Talk:Religious education

Quality
This article is quite poor. It varies as it goes along as to what RE connotes, whether it's the way the religions teach themselves (in or out of school), or how religions are taught in society, or the role of the state in teaching them, or the position of religious schools. The article needs the hand of a good editor who can forge a consistent style. Dadge (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

comment
"Its usual purpose is to indoctrinate children...": I don't believe that statement coincides with the npov policy of wikipedia. -- Notheruser 03:38 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

another interesting thing to note is that some religions view the teaching of religion to children as morally wrong, as they are not old enough to understand or quesiton what they are taught. -- Tarquin 10:42 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

"Religions other than the state religion, even if ancient and respectable, are often deprecated in the national cultures (e.g. they are called "cults" in the news media). "

This sentence should be substantiated with examples, or made less broad ("there have been instances of..."). David.Monniaux 11:16, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What about the UK, Ireland, Austalia...?
Some info on the situation in the UK and other English-speaking countries besides the US would be very nice, if anybody is knowledgable. -- 84.57.8.13 01:10, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, basically, because there's no such thing as the First Amendment, there are state-funded religious schools a plenty in the UK, the majority of which are Christian, and usually primary schools. There are private schools with religious affilations as well, though. --Christhebull 20:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Germany
Could someone who is familiar with the situation in Germany please try to add some clarity to that section? I've tried parsing the run-on sentence that begins that paragraph and don't understand it. Tverbeek

CCD
If anyone can expand the abbreviation CCD for me, I'd like to know what it means (I wasn't a Catholic, but many people I grew up with would get out of elementary school classes early to go to CCD classes). Is it Confraternity of Christian Doctrine? If so, that page should probably be updated with post-19th century information... &mdash;Mulad (talk) 18:59, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

christianity
christianity is a religion that you find mostly around the earth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.252.108.2 (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Useless Statistic
Can anyone explain to me why this is in the article?
 * A 2010 study found that 56% of children in religious schools had cheated on a test, compared with 33% of children at non-religious independent schools, and 60% for all schools.

It seems wildly out of place in the article and does not pertain to the subject. It also seems to be a polemic to religious schools as compared to secular education. I'm deleting it unless someone can state a good reason for its inclusion. Drumpler (talk) 21:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It startled me when I found it. It seems to me to directly pertain to religious education (in the US where the statistics were gathered by a reputable group). There seems to be no standards nor way of "measuring" religious education (or any kind, which is why the American public was annoyed prior to standard tests being given in secular schools). If religiously-educated kids aren't more moral, what is the point? I wouldn't mind (and would like) other npov statistics to show how good (or bad) the religious schools are. But this is one statistic.
 * And no, I have definitely no axe to grind in favor of secular education. Home schooling, maybe! Student7 (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds like there might an issue of undue weight if this is the only relevant study. ElKevbo (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually it's kind of this way for any new subsection constructed by a npov edit. It is one line. It is credible. The reader can determine whether it is important or not. It is not "hyped" in any way.
 * Is it inadequate? Sure. But it needs to be somewhere. It is a start. My pov is the question "can effectiveness/efficiency of education be measured?" This is only one measure. Maybe someone will come up with some that are more adequate. Rather than "undue weight", I would suggest that it is seriously underweighted! Is there a policy on that? Student7 (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't necessarily "need to be somewhere." If this is the only source then it's almost certainly not something that should be included in an encyclopedia as it's likely new, unimportant, or a tiny minority opinion.  If it's important and worth covering then surely others have written about this, right? ElKevbo (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We're not talking whether a topic is qualified to be a stand alone article (notability), but rather is a statistic informational? This single poll was widely quoted. No point in reporting secondary quotes.
 * The question is: "In an article about education, is it proper (and informative) to report reliable information about the effectiveness of that education?" Student7 (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that we're discussing notability in the Wikipedia sense of "deserving of an article." I also agree that you're asking the right question.  But it's disingenuous to not continue with the followup question "How we judge what information is important enough to report?"  If something is only reported by one source then it probably does rise to that level.  That's what WP:UNDUE is all about and I have yet to see you adequately address it.  Please tell us why this one source represents a "significant view" as discussed in WP:UNDUE (which is really just a convenient link to a section of WP:NPOV, one of core policies). ElKevbo (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My point was that it was reported by a lot of people. It was not "reported" by one source. It was a single poll, the nature of which was included in the poll results. A reader might question the methodology or reliability.
 * Like Michelson-Morley, this is not something you do everyday. It is expensive to take a reliable poll. If it were thought to be false, it would have been quickly redone by another pollster, looking to discredit Michael Josephson. Anyway, they conduct this poll every two years, apparently. I'm not finding criticism of the poll or results. Student7 (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * First, I haven't seen it echoed by multiple sources so if that's the case it would be helpful if you could share some of them. Second, even if multiple press stories were generated it's still one study conducted very recently.  It would be a rare study that would merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article if it's the only one ever conducted AND it's very recent.
 * I've asked several times for you to address WP:UNDUE and you refuse to do so. Why?  Do you understand that it's one of our core policies, one that can't be ignored just because one editor feels like it? ElKevbo (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It might be helpful to say which part of "undue" you are referring to. The first sentence says,"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." This seems to me to be a "significant viewpoint" since everything else is nearly an advert for religious education. This is a reliable source. It seems to me, based on this one sentence, that it would contradict the policy to remove it, since then, the article would lack a significant viewpoint.


