Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Secondary education

Connect with other parents whose children are starting secondary school on this forum.

Original poster

Can a school make Religious Studies GCSE compulsory? Can one withdraw?

207 replies

ParentOfOne · 10/01/2025 17:34

One of the state, non-faith secondary schools we like makes GCSE in Religious Studies compulsory. This is in England.

It is not a deal breaker, but we would like to understand what the rules are.

At the open day, the school said that it's a national requirement. But that's not what the gov uk website says https://www.gov.uk/national-curriculum/key-stage-3-and-4 , and indeed not all schools even offer RS GCSE. So did the school just lie to us? Not a great sign!

So the question becomes: can a school make RS GCSE compulsory, or can parents object?

I am all for kids learning about religions, but my reservations are:

  • It may be more useful to take other subjects at GCSE; it is still possible to study RS in earlier years without using up a GCSE subject for it
  • No one can know if our child will grow up to be religious or not, but she is the kind of person who brooks no bullshit. The teaching of RS can be dogmatic in some schools.
  • It is fine to study other cultures and religious theories and preferences, but we should also call out what is backward and scientifically unfounded - e.g. when the Catholic Church said that the HIV virus can still pass through condoms, or when some fundamentalists think that evolution is wrong.
  • My concern is therefore twofold: I worry that some of this nonsense might be taught as valid, rather than as un unsubstantiated theory, and I worry that, with her attitude, she would react very badly to the teaching of this nonsense. These concerns are based on the experiences of some friends, in non-faith state schools elsewhere.

The national curriculum

The English national curriculum means children in different schools (at primary and secondary level) study the same subjects to similar standards - it's split into key stages with tests

https://www.gov.uk/national-curriculum/key-stage-3-and-4

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Thread gallery
6
bouncingblob · 13/01/2025 16:21

You'll note in the government link you provided that schools do have to teach religious education at KS3 and KS4.

Many schools decide that if you have to teach it and the kids have to learn it, then well, they might as well get a GCSE in it for their troubles.

SirSidneyRuffDiamond · 11/01/2025 18:25

My DS dropped RE at the end of Year 9 and never studied the subject again. He did have an ethics module during PSHE in Year 10. But nothing remotely similar in Year 11.

sprucinup · 11/01/2025 18:18

ParentOfOne · 11/01/2025 18:11

@sprucinup
How much do you know about science? Do you know how peer review even works?
Peer-reviewed scientific articles published on reputable scientific journals do not "hypothesise" - they make claims backed by evidence.

I have a PhD in physics, so I know exactly how peer review works.

The "studies" (which I haven't seen) could well have been legitimate scientific studies in peer reviewed journals. Nevertheless, the cardinal should not have cited them in the way that he did. That is his flaw.

I think we broadly agree on this, but you are expressing yourself inaccurately and being confrontational, which brings us back full circle to the benefits of RE - specifically, the ability to express oneself accurately when discussing emotive topics relating to ethics, citing facts appropriately and in context.

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 11/01/2025 18:11

@sprucinup
How much do you know about science? Do you know how peer review even works?
Peer-reviewed scientific articles published on reputable scientific journals do not "hypothesise" - they make claims backed by evidence.

OP posts:
sprucinup · 11/01/2025 18:02

"No: as per your screenshot, he quoted a bullshit article published on the partisan "magazine" Studi Cattolici (Catholic Studies)."

As per the screenshot, he said "see the numerous studies cited by" the article which "hypothesise that ... the process of vulcanisation could contribute to ... the presence of microscopic pores".

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 11/01/2025 17:37

@sprucinup Debunking your BS is becoming tiring.

Yes, condoms can fail.
Yes, condoms do not provide 100% safety.
No one has denied this, and no one has criticised the cardinal for saying this.

The cardinal was rightly called out for saying that the HIV virus can pass through the condom. This is bullshit. It's false. There's nothing subjective to opine on - it's simply false, as the World Health Organisation claimed.

And no, the cardinal didn't quote scientific studies to back this up.
He didn't quote a peer-reviewed study published on Nature, Lancet or the New England Journal of Medicine. No: as per your screenshot, he quoted a bullshit article published on the partisan "magazine" Studi Cattolici (Catholic Studies).

The cardinal didn't "clumsy misuse science" - he ignored the science available at the time, and cherry picked a non-peer reviewed article published by a partisan, non-scientific, Catholic magazine, and tried to pass that as the scientific basis for his lies and his backward views.

