Religion classes in school - Megathread

John said:🤔 Is that really the issue here? I mean, how many extra classes could they realistically take on if they weren't acting as homeroom teachers?

Personally, I think it’s a total non-starter if they serve as homeroom teachers.
It’s especially tricky because there’s always this constant push to have them handle parts of the civics curriculum too.

On top of that, if they are the ones in charge of the homeroom, then all the students should technically be placed in that specific class.
But that leads to more questions—once a student transfers in, based on their language background or just the size of the class, they might only fit into one group, yet the homeroom teacher ends up being a religion instructor.

nightfall said:I wouldn't touch hiring a second religion teacher with a ten-foot pole because I honestly have no clue how the logistics work. From what I gather, you need a certain number of teaching hours to justify a position, and I doubt anyone would actually agree to hire two separate teachers if one full-time person could just cover all those periods in the schedule instead of splitting it between two part-timers.

As far as I know, both the priests and the religion instructors are paid by the government, so the state handles their salaries and benefits.
That said, I’m not entirely sure who actually manages the hiring process—whether it’s the school district or the church itself.

When it comes to scheduling, I don't really get how they manage to make it work for every subject, except maybe for religion where it seems impossible.
They probably just have people traveling between different schools, kind of like how an art or music teacher might bounce around.

It’s not just a matter of "stick religion class in the first period and fill in the rest." There are a lot of moving parts that all have to fit together perfectly. Maybe someone else can explain the nuances better.

I totally get that putting a master schedule together is a massive headache.

But look, since the Church has basically embedded itself into our public school system—pushing for a subject that isn't even scientifically grounded to be taught on equal footing with things like English, math, or biology—it’s pretty wild. They’ve made sure this religious instruction doesn't happen in the churches that have the facilities available 😁 , but rather in freaking public schools. It's all to make sure these devout kids don't have to go to church in the afternoon to learn about the faith they care so much about ( 🙄 🙄 🙄 ). So, if they're going to insist on that, there should at least be a shred of respect left for the rest of us, ensuring our kids aren't stuck wandering the damn hallways.

Everyone acts like they're super Catholic, claiming kids only go to church so they don't get a bad grade, but they would NEVER actually show up to church in the afternoon. Yet somehow, my kid is the one who ends up being punished?
How else am I supposed to describe it besides, again, total brainwashing?

nosorog said:It’s basically the Middle Ages, Karen Richardson3 will get what I mean 😳

I don't see how you can call this the Middle Ages. Back then, people actually had faith in God and the Church.

What we're looking at now is more like the era from 1945 to 1971—and yeah, I picked those dates on purpose because that's when things finally started loosening up—it's just that the slogans have changed.

Basically, all those idiots who used to belt out war songs and brag about little Bo, who supposedly took down 50 Germans with a single bullet, are now singing hymns and acting all proud of our religious heritage.

The people are mourning Joseph Fran, they're mourning King Karađorđe, they're mourning Marshall, and they're mourning Harmon. It's pretty obvious we're just an incredibly emotional bunch of people. 😳

But honestly, what does any of this have to do with teaching religion in schools?
It's huge. ☕

Someone suggested we should hire more religious education teachers just to make sure the class lands at the very beginning or the very end of the school day. Well, looking at the staff rosters for a few local elementary schools here in the States, it’s pretty clear that many of them already have three or four teachers dedicated to that subject. In some districts, there are actually fewer math or foreign language teachers than there are religion instructors, yet those subjects still take up way more time on the schedule. Honestly, I highly doubt hiring more people would change how the bells ring.

What really sticks out to me is that in almost every case, religion class isn't the first or last period of the day anymore. About twenty years ago, it actually could have been. How does that even work? Not much has changed regarding how much time is allocated to specific subjects since then. And let’s not forget that with birth rates dropping, we actually have fewer students in the classrooms now.

Susan James said:Personally, I think it’s a total non-starter if they serve as homeroom teachers.
It’s especially tricky because there’s always this constant push to have them handle parts of the civics curriculum too.

On top of that, if they are the ones in charge of the homeroom, then all the students should technically be placed in that specific class.
But that leads to more questions—once a student transfers in, based on their language background or just the size of the class, they might only fit into one group, yet the homeroom teacher ends up being a religion instructor.

Personally, I find it quite troubling to hold such prejudices against highly educated professionals—to assume they wouldn't be able to perform their paid duties professionally simply because of their personal beliefs, whether that involves civic education or any other subject. But fine, it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. I also fail to see how preventing religious instructors from being homeroom teachers would somehow fix the scheduling issues or the logistical headache of where to place religious studies on the timetable. I am certainly in favor of those changes, absolutely, but I doubt that changing the homeroom status is the magic solution to everything...🤷

It seems to me that a religious instructor cannot effectively serve as a homeroom teacher if not all students are attending those classes. Perhaps I am mistaken, of course. And even if I am, it ultimately comes down to the school's organizational structure and what exactly the expectations are for these instructors...

So, they’d teach one thing in religion class and then something completely different during health class? 🤔
It just seems really confusing for the kids.

Jeffrey Cook55 said:Someone suggested we should hire more religious education teachers just to make sure the class lands at the very beginning or the very end of the school day. Well, looking at the staff rosters for a few local elementary schools here in the States, it’s pretty clear that many of them already have three or four teachers dedicated to that subject. In some districts, there are actually fewer math or foreign language teachers than there are religion instructors, yet those subjects still take up way more time on the schedule. Honestly, I highly doubt hiring more people would change how the bells ring.

What really sticks out to me is that in almost every case, religion class isn't the first or last period of the day anymore. About twenty years ago, it actually could have been. How does that even work? Not much has changed regarding how much time is allocated to specific subjects since then. And let’s not forget that with birth rates dropping, we actually have fewer students in the classrooms now.

Yeah, and this is definitely one of those little headaches.
Back when I was in elementary school (like 20 years ago), we were all on a single-shift schedule, so religion class was always the very last period of the day, and then we’d have an extra session at our local parish.

The parish sessions weren't tied to getting confirmed, I know that for sure because nobody gets confirmed in eighth grade—the Bishop couldn't make it that year or something like that... honestly, our theory was that since kids weren't signing up for religion classes in high school, they decided to do the confirmation thing earlier so they'd be forced to enroll. 😁 Given that, obviously, I didn't sign up; I didn't get confirmed, and frankly, I just checked out of the whole thing because by 15, I was already way sharper than I was at 14. 😁

Basically, it all boils down to hypocrisy and being deceptive. You can do whatever you want if you really want to; they aren't doing this specifically because it would cause a massive drop in the percentage of kids enrolled in religion classes.

By the way, it's going to be really interesting to see how many Catholics actually support teaching Islam in schools, especially considering the migration of Muslims throughout the European Union.
See, the main argument used by American Catholics is always "look how many of us there are," so I really hope they respect that same logic when it comes to a different faith.

rowdypanther12 said:So, they’d teach one thing in religion class and then something completely different during health class? 🤔
It just seems really confusing for the kids.

I suppose you could look at it as two sides of the same coin. After all, isn't it true that in religious studies, we cover certain topics, such as... let's say, abstinence or understanding biological cycles from a moral perspective? Then, in health class, those concepts are supplemented with information regarding various forms of contraception. 🤷 Besides, these lessons are typically delivered by medical professionals rather than classroom teachers.
As for the other subjects... what else could possibly be different? 🤔 Tolerance, acceptance, non-violence... aren't those all just universal values?

Nancy Kelly31 said:I suppose you could look at it as two sides of the same coin. After all, isn't it true that in religious studies, we cover certain topics, such as... let's say, abstinence or understanding biological cycles from a moral perspective? Then, in health class, those concepts are supplemented with information regarding various forms of contraception. 🤷 Besides, these lessons are typically delivered by medical professionals rather than classroom teachers.
As for the other subjects... what else could possibly be different? 🤔 Tolerance, acceptance, non-violence... aren't those all just universal values?

So, religion class basically teaches "it's harder to stay celibate when you're in your fertile window," is that it? 🤣

Can you actually explain how sex ed in a religious setting is any different from what they teach in a standard health class?

Take a high-libido guy, for example. One group tells him, "Hey, if you're feeling pent up, just take matters into your own hands, but once you find a partner, use a condom."
The other group says, "Don't touch yourself; if you find a girl, give it to her, but if you're into guys, you're sick and an affront to God." So basically, just walk around with a massive amount of tension and pretend it's totally fine and won't cause any issues. Heck, maybe you'll even turn into some new Catholic prophet—I mean, history shows people have practically hallucinated from lack of action, so this is totally a legitimate way to live. 😁 )

Karen Richardson3 said:So, religion class basically teaches "it's harder to stay celibate when you're in your fertile window," is that it? 🤣

Can you actually explain how sex ed in a religious setting is any different from what they teach in a standard health class?

Take a high-libido guy, for example. One group tells him, "Hey, if you're feeling pent up, just take matters into your own hands, but once you find a partner, use a condom."
The other group says, "Don't touch yourself; if you find a girl, give it to her, but if you're into guys, you're sick and an affront to God." So basically, just walk around with a massive amount of tension and pretend it's totally fine and won't cause any issues. Heck, maybe you'll even turn into some new Catholic prophet—I mean, history shows people have practically hallucinated from lack of action, so this is totally a legitimate way to live. 😁 )

I get the impression you're just trolling here. I honestly can't decide whether it's worth responding to this or not. 🤔
If this is just another attempt to mock believers and the Church, then thank you very much, but I have no desire to participate in this anymore.
And if we are looking for a practical way to handle children who aren't enrolled in religious studies, that is a reality we face. This isn't the way to go about it.
It seems to me that children who aren't enrolled should be grouped together in the same classes rather than being scattered everywhere. That way, everything could be scheduled at the beginning or end of the school day, and everyone would be satisfied. Principals generally manage this new situation quite well now that these individual non-enrolled students are popping up, but it isn't easy. A principal is managing a massive system, and individuals often get lost within it...

Nancy Kelly31 said:I get the impression you're just trolling here. I honestly can't decide whether it's worth responding to this or not. 🤔
If this is just another attempt to mock believers and the Church, then thank you very much, but I have no desire to participate in this anymore.
And if we are looking for a practical way to handle children who aren't enrolled in religious studies, that is a reality we face. This isn't the way to go about it.
It seems to me that children who aren't enrolled should be grouped together in the same classes rather than being scattered everywhere. That way, everything could be scheduled at the beginning or end of the school day, and everyone would be satisfied. Principals generally manage this new situation quite well now that these individual non-enrolled students are popping up, but it isn't easy. A principal is managing a massive system, and individuals often get lost within it...

It isn't "trolling" to point out that the religious education curriculum is in direct conflict with actual science—so why the sudden excuses?

No discussions on masturbation, no mention of premarital sex, no contraception, and zero open dialogue about sexuality between parents and children... encouraging kids to jump into sexual relationships without any guidance is absolutely disastrous for them.

Honestly, if our schools just grouped everyone who isn't taking religious studies into one single block, they wouldn't have to stress about scheduling those first or last periods at all. It would make life so much easier for the students if the subject wasn't even part of the main timetable. Of course, the trade-off is that teachers would end up with two fewer hours of instruction per week.

It’s pretty obvious where the school decided to put its priorities...

Nancy Kelly31 said:I get the impression you're just trolling here. I honestly can't decide whether it's worth responding to this or not. 🤔
If this is just another attempt to mock believers and the Church, then thank you very much, but I have no desire to participate in this anymore.
And if we are looking for a practical way to handle children who aren't enrolled in religious studies, that is a reality we face. This isn't the way to go about it.
It seems to me that children who aren't enrolled should be grouped together in the same classes rather than being scattered everywhere. That way, everything could be scheduled at the beginning or end of the school day, and everyone would be satisfied. Principals generally manage this new situation quite well now that these individual non-enrolled students are popping up, but it isn't easy. A principal is managing a massive system, and individuals often get lost within it...

It wasn't meant as a joke; it was just written with a bit of humor.
it seems pretty strange to me when the same person says two completely different things

Nancy Kelly31 said:Personally, I find it quite troubling to hold such prejudices against highly educated professionals—to assume they wouldn't be able to perform their paid duties professionally simply because of their personal beliefs, whether that involves civic education or any other subject. But fine, it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. I also fail to see how preventing religious instructors from being homeroom teachers would somehow fix the scheduling issues or the logistical headache of where to place religious studies on the timetable. I am certainly in favor of those changes, absolutely, but I doubt that changing the homeroom status is the magic solution to everything...🤷

It seems to me that a religious instructor cannot effectively serve as a homeroom teacher if not all students are attending those classes. Perhaps I am mistaken, of course. And even if I am, it ultimately comes down to the school's organizational structure and what exactly the expectations are for these instructors...

In my opinion, the only fair way to handle this is to move religious education entirely outside of the standard school day. Treat it like an after-school program—just like judo, or language classes, or any other elective that happens outside of regular instruction.

I’d also love to see the Church start opening its own private schools. That way, families who live by their faith and want their kids to stay connected to it can send them there without disrupting the secular framework of the society we all live in.

Bog knows the Church has the money, the staff, and the resources to do it, right?

Honestly, it kind of scares me. At least here, kids are actually getting information based on science. I can't help but worry about seeing generations upon generations of people who have been totally indoctrinated.

rowdypanther12 said:Honestly, it kind of scares me. At least here, kids are actually getting information based on science. I can't help but worry about seeing generations upon generations of people who have been totally indoctrinated.

Do you have any idea how many of my friends who are religious—but specifically stay far away from the current fundamentalist Catholic dogma—would actually enroll their kids in those types of schools?

Absolutely none. I know I wouldn't.

I was being a little sarcastic there, honestly. People say even at that Salesian school over by Central Park, they aren't exactly teaching that Bog created man in an hour during a social studies class; they teach the same math everyone else does, and I assume they'll stick to scientifically proven facts too. Besides, look at private schools in the US—they have such a reputation for excellence that plenty of wealthy families with non-religious kids send them there just for the top-tier education.

Michelle Nelson4 said:Honestly, if our schools just grouped everyone who isn't taking religious studies into one single block, they wouldn't have to stress about scheduling those first or last periods at all. It would make life so much easier for the students if the subject wasn't even part of the main timetable. Of course, the trade-off is that teachers would end up with two fewer hours of instruction per week.

It’s pretty obvious where the school decided to put its priorities...

It’s not just about the school setting priorities, though I definitely see your point.
The foreign language situation is also a factor, since not every school offers just English in the first grade.
Then you have the issue of friends from preschool staying together in full groups,
plus picking out a specific teacher,
and deciding whether or not they'll join after-school programs.

Technically, they could arrange it so religion classes happen on Monday and Wednesday during the first period for Classes A and B, and then on Tuesday and Thursday for Classes C and D. They absolutely have the power to do that.
They just choose not to.

silentraven6 said:Do you have any idea how many of my friends who are religious—but specifically stay far away from the current fundamentalist Catholic dogma—would actually enroll their kids in those types of schools?

Absolutely none. I know I wouldn't.

I was being a little sarcastic there, honestly. People say even at that Salesian school over by Central Park, they aren't exactly teaching that Bog created man in an hour during a social studies class; they teach the same math everyone else does, and I assume they'll stick to scientifically proven facts too. Besides, look at private schools in the US—they have such a reputation for excellence that plenty of wealthy families with non-religious kids send them there just for the top-tier education.

I have to admit, I’ve always had a soft spot for it when someone uses the word "remote." 🎉 Sorry if this is off-topic, but silentraven6 is driving me crazy by insisting that isn't a real word just because "nobody uses it." 😂

You're right, I know those schools over there are fantastic and really beneficial, but I honestly doubt they would work quite as well if they expanded here in the States. 😁

I’d love to see them offer an extra foreign language during religious studies 😁 or maybe astronomy. Or even a photography workshop, or calligraphy.
Or even something like step aerobics.
Honestly, just anything at all. 😁

Susan James said:It’s not just about the school setting priorities, though I definitely see your point.
The foreign language situation is also a factor, since not every school offers just English in the first grade.
Then you have the issue of friends from preschool staying together in full groups,
plus picking out a specific teacher,
and deciding whether or not they'll join after-school programs.

Technically, they could arrange it so religion classes happen on Monday and Wednesday during the first period for Classes A and B, and then on Tuesday and Thursday for Classes C and D. They absolutely have the power to do that.
They just choose not to.

I'm just sharing my thoughts based on what I've observed—and obviously, this is specific to our particular school. I'm not claiming this is the case everywhere in the country. But even when a better way is possible, there just doesn't seem to be any will to change. It feels like the priorities are simply elsewhere...