Talk:Religious Education

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

But the ERA does name the subejcts, since they are defined in that act as core & foundation - in paragraph 3:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880040_en_2.htm#mdiv3

I realise that RE has a different status as a non-NC subject, but I think it's wrong to say that it is the only one mentioned in statute. That reference needs to be made clearer, surely? Tafkam 18:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Ostensible? 2 POV dispute 3 Removal of controversy information 4 Edit of comments 27 March 2008 5 Grammar and confusion

[edit] Ostensible?

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).

[edit] POV dispute

"The aim of most RE is to indoctrinate students, hidden under a mask..." - NPOV! Owl (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see from the history that that was the result of a couple of malicious edits made by a single user. I have reverted these and added a note to his talk page. Owl (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of controversy information

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)

Even if (you believe that) the presentation is biased, it is irrelevant if it is properly sourced from verifiable sources. Correct way to counter what you perceived to be biased presentation is to add counter information from verifiable sources. Vapour (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree if the source had backed up any of what had been written but it didn't - it merely used a quotation out of context in an effort to give weight to it. Tafkam (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If one think a quote is taken out of context, then correct move is to add other contents from the same source which put the original quote into better context. Standard of inclusion is always about judgment about the validity of sources, not about what we consider about the truthiness/appropriateness of what is written in the source. Otherwise, everyone could start deleting any content claiming that the material is taken from the source out of context.

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)

[edit] Edit of comments 27 March 2008

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)

[edit] Grammar and confusion

From the article:

Additionally, all schools are required by law to provide a daily act of collective worship, of which over the course of the academic year at least 51% must be Christian in basis. However, this activity even if multifaith in nature are often meaningless to non Christian, particularly Muslim, which may have specific protocol to prayer.

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)