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

I hate the concept because it is completely nonsensical to have a fundamental service like education, paid for by everyone's taxes, but i) which priorities certain religious view and ii) which gives priority to kids of certain religions.
Imagine going to a hospital and being told to go to the shorter queue if you say you are Christian and accept a priest praying next to you. It's exactly the same!

What on Earth..? RS doesn’t instruct you on how to follow a particular religion, it just teaches you about different religions. How is that the same as your example of the hospital?

"I explain that my concerns were driven by some friends' recent experience of dogmatic classes which didn't encourage an open debate"

@ParentOfOne what type of school did your friends' children go to? Was it a faith school? And was it a private school? And how old were the children? It sounds very unusual for a non-faith secondary state school. If that experience was widespread, there would be a lot more noise about it.

I am an atheist and completely agree with your disapproval of faith schools, as do very many other people. But in my experience they don't "proselytise" (which means to try and convert someone from one religion to another). All schools, including faith schools, have a duty to be respectful of other people's world views. My own children went to a CE primary school, so they were exposed to religious beliefs from an early age and asked a lot of questions about them. We always answered along the lines of "Some people think X, others think Y, we think Z, you can decide what you think". They, and most of their friends, decided they didn't believe in God around the same time they decided they didn't believe in Santa Clause.

That background encouraged my children to be critical thinkers who can listen, take an interest, and question things respectfully. Their atheism is not strident and sneering and self-righteous. When they got to secondary school (non-faith) they enjoyed their RE lessons. They learned about lots of other religions and discussed ethics. In year 10 they both got top grades in their short-course RE GCSE (and it was good practice for their other GCSEs the following year).

If your children go into RE lessons determined to criticise religion then they will inevitably wind people up, including other atheists. Hopefully you have taught them to discuss beliefs respectfully but, if not, they will need to learn, and their RE lessons will help.

The school have to offer it - that oart is compulsory. The making it compulsory for all is their choice.
As others have said it's about other religions rather than trying to get people to believe.

It’s marked like any other GCSE (if they aren’t just doing core RE). You’d be looking for knowledge of the beliefs and practices of different denominations or across religions. It would be relevant to acknowledge that there are contentious beliefs and obvious that even within a religion there are different beliefs and practices. However, calling out some particular belief such as the one you quoted on HIV and condoms would probably be irrelevant to gaining marks so pointless.

RE - taking a GCSE in it, to be clear - is compulsory at my dds' school (state secondary, rural Devon). I wasn't happy about it at all.

I do agree with a grounding in years 7-9, just not with the necessity of sitting exams in it. Our school also insists they take it in year 10, so both my August babies were 14 when they sat it.

Dd1 was struggling to keep up with homework (processing disorder, had extra time etc) - I requested that she be allowed to drop RE to facilitate additional private study for other subjects - this had been allowed in previous years when students had good reason. They refused, and instead suggested that she drop one of her options, all of which she intended to take at A level. I thought that was a ludicrous suggestion and said so. They wouldn't budge at all, so she attended the lessons and I made it clear that if homework for her core or A level subjects was becoming too much, RE wouldn't be done. In the end, both dds scraped a pass and I maintain that it was an unnecessarily stressful start to GCSEs for both of them.

In many countries this kind of discrimination would be explicitly unconstitutional, but, hey, we don't even have a written Constitution...

What countries have constitutions that ban religious schools?

Are you British? Did you go to a British school yourself? If so, I can’t quite understand your reservations.

I’m in my 20s so was in school recently and Religious Studies was mandatory, alongside ICT and a language. Schools can specify these.

As it was a mandatory subject people of all/no faith participated in these classes. No one was causing drama and being controversial because they are “dogmatic”. That just sounds like your child is badly behaved frankly.

Nothing was put forward that was “non scientifically founded”. You certainly didn’t learn about “condoms and HIV and the catholic approach” so I’m not sure why you keep mentioning that like some “gotcha” moment. You’re literally outraged at something that has not happened. No wonder your child is poorly behaved.

@Mysteryfemale : "You can't withdraw your child from the academic subject of RE (well some schools may let you but technically you can't) - that's collective worship"

That's not correct. Students can be withdrawn from RE as well as from Collective Worship. This is a screenshot from a National Curriculum doc.

Just seen I am wrong - they have to teach it but parents can withdraw their children. Tried to edit but too late!

You haven't been lied to. Either the person who said it was mistaken or you misunderstood them. It is a nuanced situation, with room for misinterpretation on both sides. In summary:

• It is compulsory for schools to teach a certain number of hours of RE at Key Stage 4.

• It does not have to be examined as a GCSE, but many schools believe it is worth putting the compulsory learning towards a qualification (often a half-GCSE).

• When a school decides it wants it to be examined as a GCSE (as in your case) there is an assumption that all students will do the exam unless they are formally withdrawn from lessons (which is unusual as it's taught in a very inclusive way).

My DCs both went to a uk state school where RS was a compulsory GCSE. They did just 1 hour a week, starting the syllabus in year 9. Neither enjoyed it but both got good grades, seemingly with little effort. Both are determined atheists.