And no, the press didn't misrepresent this cardinal - he explicitly doubled down on his lies later, eg see https://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=488

Of course a lot could be said on why a bunch of sexually repressed men who have decided to, supposedly, live in celibacy are so obsessed about sex, but that's another topic.

It's as if an American creationist tried to use an interview published on "Creationist Magazine" to try to claim that scientists are now doubting Darwin and actually think the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Cardinal Lopez Trujillo on Ineffectiveness of Condoms to Curb AIDS - Featured Today - Catholic Online

Interview With President of Pontifical Council for the Family VATICAN CITY, NOV. ...

https://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=488

OP posts:
UnbeatenMum · 11/01/2025 15:47

There are things that if written on a GCSE paper can get you disqualified (e.g. anything obscene or offensive). Writing extra information about the Catholic church would not be a problem I don't think. But if it's not in the mark scheme it may not get your child any marks.

sprucinup · 11/01/2025 15:32

"a prominent Catholic cardinal lied about condoms, and neither he nor anyone else in the Catholic Church deemed it appropriate to issue a correcting statement to admit "sorry, we got that wrong, that is actually false"

Not exactly. If you actually read the section of the document you posted a link to, the thrust of his argument is that condoms shouldn't be relied on because they can fail (true). As a small part of that argument he referred to the AIDS virus potentially being small enough to pass through tiny holes in condoms, referencing some scientific papers which appear to be small studies on manufacturing issues with latex. This was summarised by the media as "Cardinal says AIDS can pass through condoms" leading to the scientific community rightly pointing out the flaws.

If viruses could routinely pass through latex, PPE in hospitals would be pretty useless. It's ok for a scientist to hypothesise that they might pass through damaged latex occasionally, and investigate it, but unless it's proven to be a widespread issue it obviously shouldn't be used to create alarm. The cardinal didn't "lie" - he just clumsily mis-used science, just as many other writers and philosophers and manufacturers unfortunately do.

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 11/01/2025 14:32

@RamblingEclectic My child who chose to withdraw had issues with how RE was being taught for over 2 years before making the request because the BS didn't outweigh the good she was getting from the topics discussed and having those discussions with her friends (including on things being BS) yet.

Sorry to hear that. May I ask you to elaborate a bit? Was it state or private, faith or non-faith?

What do you mean about the BS? Was there not much open debate? Was criticism of certain beliefs frowned upon? These things are precisely my fear.

OP posts:
Original poster
ParentOfOne · 11/01/2025 14:30

@TeenToTwenties You're right, we have strayed off topic.

My last comment to @sprucinup , other than wondering if they defend Catholic child rapists with the same passion, is that the facts are quite simple: a prominent Catholic cardinal lied about condoms, and neither he nor anyone else in the Catholic Church deemed it appropriate to issue a correcting statement to admit "sorry, we got that wrong, that is actually false".

These are the undeniable facts. Everything else is a clumsy and dishonest attempt at covering up and minimising.

The issue can be brushed aside now (who cares much if some Cardinal said something about condoms we all know to be false?) but, back then, it was different. It was a time when the Catholic Church was waging a war in many countries against contraception and the teaching of sex education in schools. It was a time when many prominent Catholics stated that we shouldn't teach that condoms reduce the risk of diseases, because the fear of disease should be a deterrent against the sin of premarital sex. Of course, the thought that people had the right to disagree and to do stuff they wouldn't have done never crossed their minds. If there is a god who punishes bad behaviour, these Catholics deserve to burn in hell amin unspeakable suffering, because they have caused unspeakable suffering and countless, easily avoidable deaths themselves.

OP posts:
GrammarTeacher · 11/01/2025 14:26

ParentOfOne · 10/01/2025 18:17

@PotteringAlonggotkickedoutandhadtoreregister it is a brilliant GCSE, it’s a brilliant A-level.

How is it a brilliant A-level? What subjects does it let you study at uni?

If we are talking about a generic understanding of religious and non-religious theories, sure, that's very interesting, if done well.

But the (IMHO flawed) English system forces students to specialise in 3-4 subjects at sixth form. The choice of A-level subjects determines the courses one can apply for at uni. What courses does a RS A-level give access to? Aren't there better options, which give access to more courses?

well you could, but you would get no marks because it doesn’t answer the question. It’s the academic subject of religion, not a long rant about your own personal beliefs

Well, now it's you who gets no marks for poor text comprehension! :)
I specifically talked about adding, in addition to (not instead of) answering the question on why, and what I said was not a personal opinion nor a rant, but the factual event that the Catholic Church has in the past stated that the HIV virus passes through the condom, which is scientifically false.

