OCR GCSE RE includes Humanism

source: Edlines Summer 2009

In the Winter 2008 Edlines reported a decision of the QCA/Ofqual which had prevented OCR from including Humanism in a new Religious Studies GCSE. BHA have been engaging with QCA, Ofqual and OCR to try to ensure a presence for Humanism in a new GCSE. A new pilot GCSE: ‘Religion and belief in the modern world’, which includes extensive study of Humanism is now being accredited. The GCSE will be trialed at pilot centres across england in the coming two years.

Update 27/5/12: Examinations June 2012 - last exam will be June 2013. Ref: OCR. All documents associated with this course here.

OCR piloted this course because "The pilot is based on recommendations identified by the 2007 Ofsted report: Making Sense of Religion. This report highlighted the need for a religious education specification that enables children and young people to make sense of religion in the modern world. It also called for a realistic approach to controversy to be maintained when making pupils aware of the complexities and ambiguities of religion, all within a framework which encourages them to explore issues openly."

100 Facts Every Atheist Teen Must Know

100 Facts Every Atheist Teen Must Know

Paul Hopkins - MMIweb

source: http://mmiweb.org.uk/mmisite/materials.html - RE websites

Science & Religion in Schools - a Templeton Foundation funded website

http://www.srsp.net/main.html

BBC One - The Big Questions, Is Religion Good for Children?

BBC One - The Big Questions, Series 5, Episode 16, Sunday 6th May, 10am

Nicky Campbell asked just one Big Question - Is Religion Good for Children? Amongst those taking part in what proved to be an exceptionally lively debate are: Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain from Accord Coalition, which campaigns against faith schools; Rev Janina Ainsworth, Chief Education Officer at the CoE; Andrew Copson from the British Humanist Association; Rania Hafez from Muslim Women in Education; Dr Antony Lempert from the Secular Medical Forum; David Conway from Civitas; and Dr Stephen Law, author of The War for Children's Minds.

Links to Programme part 1 (1-27 mins) and part 2 (28-60mins), accessed 19th May 2012

Part 1

Part 2

Two 6 year olds: 1) "You have to go to hell if you're not Christian." 2) "But you're going to hell if you're a Christian."

source: http://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2012/apr/11/primary-school-religious-edudcation

How to reconcile Christian and Muslim beliefs? Become an atheist!

Religious Education: that’s another sermon

reposted from: http://www.atheismuk.com/2012/04/08/news/religious-education-thats-another-sermon/

Rowan Williams to warn of downgrading of religious education

It is about the worst possible moment to downgrade the status and professional excellence of religious education in secondary schools – but that’s another sermon…

Another sermon indeed, Rowan! The fact is that, with more than half of all secondary schools now academies and free from the strictures of the national curriculum, the Church of England-led locally agreed syllabus regime, for Religious Education, is dead in the water. So also is any idea that the RE orthodoxy should be imposed nationally. 

Academies are free to teach RE in any way they choose, provided merely that it complies with the ill-defined statutory requirement to:-

reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain.

The scope, for unorthodox RE, is almost unlimited. While it is clear that its subject matter must include “the religious traditions in Great Britain” and “the principal religions represented in Great Britain”[1], these elements are not exhaustive and there is no prohibition on absence of religion also being covered. 

Contemporary Religious Education is often characterized as “comparative religion”, as between different religions. If, instead, it is the comparison between religion and that absence of it, the subject is transformed into “philosophy of religion”.

The subject may be further transformed, as there is no prohibition on the inclusion of scientific explanations for religion, such as those (some more convincing than others) offered by Stark and Bainbridge[2], Shermer[3], Sloan Wilson[4], Dawkins[5], Dennett[6] and Ray[7].

Bring on the next sermon, Rowan!

---

[1] It is not clear whether these similar but different terms were intended to convey subtly different meanings (and, if so, what) or whether their distinct usage results merely from poor drafting.

[2] “A Theory of Religion”, 1987.

[3] “How we Believe”, 2001.

[4] “Darwin’s Cathedral”, 2002.

[5] “The God Delusion”, 2006.

[6] “Breaking the Spell”, 2006.

[7] “The God Virus”, 2009.