DD's school is a non faith comp, and they said RS btw. Her church primary called it RE. The actual GCSE is called something like Religion and Ethics.

You can't withdraw your child from the academic subject of RE (well some schools may let you but technically you can't) - that's collective worship. The two are different. My daughter had to do RS at her school. They studied two religions - Christianity and Islam - and themed topics around what different religions (as well as eg humanists) believe around death, etc. Her school probably has more practising Muslims than any other religion although it's generally White British agnostics I suspect. She (and by extension testing her as revision, me) learned a lot about Islam beliefs, the difference between different groups (which of relevance to understanding why the Middle Eastern countries don't alwys support one another- very relevant to world events, geography, politics) and does make them think about how views differ. It's an interesting GCSE and it's not proselytising!

If it's a Catholic school, which it sounds like with the use of RS rather than RE, then to all intents and purposes it is compulsory because they will have been instructed by the Diocese that they must do this. It doesn't change the legal right to withdraw, it doesn't change that the GCSE is a perfectly reasonable one and also an easy win for students, but the Head would face anything up to and including removal by the Governing Body/Board of Members/Trustees for going against a specific instruction that is non negotiable.

Oh, that makes sense.
If there's a query on honesty and transparency then trust us in question.
And you do very much need to have trust ..
As many on this site like to say in many other situations, listen to your instincts.
You know your child, you know where your child will thrive or not.
Bit more digging needed to understand where the school is at.
It may be a brilliant fit .. Given what other posters have said about the actual curriculum it sounds like it could be very interesting rather than dogma.

You always have the legal right to withdraw your child, in whole or in part, from RE, even if the school requires it at GCSE, even at faith schools.

It does make the parents who withdraw responsible to provide alternative RE. That time is legally not to be used for other subjects so your idea that there are more useful subjects to do won't be solved by withdrawing, though not all schools enforce that bit well, especially in Y11. The school's responsibility is that the child is supervised while they do the alternative.

You don't have to be religious to get value and joy from religious education. Many of the best scholars of the Bible and other religious texts and those who do multi-faith work are people who are not of any religious faith group, and the history of what we now view as forward-thinking, nonreligious options like affirmations in courts or using BCE/CE to discuss history come originally from religious people who were very devoted, devoted enough to push for a different perspective.

I told all of my kids in secondary that if RE ever became an issue, that withdraw was an option I could do, but then they'd have to follow the curriculum I provided. One of my children asked at 14 and after some weeks of discussion, I did so. My child viewed the school as watering down and sanitising the Bible to promote a particular view. I don't think it is that simple, but understand the view. While some resources I saw from the school did leave gaps in discussions of the Bible that felt odd for older students (like teaching the story of Isaac's birth while entirely leaving the part about Hagar as they were focusing on the idea of God fulfilling promises being an important part of different faiths), it's very difficult to take many of the topics within RE and bring it to a secondary level that's accessible for most students without oversimplifying concepts to the point of not being reality. We see this in other subjects - there are often remarks that part of studying A levels, particularly any of the sciences, is repeatedly having to unlearn oversimplified information and relearn at the higher level. That's part of a lot of learning.

If you are concerned about a child reacting badly to the BS, then you'd need to look at it across the curriculum, not just RE (just like we need to look for corrupt leaders in all organisations, not just religious ones) and be aware that kids are more likely to lash out or at least not take as seriously subjects their parents dismiss. I do think part of the reason one of my kid made the request and became sarky about RE was in part because I kept correcting the oversimplified information without discussing why it gets taught in that manner well enough.

And by the way not all religious leaders are old, or men. FYI

I'm certain you are being very triggered by this but maybe you'd be better reading the actual syllabus before you decide on the school that is best for your child.

It seems a very strange hill to die on.

Does the school seem like a place that will best educate your child? They will need to be able to thrive there and if you do not feel that the whole ethos of the school will not support and nurture your child then why?

If you feel that this school will not have the interests of your child at the front, whether that's getting a quick win at an interesting debating subject that gives them GCSE essay practice or do you feel that this school is not a good fit?

Given constraints of your location, academic record of your child and potential finances the choice of a best fit senior school is always constrained and will result in compromise.

I'd be looking at how many GCSE options pupils can pick and what subjects the school offers generally, bearing in mind what your child is interested in.

My DD1 isn't particularly interested in English, Maths and Science, but that will take up 6 of her GCSEs. She's got to pick 4 options from 6 subjects she really likes. I'd have a real problem if she could only pick 3 because religious studies had already been picked for her. But I can see that wouldn't be an issue for some other pupils. When we were picking a secondary school for her, the range of languages offered made a big difference to our decision.

Sciences are - 3 singles, combined Science, which is two GCSEs but covers all three subjects, or a BTEC equivalent in Science (frequently as part of accommodating SEND and reduced timetable needs).

Same way English and Maths are, albeit those are also compulsory into post 16 as well as a condition of funding; learners must either have or be studying/resitting for a minimum Grade 4 if they've got a 3, functional skills is possible for a 2 or below - or have the equivalent overseas qualification as verified through ENIC.

DD chose to do RE GCSE and got a 9.
She most certainly has never accepted old men dictating anything to her then or since