Going off on a tangent about the evils of the Catholic Church is a rant.
Pointing out that the Church has made statements which are factually and scientifically false is not.

RS at A Level is an excellent subject - a lot of our medics and law candidates do it.
The world might be a better place if more people studied ethics!

It’s not about indoctrination!

sprucinup · 11/01/2025 14:18

"RE varies so much by school, and all it takes is a headteacher change or for an academy school, a change of CEO for there to be a significant shift in how RE and collective worship/assemblies work in a school."

Yes, this is true to a certain extent, but it's also why following a GCSE syllabus gives some certainty.

The AQA syllabus does cover contraception and homosexuality, and my kids certainly discussed AIDS and the views of the Catholic church (among others) as part of that topic.

Can a school make Religious Studies GCSE compulsory? Can one withdraw?
RamblingEclectic · 11/01/2025 13:48

IME, unless it's a Catholic school, they're unlikely to get more than the bare-bones very simplified version of it. They may learn Catholics - and many other groups - are officially against contraception, but they're unlikely at GCSE level to get into the discussions around religions or other worldviews and HIV in most schools.

RE varies so much by school, and all it takes is a headteacher change or for an academy school, a change of CEO for there to be a significant shift in how RE and collective worship/assemblies work in a school.

I left the choice to withdraw up to my kids, even though legally I have the final say. I think they are best placed to determine if they are are having an issue with how it's being taught, and really, withdraw means they are out of the class, away from their friends and other peers, studying on their own. Some kids may find that great, but it can also be pretty isolating. My child who chose to withdraw had issues with how RE was being taught for over 2 years before making the request because the BS didn't outweigh the good she was getting from the topics discussed and having those discussions with her friends (including on things being BS) yet. It took some really major frustration that sitting on her own in the learning support room became the better option. I don't think I as a parent could have figured out that balance, I'm not the one who is sitting through either option.

TeenToTwenties · 11/01/2025 12:43

I can't help thinking this should be in the philosophical beliefs topic.

We seem to have strayed far from RE GCSE.

sprucinup · 11/01/2025 12:37

"The document was not retracted - it's still on the Vatican website."

The document should not be "retracted" because it provides context and a reference for his views - see ref 43 in the screenshot.. From that, it is easy to see what happened - he was pseudo-scientifically describing an unproven hypothesis. If the document was removed or censored, we wouldn't have that context.

He repeated the claims in a Panorama documentary which challenged him very effectively. That hasn't been withdrawn either.

Can a school make Religious Studies GCSE compulsory? Can one withdraw?
Original poster
ParentOfOne · 11/01/2025 12:30

But no one in the Catholic Church did much about it.
The document was not retracted - it's still on the Vatican website.
No statements condemning the lie were issued.
The position of the Church was not clarified.
The Cardinal in question was not reprimanded.

If you don't want to define saying something which is objectively and scientifically false as a lie, you do you,but most dictionaries classify it as a lie.

Eg the Collins defines "to lie" as "to speak untruthfully with intent to mislead or deceive"

OP posts:
sprucinup · 11/01/2025 12:17

"The Catholic Church shouldn't be allowed to get off so easily when the Cardinal tasked with dealing with Family matters says something which is scientifically false and no one does anything about it ... This was not a view - it was objectively a lie."

People did do something about it. The WHO released a statement condemning it, and it was widely reported.

He was being pseudoscientific and undoubtedly believed his own words. He was incorrect, but not lying, any more than the school teacher in your OP was lying.

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 11/01/2025 11:58

The Catholic Church shouldn't be allowed to get off so easily when the Cardinal tasked with dealing with Family matters says something which is scientifically false and no one does anything about it. There are controversial opinions, and there are scientific facts which are objectively wrong. No one, not even cardinals, are entitled to their own facts. You talked about individual views which cause controversy. This was not a view - it was objectively a lie.

You cannot crucify me for not clarifying that this statement was not canon law, but then fail to distinguish between a controversial opinion and an objectively, scientifically, inequivocally false statement. That is flawed and dishonest.

This kind of moral ambiguity is similar to the cheekiness with which a PM appoints an extremist minister, so on one hand the minister can appease extremist electors, on the other hand the PM can calm down the moderates by saying that that's not the government's official position.

OP posts:
sprucinup · 11/01/2025 11:45

"Of course the obvious next question is what qualifies as an official Church position and to what extent something said by the Cardinal the Pope tasked with dealing on certain matters, and said on those very matters, without clarifying it's just a personal opinion, is representative of the Church position."

