This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
It is the only subject in England mentioned in statute
How so? Surely the Education reform act 1988 mentions them all? -- Tafkam 20:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
---
The article writer is correct, and the reasoning is very obscure. The ERA of 1988 did not specifically mention Maths, Science etc. It set up the principle of the National Curriculum. The NC orders then specify which subjects are to comprise Core and Foundation subjects. Religious Education is not part of the NC. It is part of the Compulsory Curriculum. It was mandated by the 1944 Eucation Act. The Compulsory Curriculum therefore coprises of two parts - RE and the Naional Curriculum. Confused? I was a teacher for 17 years and it always confused me. I'm not sure that even many teachers fully understand the legal status of the subjects that they teach.
The writer of this article has not made clear, however, what the status of RE is in Wales or Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, I don't know, so I can't add anything. I am fairly confident that the status of RE in Wales is identical to that in England, except that it will now be administered by the Welsh Department for Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills (DELLS). Pftaylor 16:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The 'ostensible' purpose of the program? NPOV? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.212.38.146 ( talk) 19:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
"The aim of most RE is to indoctrinate students, hidden under a mask..." - NPOV! Owl ( talk) 21:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid I have deleted rather a large chunk of text from the UK section of this article which dealt with supposed controversy surrounding the teaching of RE. It was rather biassed in its presentation, and offered little by way of reference, other than a single Home Office document which included fairly limited sampling. I do think that a controversy section would be appropriate, but needs to be better written, in my opinion. The details of the text I removed are listed in the history section of the article. Tafkam ( talk) 19:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to restore sourced material. Feel free to add {{ Fact}} to anything unsourced. And feel free to add sourced material which put my addition to better context. But please leave any sourced material unmolested. Vapour ( talk) 09:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I have heavily edited comments made regarding the NUT proposals on faith schools and faith in state schools. I have removed the speculative comment, which was not supported by the reference, and have brought the reference in line with others on the page. I had previously removed the whole paragraph since it was neither neutral, nor - in my opinion - was the source article related to Religious Education as it stands within the scope of this article. Rather it is about the faith adopted by particular schools, and the inclusion of faith groups within state schools, not within RE education. However, these edits were reverted by the original editor. Thought it best to justify my actions here, and will do so also on the editor's page. Tafkam ( talk) 19:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
From the article:
The second sentence is ungrammatical and very unclear. Is it meant to say that Muslims and other non-Christians may find "collective worship" meaningless because it does not conform to Muslim protocol? Or is it meant to say that the specific collective worship protocol may be meaningless to Muslims and other non-Christians? Or something else? -- FOo ( talk) 01:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, it's pretty awful grammar; I'm going to give it a go cleaning the worst of it up (plurals, etc). Sithemadmonkey ( talk) 14:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Aside from the terrible grammar etc., there are a few problems with the section, and it just seems to be badly put together. The statement that 'the curriculum is required to reflect the predominant place of Christianity in religious life' differs from the official wording, and looks to me as if it has been deliberately reworded to make it sound as if Religious Education is somehow teaching Christianity as 'right'. I feel that a direct paraphrase or quotation from the Education Act 1996 would be more appropriate:
In other words, any Religious Education syllabus should be representative of the broader religious nature of the country as a whole – majority Christian, but also of many other faiths (and none). Sithemadmonkey ( talk) 15:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Why does Moral Education redirect here? They're not nearly the same thing. Could we have a more inclusive article that could encompass non-religious moral instruction such as ethics, Aesop's Fables, etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.238.43 ( talk) 09:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Religious education in primary and secondary education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
How do people learn about religion 41.223.116.245 ( talk) 19:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
It is the only subject in England mentioned in statute
How so? Surely the Education reform act 1988 mentions them all? -- Tafkam 20:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
---
The article writer is correct, and the reasoning is very obscure. The ERA of 1988 did not specifically mention Maths, Science etc. It set up the principle of the National Curriculum. The NC orders then specify which subjects are to comprise Core and Foundation subjects. Religious Education is not part of the NC. It is part of the Compulsory Curriculum. It was mandated by the 1944 Eucation Act. The Compulsory Curriculum therefore coprises of two parts - RE and the Naional Curriculum. Confused? I was a teacher for 17 years and it always confused me. I'm not sure that even many teachers fully understand the legal status of the subjects that they teach.
The writer of this article has not made clear, however, what the status of RE is in Wales or Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, I don't know, so I can't add anything. I am fairly confident that the status of RE in Wales is identical to that in England, except that it will now be administered by the Welsh Department for Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills (DELLS). Pftaylor 16:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The 'ostensible' purpose of the program? NPOV? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.212.38.146 ( talk) 19:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
"The aim of most RE is to indoctrinate students, hidden under a mask..." - NPOV! Owl ( talk) 21:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid I have deleted rather a large chunk of text from the UK section of this article which dealt with supposed controversy surrounding the teaching of RE. It was rather biassed in its presentation, and offered little by way of reference, other than a single Home Office document which included fairly limited sampling. I do think that a controversy section would be appropriate, but needs to be better written, in my opinion. The details of the text I removed are listed in the history section of the article. Tafkam ( talk) 19:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to restore sourced material. Feel free to add {{ Fact}} to anything unsourced. And feel free to add sourced material which put my addition to better context. But please leave any sourced material unmolested. Vapour ( talk) 09:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I have heavily edited comments made regarding the NUT proposals on faith schools and faith in state schools. I have removed the speculative comment, which was not supported by the reference, and have brought the reference in line with others on the page. I had previously removed the whole paragraph since it was neither neutral, nor - in my opinion - was the source article related to Religious Education as it stands within the scope of this article. Rather it is about the faith adopted by particular schools, and the inclusion of faith groups within state schools, not within RE education. However, these edits were reverted by the original editor. Thought it best to justify my actions here, and will do so also on the editor's page. Tafkam ( talk) 19:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
From the article:
The second sentence is ungrammatical and very unclear. Is it meant to say that Muslims and other non-Christians may find "collective worship" meaningless because it does not conform to Muslim protocol? Or is it meant to say that the specific collective worship protocol may be meaningless to Muslims and other non-Christians? Or something else? -- FOo ( talk) 01:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, it's pretty awful grammar; I'm going to give it a go cleaning the worst of it up (plurals, etc). Sithemadmonkey ( talk) 14:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Aside from the terrible grammar etc., there are a few problems with the section, and it just seems to be badly put together. The statement that 'the curriculum is required to reflect the predominant place of Christianity in religious life' differs from the official wording, and looks to me as if it has been deliberately reworded to make it sound as if Religious Education is somehow teaching Christianity as 'right'. I feel that a direct paraphrase or quotation from the Education Act 1996 would be more appropriate:
In other words, any Religious Education syllabus should be representative of the broader religious nature of the country as a whole – majority Christian, but also of many other faiths (and none). Sithemadmonkey ( talk) 15:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Why does Moral Education redirect here? They're not nearly the same thing. Could we have a more inclusive article that could encompass non-religious moral instruction such as ethics, Aesop's Fables, etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.238.43 ( talk) 09:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Religious education in primary and secondary education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
How do people learn about religion 41.223.116.245 ( talk) 19:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)