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.

A course needs to have about 16 students to break even, but schools tend to run courses with far fewer as the more popular courses can support.

They can iguana, but for example at my school anything with under 10 students is not going to run, it is the same in many others, with less than that the cross subsidisation puts the other courses at risk.

It's a great shame isn't it.

It's not compulsory at my DD's state school. Apparently they cover enough content in pshe to not have to continue with RS after year 9.

Sorry, didn't finish that message.

For example, how do you explain to the business studies teacher, who has 2 classes of 26, that they can't have extra text books because of funding issues when the music teacher is getting equipment/textbooks but has classes of 5?

Its the same at A level, it definately caused me some consternation last year when I was told to have A2 classes of 20 + because we couldn't afford to devide the 43 students into 3 classes which would have been much more beneficial to them, and taken a significant strain from me.. This at the same time in which the Italian teacher has a class of 3, and the music teacher 2!

This has since been resolved and A level languages are now taught at my school for the entire borough as twilight classes, its just ridiculous in this era of lack of funding that some courses are running on such low numbers.

It is of course down to political decisions made far away, but you can't ask one teacher to have significantly heavier workload because of funding issues, while not asking all to bear the weight.

What's so funny Bertrand?

OK cardi, yes it depends on having enough interest, but they're not offering it to "anyone who is interested", they are preventing OP's son from doing it due to an unnecessary R.E. qualification.

If there isn't enough interest for a course to be taught at a particular school, then if there are other schools in the area they might pool their resources so that students can still take the course.

Hmmmm. The school may have decided that they should run music because students will need that subject if they wish to continue it at university, which might not be the case with technology for example. I agree about the teaching load. But if there is a music teacher employed, the school will not gain in the short term by not running, say, music, even if it is for 4 students for example. Doesn't make marking any easier for popular essay subjects I agree.

bah xmasseason, they are not, its unlikely that even if allowed not to do RE he would be able to do music as it would be scheduled at a different time.

He chose another 2 options above music, but wants it as a third which the school don't offer.

Total misunderstanding on your behalf there..want bespoke education, get the cheque book out imo.

If you are in schools now iguana, you will know that most teachers are asked to teach 2nd and 3rd subjects. A music teacher would be more cost effectively employed teaching another topic to lower school students than teaching 2 at A2 level.

I totally support offering choices to students, but the fact is that schools are suffering significant funding issues and that in the end you can't claim "we can't afford it" whilst running courses that don't break even, and asking others to make do and mend.

Also, the R.E provision rules are divisive, you are required to provide it to years 7-11, now that can mean delivering it as part of PSHE (which is now supposed to be curriculum wide btw) or dedicating a certain amount of time to it. Many schools have chosen to employ R.E teachers and teach the Philisophy and ethics branch at GCSE as it is more cost effective than asking non specialist teachers to teach PSHE in form time/once a week.

Back to my original post though, the OPs son could obtain grade 5 theory and practical and have more than enough to do A level music, not doing GCSE does not limit him, she's just asking for special treatment. The school would have made it clear what they offer as compulsory GCSEs when you signed up suck it up.

Thanks - yes well aware of your points but there are other perspectives to consider.

My son's school supposedly has a music/ performing arts specialism. In previous years music had been offered as an after school option. I feel it's a pity the county music service can not offer a class that any child with grade 3 or above could join. It would open up GCSE music or (potentially a-level at a later date) to any child in the area. A musically able child could have the option of going GCSE music early.

its unlikely that even if allowed not to do RE he would be able to do music as it would be scheduled at a different time

I had rather assumed that the OP had already taken the timetable into account before posting.

I sincerely doubt that, most parents seem to think dropping one will equate with being able to take the subject of their choice.

I still can't see what good our opinions do- even if we all agree her DS is still left with the policy of his school.

The OP loves to stir it about schools. Its her recurring theme. I stopped taking any particular note years ago.

I am just trying to think of the reaction if she goes back and says 'On MN they think my DS shouldn't be forced to do this subject'! I can't see it making the slightest difference! Maybe she just wants to vent.

Regardless of the OP- do people not wonder why the only non core subject they have to study to GCSE level is RE? That isn't the school's policy, it's statutory. Schools can choose how they fulfil the obligation, but fulfil it they must. No obligation to offer 3 sciences- but RE is a must.

My son's school supposedly has a music/ performing arts specialism

No it doesn't. Specialist school status was scrapped by the Tories about 5 years ago. There's no extra money for specialisms any more.

And as to timetabling- if RE was not compulsory, then the timetabling would necessarily be different.

why the only non core subject they have to study to GCSE level is RE?

They don't have to study it to GCSE and students can be withdrawn from lessons.

Other subjects which have to be studied at KS4 are citizenship, computing, PE and sex and relationships education.

DD chose RS GCSE because she liked the teacher and loved it. She learned so much. It has also been hugely beneficial in terms of essay construction, critical thinking and making a convincing point in A level work.

It was not a compulsory subject and those who had compulsory RS could not swap it for another subject as it wouldn't have worked with the timetable.

You can speak to the school and if there happens to be a music, drama or computing class running at the same time as your DCs RE class, then you may be able to swap. They almost certainly won't know this until all the option choices are churned through the time tabling computer though. DD was hoping to swap PE for another subject but the timetable wouldn't allow it.

I would prefer for it not to be compulsory after year 9 and it's annoying when there is so much pressure on the timetable. But RE is a good academic subject, I ended up doing it for A level and enjoyed it (I didn't do it for GCSE). In my son's school they get a GCSE out of the compulsory lessons. So it's not all bad.

OK, noble giraffe, without the shorthand and no longer assuming that people have any prior knowledge or have read the thread, RE in the only non core academic subject that is compulsory to be studied (although not examined) until the end of year 11.

Schools also have to do a daily act of worship of a broadly Christian nature. Is it any surprise that the kids are also supposed to learn about religion?