To think my son should not be forced to do a full GCSE in religious education

[ReallyTired]

He would far rather do GCSE music. He had done RE since he was five. Surely an extra two years is not going to increase his knowledge of other religions that much.

Same here, rufus.

DS could have opted out of RE but no replacement GCSE would have been offered.

I presume anyone who thinks students can simply swap RE for another GCSE doesn't have DC doing GCSEs.

suberban

Not in a state school at least

And for anyone who said that you should pick the right school...last year, no statistics unless taking triple, half of double science a year early and citizenship and business studies gcse.

This year? None of the above

Schools change from year to year, what might be the case when your child is in year 7 may have completely changed by year 10

"I presume anyone who thinks students can simply swap RE for another GCSE doesn't have DC doing GCSEs"
Or, as sometime happens with the faith lobby, they simply don't care because they've got what they want. As I said earlier, the "if you don't like it, just wait outside til we've finished" attitude is depressingly common.

If anyone has free periods because their child isn't doing RE or PE or whatever you can always look at a correspondence course. An igcse or nvq or something. DD would have let her do another subject in a gap, as long as it fitted into her timetable with no special individual requirements.

So students whose parents can afford to pay privately for their child to take a qualification externally can do so provided it fits into their timetable and doesn't have any specific individual requirements?

I wonder how much take-up there would be for such a generous concession

Hapoens at the private school my friends children go to, though i am sure it doenst happen at all of them

It would be a very impressive motivated teen that completed a correspondance course unsupervised, good luck to them! My DD (and many of my students) need to be coereced and stood over to complete their homework!

My son works hard when he is interested in something. He does not always need to be "coerced and stood over". When teens have the freedom to choose how they spend their time, some children can be self moviated. My son is self moviated with music, but not RE where he sees little benefit.

See automenous home education. It's a high risk strategy, but there is no doubt that it works for some.

Some children can its true, but many when unsupervised have a tendency not to do the things that they should be. Many, many teens are lovely,diligent and hard working, but at the same time, many are not like this all of the time. Studying a GCSE independently would take a lot of commitment from him.

Have you checked with the school that dropping R.E will result in him being able to take music?

There's self-motivated, and then there's self-motivated enough to study a GCSE completely independently. When I was at school we could take GCSEs at night college, is there anything like that where you are?

Does nobody see the complete insanity of discussing a kid doing a GCSE he really wants to do by correspondence course because RE is compulsory? It's like some sort of bizarre alternative universe!

While I do not agree with compulsory RS for GCSE, I am a bit baffled at the comments about having one less GCSE. Surely you are aware that, as long as you have passed the core subjects, the fact that you have 9 rather than 10 means nothing.

To be honest I doubt that my son would be self moviated to do GCSE music, even if it was available by correspondence course. He likes to play his guitar and sing. There is a difference between making music and passing a GCSE.

Teens have so little choice there is little chance for them to have the chance to show what moviated said them. I am not angry with my sons' school, but government policy that infantilises teens by allowing them so little GCSE choice. I disagree with the one size fits all curriculum of the EBAC.

It us depressingly negative to see all teens as lazy needing coercion. In the past many teens left school at 14 and held down jobs. I believe that many of our teens know what us best for themselves and do not need to be infantilised until 25.

Not doing RS doesn't mean he could do music. There are lots of issues behind timetabling, free choice is really a myth.

thelouise

My DS could have done ICT GCSE if RE hadn't been compulsory. It's got nothing to do with the number of subjects. It's having a range that's important. And tbh, having to stop studying ICT in year 9 in this day and age in order to accommodate a subject that's completely irrelevant to his chosen career path is ridiculous and illogical.

RE isn't about forcing a faith its about understanding different religions and how they affect peoples life choices. In Britain it is a compulsory subject to help young people to understand others as well as themselves. Its about being well rounded individuals not simply getting your chosen career path.

Nobody thinks it's about forcing a faith.

Why does RE have to be complusory. Children can learn to be tolerant and show empathy with ever having an RE lesson. The British do not have a monopoly on tolerance towards other faiths. German or Swedish children don't do RE and their country is tolerant to those of other faiths.

Even if my son couldn't gave done music, he could do a subject that is of more interest to him.

Actually I am wrong. They do have RE in Germany, but it's ethics based.

AFAIK the GCSE syllabus here is ethics based too. Oh and btw, I didn't say all teens need coercion just some do, many are also easily distracted but have the best intentions. I certainly fell into that category, still do these days, for example I have a huge pile of marking to do and I know that I will have to spend the weekend working at it, I could have done bits between boxing day and new year, but no, I have a sparkly clean house instead, the laundry is all done, and I've finished reading a book!

I agree with the EBACC limiting students choices, that is one of the reasons my school has decided not to go down the route of enforcing students to take the right combination of subjects (with the exception of the core subjects obviously). At a recent PIXL conference many representitives of other schools were saying that they have streamlined their options so that only 2 are available after the EBACC subjects, and that students are going to be limited to 8 GCSEs now that Progress 8 and EBACC are going to be used as the measurements of success.

With the coming funding crisis I can see classes getting larger and options choices getting smaller as schools try to avoid going into debt.

In all honesty, having worked in admissions in HE, they don't give a rats ass about gcse's; they are merely a gateway to FE.

sadly Bertandrussel, many people do and don't realise its a core subject, along with Numeracy and literacy

Suburban - given your IMO very accurate view you might want to sign this petition

Iwithdrew parental permission and my son no longer does RE i am glad to say

Given that students apply for university before they receive A-level results, I don't believe that GCSEs are irrelevant.

Equally, the more your choice is restricted at GCSE, the more your choice is restricted at A-level.

Entry to university is competitive, and given two equal students, one with either fewer or less relevant GCSEs, I don't think HE admissions departments know or care whether the reason for this difference was restricted choice.