Alan B wrote:I remember Religious Instruction - we kids used to treat it as a 'free period', most irreverent. The teacher - a Mr. Magit - was a short rotund fellow with a round head to match. So we nicknamed him 'Peanut'. I don't remember anything of any import that he tried to teach us about religion.

Those were the days!



Ah well, back to the discussion...

We did our homework.

Alan B wrote:I remember Religious Instruction (...)

Yes and it really was instruction in most schools whereas now it's mostly education, hence the change of name from RI to RE.

Emmeline wrote:mostly education

This puts me in mind of the 'Mostly Harmless' entry in the HH GG.

Or the 'Re-education facility' in some bland dystopia.

I know what you mean, though. It's a classroom where you can bring cupcakes in order to study and appreciate the designs in the frosting. The cupcakes never get eaten, so nobody gains any weight. In fact, you can bring in a zucchini and if you call it a cupcake, no one can raise an eyebrow.

Nora_Leonard wrote:But the subject as taught has changed massively over the years. For instance it used to be called "religious instruction" and it was akin to catechism.

A grateful planet rejoices.

By the way, a minor ecclesiological footnote: the Queen is not the head of the Church of England. She is the Supreme Governor. Dat iz coz de ed iz de J-man Big-guy imself.

Fallible wrote:My cynical-head answer to that would be that in order to remain current, it has been morphed into something which can hitch a ride on the back of multiculturalism by people who want religion to keep going in some way. I don't know much about it though. What I do know is as Nora said, it used to be 'Religious Instruction', as in 'this is how things are - learn it'. It has become 'these are the main religions, and this is how people who belong to them do stuff, and this is what they believe.' I don't have a problem with the idea, but as you say reddix, I'd much prefer it to have less prominence. It's also important to bear in mind that the Secretary of State for Education is a massive twat.

Sorry, that last bit's not relevant, I just felt it needed to be said.

I can't help thinking that you've been exceedingly kind to the Secretary of State for Education. It would take him years of self-examination and learning before he would reach the giddy heights of Massive Twat, 3rd Class.

nunnington wrote:By the way, a minor ecclesiological footnote: the Queen is not the head of the Church of England. She is the Supreme Governor. Dat iz coz de ed iz de J-man Big-guy imself.

Jeremy Clarkson?

nunnington wrote:By the way, a minor ecclesiological footnote: the Queen is not the head of the Church of England. She is the Supreme Governor. Dat iz coz de ed iz de J-man Big-guy imself.

You know, even as I was writing that I thought I should check.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Emmeline wrote:mostly education

This puts me in mind of the 'Mostly Harmless' entry in the HH GG.

Or the 'Re-education facility' in some bland dystopia.

I know what you mean, though. It's a classroom where you can bring cupcakes in order to study and appreciate the designs in the frosting. The cupcakes never get eaten, so nobody gains any weight. In fact, you can bring in a zucchini and if you call it a cupcake, no one can raise an eyebrow.

How did you learn about religion, Cito? I mean how and where were you endowed with enough knowledge about it in order to be able to decide it was all bollocks? I'm genuinely interested to know, it isn't a trick question.

Blackadder wrote:

Fallible wrote:My cynical-head answer to that would be that in order to remain current, it has been morphed into something which can hitch a ride on the back of multiculturalism by people who want religion to keep going in some way. I don't know much about it though. What I do know is as Nora said, it used to be 'Religious Instruction', as in 'this is how things are - learn it'. It has become 'these are the main religions, and this is how people who belong to them do stuff, and this is what they believe.' I don't have a problem with the idea, but as you say reddix, I'd much prefer it to have less prominence. It's also important to bear in mind that the Secretary of State for Education is a massive twat.

Sorry, that last bit's not relevant, I just felt it needed to be said.

I can't help thinking that you've been exceedingly kind to the Secretary of State for Education. It would take him years of self-examination and learning before he would reach the giddy heights of Massive Twat, 3rd Class.

That's me, kind to a fault.

Animavore wrote:

nunnington wrote:By the way, a minor ecclesiological footnote: the Queen is not the head of the Church of England. She is the Supreme Governor. Dat iz coz de ed iz de J-man Big-guy imself.

Jeremy Clarkson?

Getting warm.

nunnington wrote:

Animavore wrote:

nunnington wrote:By the way, a minor ecclesiological footnote: the Queen is not the head of the Church of England. She is the Supreme Governor. Dat iz coz de ed iz de J-man Big-guy imself.

Jeremy Clarkson?

Getting warm.

Oh must be James May then.

Animavore wrote:

nunnington wrote:By the way, a minor ecclesiological footnote: the Queen is not the head of the Church of England. She is the Supreme Governor. Dat iz coz de ed iz de J-man Big-guy imself.

Jeremy Clarkson?

Now there's a massive twat.

Oh, no, I shouldn't say that, because he thinks my car is cool.

Speaking of massive twats, I knew a girl in Rochdale, and she could bend down and .... OK, OK, OK ... sorry, my super-ego is momentarily deafening me with a barrage of ridiculous moralistic rubbish, so back in a while.

The teaching of Christianity in religious education lessons is often incoherent, stereotypical and “lacking in intellectual development”

From the original article; Incoherent, lacking in intellectual development, is that the teaching or simply the subject matter?

Doubtdispelled wrote:I'm genuinely interested to know, it isn't a trick question.

I'll send you a PM. I don't care much for regaling the forum at large with anecdotes.

All bollocks? Think about the constraints involved in producing art and literature in contrast to those involved in producing religion. Nobody thinks much of fiction that only tells it the way it really happened; not even history tries to do that. Now think about the constraints involved in producing art and literary criticism in relation to those involved in producing the content of religious studies. We get a closer match in the latter case, but I think art and literary crit are broader than seeking the respect and maintenance of tradition.

I've admitted that the intellectual climate in a RE classroom is more salutary than that in a madrassa. That's like saying general anesthesia for surgery is more humane than a bottle of whiskey and a wooden peg between your teeth.

However, we also have to ask what gangrenous leg the surgery is amputating.

As regards the OP, when I had to write a scheme of work for a 6-lesson unit on Christianity for key stage two (anywhere between grades 3-6) it was an enormously daunting task. As RE is not just an info-dump. In fact, info-dumping is so irrelevant these days with information so readily available to all of us. Rather I had to design activities that would appeal, yet would also touch on some of the most important aspects of Christianity to Christians. That would get them to think and ask questions and relate anything being discussed to their own experience.

When I was finished I asked an RE teacher friend who also happens to be Christian to have a look at it. One of the things that she thought I'd got 'right' was emphasising how Easter is by far the more important festival to a Christian than Christmas.

Anyway, I'm really reluctant to spend much time discussing it here, because I just expect anything I say on the subject to be ripped to shreds.

Nora_Leonard wrote:When I was finished I asked an RE teacher friend who also happens to be Christian to have a look at it. One of the things that she thought I'd got 'right' was emphasising how Easter is by far the more important festival to a Christian than Christmas.

Anyway, I'm really reluctant to spend much time discussing it here, because I just expect anything I say on the subject to be ripped to shreds.

This is one of the problems when discussing 'Christianity' with children. How do you express disparate views across the community?

Do you end up parroting orthodoxy or even just currents views, as with Easter, which was never really viewed as the most important festival but has become more fashionable recently as a sort of anti Christmas thing.

In the UK the figures say that Cathedral attendance at Christmas is 3 times that at Easter, so the casual Christians don't seem to view it in that manner. These days the casual Chrsitians are in the vast majority too.

I would not say that this was Neutral fact 'about' Christianity. It could easily make children who identify as coming from a Christian tradition feel that they're not doing it right.

http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/2012/eastert ... ican-news/