 * The next says, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views." There is not a "minority viewpoint." There is only one viewpoint. One reliable study. It does not actually contradict anything in the article. It is the only sentence that says anything about performance of religious education. Had the article been widely edited, I would suspect collusion to avoid reporting of real studies! But yes, if there is a study contradicting this one, we should consider it. Maybe even discredit this one (which seems doubtful BTW).


 * I'm not trying to drive you (or myself!) nuts with a sentence-by-sentence answer. Maybe you could mention one or two sentences from the policy, that the entry of this study seems to violate, in your opinion. Student7 (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It violates the first of those specific phrases from the policy. One study does not constitute a significant viewpoint. ElKevbo (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Notice that this guys institute does this every two years. I suppose it is in past studies as well. Do you need those? Note that the media emphasized the "bullying" which was a new topic. They ignored the cheating, which has apparently been reported before. In other words, old news. Which is why it should be here. Student7 (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. Can you please provide the previous studies and reports on this topic?  Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Specifically
The quote is the same as given above, which I am reproducing here with the reference. I don't have time to pursue additional references right now. I rm this from the text: "A 2010 study found that 56% of children in religious schools had cheated on a test, compared with 33% of children at non-religious independent schools, and 60% for all schools.(ref)(endref) Student7 (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sub-Headings
Is there a reason why there are no sub-headings in the sections on Europe and North America, for the different countries under discussion, but there are sub-heaidngs for the section on Asian countries? I think sub-headings would be useful, and will add them unless there's a specific reason that I'm just not seeing. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Since no-one objected, I've gone ahead and inserted sub-headings. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Finland and compulsory religious education
The current wording contradicts itself, and is confusing. It claims that religious education is compulsory, but then goes on the state that children who are not members of a religious denomination receive education in Ethics. But Ethics is not a religion. It therefore follows that religious education is not compulsory, as those who are areligious can receive a secular alternative. Can someone clarify this? Or else I'm going to change it to say religious education is not compulsory. Thanks. Alun (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Religion education is compulsory in Finland (1-2 weekhours) from primary school to second upper school (ages 7-18; one compulsory course at second upper school). Normally children are studying lutherian-oriented religion but parents may also choose Ethic lessons for their child (and of course muslim child have their own Quran/muslims lessons). Orthodox children have also their own religion classes. Children from pentecostal etc. families are going to normal (lutherian) based lessons.

Context of religion is at the begining Bible stories and for older children more ethical questions/choices and getting know other main religions of World. North Europe style is to teach religion at school. Parents should involve more for this activity but generally their do not do so... Klasuk (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Butler Education Act of 1944
This article says that until the introduction of the National Curriculum, Religious Education was the sole compulsory subject in state schools. Should it mention that this was part of the Butler Education Act of 1944?Vorbee (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Character Education
Hello everyone, I added some information about character education but it was removed. Can we include this as it was one of the most recent and biggest studies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:3172:8200:DC01:11BA:ACC0:FF03 (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)