The official position of the Church on various matters is set out in Canon Law. That's how we can state for sure that they are against the use of contraception.

Like in any organisation, individual views are put forward that sometimes cause controversy, but they aren't the full picture. Other views matter too. For example, Pope Benedict XVI pointed out that when a male prostitute uses a condom "with the intention of reducing the risk of infection, can be a first step in a movement towards a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality." He said that the concern for others suggested by this action is laudable, but does not mean that either prostitution or condoms are in themselves good.

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 11/01/2025 11:37

Phineyj · 11/01/2025 11:33

I agree with you in principle but with a child in year 7 (and having taught in the state sector on and off for 15 years), you have to choose your hill to die on.

And as the RS GCSE is generally educational and can in fact be of assistance to atheists (useful to know in detail what the other "side" may believe), this isn't the hill I'd choose to die on.

Yes, I agree. Like I have said multiple times, and like I said at the beginning when I said it wasn't a deal breaker, this is not a hill I'm gonna die on.

OP posts:
Original poster
ParentOfOne · 11/01/2025 11:36

@sprucinup You are welcome to feel smug and believe that it is a flaw and a half baked fact to summarise "the Catholic Church made scientifically false claims about HIV virus passing through condoms" instead of getting into the details that it was not the Pope but the Cardinal tasked with dealing with Family matters, that the document was never retracted and is still available on the Vatican website, that the Pope never confirmed nor denied what his official position on the matter is, that the Cardinal tasked with dealing with Family matters was never reprimanded for saying falsehoods on the very matters he should have dealt with, etc.

Like I am welcome to believe that this posturing reflects a mix of pedantry and bad faith. You do you.

Of course the obvious next question is what qualifies as an official Church position and to what extent something said by the Cardinal the Pope tasked with dealing on certain matters, and said on those very matters, without clarifying it's just a personal opinion, is representative of the Church position.

OP posts:
Phineyj · 11/01/2025 11:33

I agree with you in principle but with a child in year 7 (and having taught in the state sector on and off for 15 years), you have to choose your hill to die on.

And as the RS GCSE is generally educational and can in fact be of assistance to atheists (useful to know in detail what the other "side" may believe), this isn't the hill I'd choose to die on.

sprucinup · 11/01/2025 11:24

"Oh, and the only thing I learnt from you is how pedantic and annoying you are."

It can be humiliating when people point out the flaws in your arguments. That's why it's important to learn how to discuss emotive subjects intelligently, and listen respectfully to other people, not just wade in with insults, poorly contextualised and half-baked "facts" that can easily be undermined.

Original poster
ParentOfOne · 11/01/2025 11:17

@DogandMog I genuinely do not understand your point.

I am not riled about adults confirming whatever beliefs they want in whatever way they want.

I am riled by the pretence that young children can make an informed decision about confirming their beliefs, whatever these beliefs are. I would be equally riled if some atheist extremist came up with an atheist confirmation rite where pre-adolescent children confirm their adherence to atheistic beliefs and values.

Catholics have a point when they claim that condoms are not 100% safe. They do not have a point when they lie about the HIV virus passing through them. That's a lie, and it must be called out as such.

@sprucinup you are wrong. I remembered about a cardinal making these false statements, and I remembered the details well because I had had heated arguments with some family members. You are welcome not to believe me, I couldn't care less.

I also remained convinced that, in the context in which I had said it, my choice of words was accurate. It would have been inappropriate to add a wall of text to clarify that it was not the Pope but the Cardinal tasked with dealing with family matters, that it was never an official position but that the Church never confirmed nor denied it, that the document remains on the Vatican website etc. Again, you are more than welcome to disagree, I don't care.

Oh, and the only thing I learnt from you is how pedantic and annoying you are. Goodbye.

OP posts:
DogandMog · 11/01/2025 11:00

OP, you claim to be an avowed atheist, yet you obviously feel there’s something profound, meaningful and significant about the rite of confirmation in the Catholic church to be so riled about it 🤔 If atheism is true, then it shouldn’t make any dice if a few kids wanna larp around and get confirmed into their belief system if it’s all empty and meaningless. Maybe catholicism does has a point, and that condoms, while not literally having holes in them, don’t provide enough guardrails against the negative consequences of sex… they split, slip off, guys do stealthing, they don’t protect against all STDs, and the classic quote from Neighbours back in the day “there’s no condom that will protect you from a broken heart”. (Not a RC btw, so I have no skin in this game, but I rather suspect that this thread was started for 🥄 purposes)

Swipe left for the next trending thread