h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Children to study atheism at school.

· National exam body plans new guidelines for RE lessons
· Falling church numbers prompt radical syllabus reform


http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,1148669,00.html


An excellent idea!

Agree? Disagree?

azahar

I'm delighted to hear that atheism/agnosticism are being considered for inclusion, but I'm somewhat perplexed that RE classes exist at all. At least, in state schools. (Non-government schools can do as they see fit, of course.) Perhaps the time could be used for something more practical instead. (There's no RE in South Australian state schools, and I don't think I'm somehow morally deficient for being spared it.)

I'd sooner see philosophy taught as philosophy, and contemporary religious matters could be included under that heading, along with non-religious philosophy. I certainly wouldn't make this a compulsory subject, but I'd have it available for anyone who's interested.

Ivan.

Top of my personal education reform wishlist is that creation 'science' be taught where it belongs - religious studies.

Nyss,

Some others were talking about this on another thread, that somewhere in the USA Creation was being taught alongside Evolution - in science class! Do you know if this is common practice everywhere in the US or only in certain states?

I wonder if this also happens in other countries.

az

That is totally the case - that is, if you happen to be in a state where they don't tar and feather you should you utter the word 'evolution' in a public school.

A few weeks ago, someone was advocating the teaching of 'creationism' in Queensland state schools. The proposal met with derision, I'm glad to say.

What, exactly, would "teaching atheism" consist of?

I think Ivan's right. We're actually talking about the teaching of philosophy and developing critical thinking - which should have a high priority in all schools.

As for teaching creationism in science classes If you teach children - as science - that things happen "by magic" what happens next? Rename MIT the Unseen University and hire wizards as faculty? Fortunately, everytime the Creationists have been challenged in court they've lost - so far anyway.

Noggin

The problem is the heritage of a system of education that has been flawed for many decades - most americans do not seem to understand the most basic concepts in science. Whether or not a person believes with all their heart that something happened in a certain way is irrelevent. Science has nothing to do with sentiment, for one thing. But more importantly, science isn't up to the task that creationists set forth - it cannot and never will be able to prove the existence of god, nor of his hand in the creation of the universe. Teaching evolutionary theory is different - people have come up with some evidence, and they create hypotheses to try to explain it. *Good* scientists will never claim to be absolutely correct; theories are put out, and time will tell if anyone manages to disprove them. Creationism would have us make theories, and accept these theories as 'facts', without any evidence at all, and be hostile towards any attempts to challenge their ideas. Such 'idea' based ways of looking at the world aren't inferior, they just need to be kept in proper contexts. To pit creationism against evolutionary science is just nonsense, and a waste of time. I think part of the problem is that the people who ascribe to the tenets of creationism would throw fits if their subject was moved to religious studies; if it were implied that somehow their ideas aren't any more valid than those of other mythologies. That sort of paranoia is unhealthy, but I'm sure you can see why it's distinctly American .

I'm with Nogg on this though R.E. never had much effect on me.


Alji

children should be taught about all belief systems from paganism to hinduism....it might promote a more tolerant world.

I don't think anyone has a problem with that Tabitca; just that these shouldn't be confused with science, and that secular culture/worldview isn't excluded.

Noggin

<>

Well, according to the article they are calling for RE to be renamed religious, philosophical and moral education (RPM?). And it says children will be taught *about* atheism, Noggin.

I don't remember having RE at my school, though I think we had to recite the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of the day, after singing the national anthem *and* God Save the Queen.

az

I have to say though I find the creationists quite a dangerous bunch...they don't seem to tolerate anyone elses view...they spend loads of money looking for live dinosaurs to prove their point.....I'm not sure which is scarier! Their intolerance or trying to find dinosaurs...jurassic park etc.!

I think RE was replaced in UK state schools some time ago with 'PSE' (personal social education), a lesson of dossing about.
This was then replaced with something else, with a suitibably daft sounding name and which was involved with pretty much naff all...
So they will change it again, hurray, just what we need, just keep changing the name of it often enough and people might forget they arn't teaching much of any worth within it.
I would personally prefer it if religion was taught at secondary schools, like any other subject, so pupils could gather an understanding and knowledge of as many religions and different belief systems as possible, but not teaching it as the 'old' RE was, where it would have been more effectivily called 'religious instruction', and concerned itself almost entirely with Christian religion...
The big thing at the moment in teh UK secondary education system is obviously the new plans to do away with GCSEs (which replaced GCE and O levels), and AS/A2 levels (which replaced A levels only a few years ago), and replace with a single 'diploma' of secondary education.
I've not heard much detail on this, but I guess it could involve the extension of secondary compulsory education to age 17/18 They also suggested (on the radio four coverage on teh news), that pupils would be allowed to take exams when they were ready*, not at a set age... which confussed me, as I know of several schools, all state, which will enter pupils early for GCSE exams, if they believe them to be ready; allowing the pupils to study extra subjects, once they've passed the GCSEs taken a year early... again, its difficult to not think of this as the government just playing around with education for purely political ends, its the constant flux in teh education system that itself must surely take some of the blaime for the problems (weather real or percieved), within the UK secondary education system...

"Some others were talking about this on another thread, that somewhere in the USA Creation was being taught alongside Evolution - in science class! Do you know if this is common practice everywhere in the US or only in certain states?"

Not everywhere--but I may just have been lucky to have an especially good biology teacher or something.

RE is not a National Curriculum subject in the UK, but is taught according to the locally agreed syllabus for the area. Thus faith schools can be exempt. PSHE is a separate curriculum area, but with considerable overlap.

I think RE as an optional GCSE subject is fine, but at primary schools I'd prefer to see it taught in a more general way, perhaps as an element of geography, learning about different cultures. We should do away with collective worship as well, unless the school specifically subscribes to a particular faith.

Lemon,

I think the thread I heard about this was talking about a bill being passed in southern California - to include Creationism in science classes.


hi Teaswill,

I agree that unless a school is specifically designated as belonging to a particular faith, that religious studies should not be compulsory. On the other hand, I also think that comparitive religion studies that include *all* aspects of religion (including atheism, etc) can be quite educational and enlightening for children.

az

I agree - but perhaps religious studies is an inappropriate title if non religious beliefs are included.

*read beginning of blog then skipped ...*


My school (uk private school) had RME renamed RMPS (Religous moral and phlosophical studies)

my veiw is that ALL forms of belief should b taught, however i find 1 period a week is a waste of time ... though i do since know the difference between inductive and deductive logic.

hi rule one,

<>

Hey, way more than I was taught at school at your age! This is a good thing, I think.

az