

 avatarRegardless of the intentions of those responsible for this proposed change to the teaching of RE in schools (i.e. whether they are trying to promote religion itself or not), I think the effect is likely to be that more children will recognise religion for what it really is, regardless of whether they have had a religious upbringing. If the idea is to encourage theological debate and consideration of the effects of religion and the interaction between different religions, surely any child with half a brain will put two and two together and come up with four. This approach to teaching the subject will inevitably lead students to ask questions, which is lethal to religion.

I see that there is no national curriculum for RE but the people at Ofsted seem to think that there should be one. Is this not an opportunity for someone like RD to influence its creation and direction? As the most prominent British atheist, I would have thought he should be involved in this. After all, the biggest question for any student of religion is whether there is a god in the first place.

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

9. Comment #50361 by debaser71 on June 17, 2007 at 7:28 am

I am American and I went to high school in the 1980's. As part of our Social Studies classes I learned about religions. I distinctly remember reading comic books about Indian gods (vishnu kali etc. I remember learning about Iriqoui(sp)american indian myths (earth is a giant turtle, humans were bron from one mother who had twins, the bad twin came out the mothers arm pit, etc). In English class I learned all about ancient greek myths. But for me, what seemed to help nudge me on a path of not being religious was what I learned about christianity's history. FUll of violence, power seeking, wealth hording, and nonsense.SHit, I even learned about creationism in advanced placement biology class (basically a lesson in debunking it).

I guess my point is that I learned abour religion in classes that were already teaching me about other things.

Other Comments by debaser71

10. Comment #50367 by js5535 on June 17, 2007 at 8:59 am

 avatarThe discovery that there are many faiths other than their parents' is probably the most damaging thing that can happen to a child's religion.

Other Comments by js5535

11. Comment #50368 by PrimeNumbers on June 17, 2007 at 9:18 am

 avatarIn RE class we were never taught that Muslims had the death penalty for people who un-convert from Islam. You'd think that'd be a pretty important piece of info. Instead, you get Islam-lite, and Xtianity-lite. You don't get told about Muhammed's child bride....

Good thing that Atheism (I don't believe in God) is pretty much untouched in Atheism-lite (no God). It's hard to make the message much simpler :-)

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

12. Comment #50374 by icanus on June 17, 2007 at 11:05 am

I did a GCSE in RE almost ten years ago (it was compulsory at my school, because it was considered an easy pass to push up the school's results).

We barely touched on religion at all. A bit of study of a native american tribe's belief system, lots of stuff about refugee issues, the destruction of the amazon rainforest, and a unit on the Amish taught mainly by making us watch the Harrison Ford film ("Witness"?).

It was mainly practice at writing essays which churned out whatever magic words the examiners were looking for and gave the appearence of coming to a conclusion without actually commiting yourself to a point of view that could be demonstrated as being wrong. Hmmm. Maybe it had more to do with religion than I thought at the time.

Other Comments by icanus

13. Comment #50375 by perkyjay on June 17, 2007 at 12:00 pm

I was at a grammar school in Yorkshire during WWII and since all the masters of military age had been called up for service, we were taught mainly by old fogies and very attractive young mistresses, who had never been previously allowed within the confines of a boys' school. RI, as it was then known,(Religious Instruction), was taught by a delightfully humourous 25 year old woman, who had us all eating out of the palm of her hand ,(we wished), and we spent a great deal of our time trying to look up her skirt as she sat
on the front of her desk, alternately crossing and uncrossing her legs. It was shortly after that
that I saw the light and became an atheist at the age of 15.

Other Comments by perkyjay

14. Comment #50377 by Diplo on June 17, 2007 at 12:27 pm

 avatarA few thoughts:

1. Has it really taken '9/11' for Ofsted to notice that religion is not always a force for good?

2. Are Tony's beloved faith schools really going to be able to teach religion "warts and all"? I somehow can't see Catholic or Muslim faith schools taking an objective, critical look at their own faiths.

Other Comments by Diplo

15. Comment #50421 by Newton30 on June 18, 2007 at 4:02 am

 avatarDamn you Bin Laden!

Before 9/11, Religion was THAT close to being perfect!

Other Comments by Newton30

16. Comment #50424 by Newton30 on June 18, 2007 at 4:25 am

 avatarAll I remember from 'RE' classes was that it was a bunch of bible stories that seemed to have no connection with the real world, other than the standard Sunday visit to the local orthodox church.

I was raised in a Greek private school in Canada, where RE courses were mandatory, as well as another 'Greek History' course. The 'Greek History' consisted mostly about ancient greek myths i.e. the 12 gods, Hercules, Jason and the Argonauts, the Odyssey, the Iliad, etc. None of which had any connection to the real world either.

The greek myths had very graphic descriptions of decapitations, dismemberment and other forms of bloody violence. If you've seen the movie '300', you'll know what I'm talking about, because the film is a very visual portrayal of the battle of Thermopylae as it was described to us. I remember distinctly preferring the religious myths, simply because they were less violent. I realize now that the violent bits of the bible stories had actually been edited out from the RE courses.

Much later, I also noticed the incredible similarity between the story of Jesus and the story of Hercules, which is much older. In both cases, the hero dies and descends into hell, where he defeats death, gets bodily resurrected and then ascends into heaven (or mount Olympus) to sit at the right hand side of God (or Zeus), who is his father. Zeus is known as 'Dias' in greek… wink, wink…

I think I had become an atheist by about 10 years old.

Other Comments by Newton30

17. Comment #50466 by chezzyd on June 18, 2007 at 10:14 am

I think Religious Education should be scrapped and included instead in something like 'Philosophy & Ethics' where *all* religions and philosophies can be examined and discussed.

Other Comments by chezzyd

18. Comment #50470 by slummingangel on June 18, 2007 at 10:31 am

 avatarahh memories of religion class were we discussed the importantance of crutches and what our teacher should give his niece for her confirmation
they should do what they did in my school in 5th and 6th year for "religion" have speakers in and we have a Q&A with them we had for examples a concentration camp survivor, a blind man, a person with depression and a guy in a wheelchair highly informative

Other Comments by slummingangel

19. Comment #50660 by hexhunter on June 19, 2007 at 9:26 am

 avatarI agree with Chezzyd, actually, I think the A-level course is something like that, it covers a religion, and a range of ethical topics, also a few philosophy subjects.

I think the GCSE course should cover philosophy, sociology, ethics, history of religion (egyptian, greek, roman, christianity/islam/judaism in the past), religious studies (religion vs atheism, comparative theology, religious texts and religious people)...

Its quite a bit but our course was only a half GCSE, with a max grade of a D. also, the exams are confusing, I think coursework should probably involve research on different views on a subject, like euthanasia, comparing them, being critical of all of them, and finding and explaining what you think to be the best answer...

Other Comments by hexhunter

20. Comment #50661 by RAS on June 19, 2007 at 9:32 am

Please contact www.ofsted.gov.uk with suggestions that atheism be given equal time to each and every other religion taught, in the interests of fairness, balance and impartiality. It should not be that difficult to implement...

Other Comments by RAS

21. Comment #50765 by mmurray on June 19, 2007 at 10:43 pm

 avatarI wonder if when they talk about totalitarian marxist and fascist regimes in the 20th century they emphasis the role they played in `community cohesion'.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: