Over the weekend there was a report published, that was commissioned by The Religious Education Council, in to the teaching of RE in schools; and in short in said that most schools were not doing too well at teaching the children about it. 

Now this got me thinking, now my view on the whole thing is that religion should be a private thing and if you wish to believe in any religion and its associated deities then that should be something you do in your home and/or place of worship.  Not something that the tax payer should be picking up the tab for to teach children about.

Now this would leave you with a gap in the school curriculum, and it then raises a question about well what could you fill that gap with? More English, Maths, Science, History or so on.  But to me filling that gap with something they already do well seems a tad lazy and lacklustre.

So I had a bit of a think about it, and was thinking what would be beneficial to school children that we could fill up that gap in the timetable with.  Now two things sprung to mind immediately one was home economics; we teach the kids how to cook properly and healthily.  Which gives them an invaluable skill when they leave school as they know how to turn a pile of fresh produce in to a healthy, tasty meal. 

But there was also another thing that would be handy, as these children are going to be the business men and women of the future and dealing with people from other nations, and one skill that we all lack is a general understanding of what people from Germany, Japan, China, Canada all like and enjoy.  So we could make a cultural anthropology lesson to fill the place left by RE. 

But then it dawned on me, we could combine the two.  We could educate the children about the cultures of other nations and teach them how to cook food from those nations.  That way we are equipping the children with two useful skills instead of teaching them RE.

Now obviously something like this would require a change in the law for it to be implemented, and would probably face some vehement opposition from some quarters of society.  But I think if explained to the public correctly, then there would be overwhelming public support for such a change.  As you have to ask yourself what’s more important knowing something from a religious text or being able to cook properly for yourself?

For me it’s a no brainer, let the religious bodies teach about their religion in their places of worship and use that time to teach children useful skills that can help them in life. 

There has been some recent criticism in the plans of the government to offering parenting classes for new parents.  Some people have said it’s the Nanny State telling us what to do and how to do it.  I have personally sat and thought about this and listened to both sides of the argument and have to say that I disagree I don’t believe this action is the state being overbearing at all, and in all honesty I think it’s a jolly good idea. 

Now yes go back 30 or 40 years and lots of people lived round the corner from their mum or another relative who could pass on their wisdom about what to do and how to do it, when it comes to looking after a baby.  But now we are a more socially mobile society and out of all of my friends in their late 20’s early 30’s none actually live near their parents.  So that safety net is not really there in a lot of cases today. 

We don’t hear people complaining about anti-natal classes for pregnant women and their partners, and this should really be seen in that vein; it’s a continuation of help for parents after their children have been born.  Now I accept that there will probably be a lot of people who don’t actually use it because they will either look up the information themselves in a book or online; but there will be some people out there who wouldn’t think to do that and they are the parents that we need to help. 

In any large town and city there is normally a housing estate where there is a lot of social deprivation and it’s these people that this program appears to be primarily aimed at.  The kind of families who due to poor parenting skills and alike are the ones that social services inevitably end up getting involved with which leads on to costing the state a fair bit of money.

So if we can get in there early and educate these people and give them the skills they need to look after their children properly then in the long run it’s beneficial not only for the State but also for society.  So I can’t really see how people can think that teaching people how to be a parent and raise their children properly can be a bad thing?

Drawing on the analogy David Cameron made, we make sure people know how to use a car before we give them a license to drive one.  So why not teach people the basics about parenting when they become one? If we can teach people how to raise children so that they respect their parents, themselves and other people then we all win. Yes it’s not going to be an overnight thing but the sooner we start with it then the sooner we will see the results. 

There has been some recent criticism in the plans of the government to offering parenting classes for new parents.  Some people have said it’s the Nanny State telling us what to do and how to do it.  I have personally sat and thought about this and listened to both sides of the argument and have to say that I disagree I don’t believe this action is the state being overbearing at all, and in all honesty I think it’s a jolly good idea. 

Now yes go back 30 or 40 years and lots of people lived round the corner from their mum or another relative who could pass on their wisdom about what to do and how to do it, when it comes to looking after a baby.  But now we are a more socially mobile society and out of all of my friends in their late 20’s early 30’s none actually live near their parents.  So that safety net is not really there in a lot of cases today. 

We don’t hear people complaining about anti-natal classes for pregnant women and their partners, and this should really be seen in that vein; it’s a continuation of help for parents after they have been born.  Now I accept that there will probably be a lot of people who don’t actually use it because they will either look up the information themselves in a book or online; but there will be some people out there who wouldn’t think to do that and they are the parents that we need to help. 

In any large town and city there is normally a housing estate where there is a lot of social deprivation and it’s these people that this program appears to be primarily aimed at.  The kind of families who due to poor parenting skills and alike are the ones that social services inevitably end up getting involved with which leads on to costing the state a fair bit of money.

So if we can get in there early and educate these people and give them the skills they need to look after their children properly then in the long run it’s beneficial not only for the State but also for society.  So I can’t really see how people can think that teaching people how to be a parent and raise their children properly can be a bad thing?

Drawing on the analogy David Cameron made, we make sure people know how to use a car before we give them a license to drive one.  So why not teach people the basics about parenting when they become one? If we can teach people how to raise children so that they respect their parents, themselves and other people then we all win. Yes it’s not going to be an overnight thing but the sooner we start with it then the sooner we will see the results.