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.

Noble
That is one of the most biased articles I've ever seen you link
It is based on a study of 580 RE teachers in 2013

The right to opt out of RE is enshrined in law.
The fact that some schools make it easier than others is their choice.
The kids who choose to do RE do it well so the teachers have a better time
so the school gets better RE teachers

DCs school gets very high grades in RE GCSE and quite a few who carry it on to A level
those who hated it are not forced to do it in years 10 and 11
I really cannot see the problem.

Yes it's biased (those poor kids not having a deep understanding of Christianity) but the fact remains that while students can opt out of RE, schools aren't supposed to.

Longtimelurker speaks perfect sense to me.

If you can get a good RE grade based on one lesson a week and minimal study, is it valued as a GCSE or is it a bit like taking general studies A-level? (No idea if general studies still exists - my reference point is the education system under Kenneth Baker)

Longtimelurker speaks perfect sense to me.

But can you seriously believe that someone with such low levels of literacy is a qualified teacher, let alone a member of the SLT?

RE needs to be kept as a gcse option and the government need to stop titting around and name the compulsory aspect of it "morals and ethics" or something similar

PHSE in my childrens school does not mention any religions and i refuse to believe that they are the only school that does this

"the practice in other schools - which includes making RE optional from year 10" Schools doing this are not fulfilling their statutory obligations.

I need to stop saying need

Bertrand
Schools doing this are not fulfilling their statutory obligations.
Why not?
The classes and GCSE are offered to all pupils
but so is the opt out form
and for those who opt out, alternate courses are offered

I would have thought that the easiest way to avoid "lessons do not cause big behaviour problems" is to stop forcing children to take subjects that do not interest them and that they perceive will bring them no benefit.

Then the RE teachers can focus on the children that actually want to do RE. If it's such an easy option and also so interesting then they shouldn't have any shortage of takers.

Seems a bit miserable to only get to pick two options at GCSE, I assume that's for the ease of the schools timetable. When I did my options (way back when O levels were still around) the only compulsory subjects were English Lit, Lang and Maths. We then had to chose at least one language, science, humanities and arts subject. So still a balanced curriculum but a much higher chance of studying things you enjoyed and were good at. The new system (At least in this school) seems ridiculously rigid.

Oh and I finished French a year early and then had study periods instead. In the library, no extra supervision required.

I had similar choices to Nooka at O-level - 9 subjects including maths, English, a science, a humanity, a language and a practical subject. subject choice was pretty standard, (except 5 language choices), but (although it was the kind of school that offered confirmation lessons), RE wasn't particularly popular, possibly because few people wanted to do it at A- level. I can see why it would be an interesting subject, but not why it would be compulsory. What if you want to do geography and history but not another humanity subject?

Also am still confused by the concept of a compulsory subject that is widely thought to be easy - what if you want to take more challenging options?

Also, if not taking RE means you have to drop a GCSE, doesn't that effectively make it compulsory even if you have a right to opt out?

RE is compulsory whether you take it at GCSE or not.

In fact there are only 2 subjects which are compulsory - PE and RE. All the rest are optional (but of course schools are measured by their English / Maths and now progress 8 results) so there are in fact very very few options remaining.

Ignore my poor brackets!

RE is compulsory whether you take it at GCSE or not.
NO IT IS NOT
YOU CAN OPT OUT
Both my kids did as did lots and lots of their classmates and friends from other schools

So if you are in a school where RE GCSE is compulsory and you want to opt out, what happens? Do you get one less GCSE?

I meant it's compulsory for schools to teach RE at all ages. Yes parents can opt their kids out of it.

If you didn't take the GCSE yes you would have one less.

None of school is compulsory in that sense then, as you can opt out and home ed.

That would seem to discriminate against those who want to opt out.

We have established that schools must teach RE (although not specified how much time this should take), but pupils have a right to opt out.

Cynically, if RE is seen as an easy option is compulsory GCSE just an easy way to improve results - but then again, how is regarded as a GCSE? How do you fit it in if eg you want to do maths, English, eng lit, 2 languages, 3 x science and history?

And nobody seems to be able to give a good reason why it should be compulsory.

bertrand

Most people havent thought of why i suppose

In my case RE gcse isnt compulsary and as ive said they do no lessons past year 9 so i have never needed to question it or know anyone else that has

The school may be failing in their duty but i am certainly not going to bring it up...i will get my head kicked in by a load of disgruntled 15 year olds

And nobody seems to be able to give a good reason why it should be compulsory
The general idea, nowadays, is that it contributes to the Prevent agenda. For believers, religion is integral to life and is a primary motivator, so its useful for everyone to know a little about it. This is especially useful for young people who would not see or understand religious viewpoints in their family lives. Acknowledging religion in school shows respect for the beliefs of the children and families involved in both school and religion.

I get that, timelytess, but really that objective would be fulfilled by making it compulsory up to, say, the end of year 9. By year 10 I would have thought there is no reason why it shouldn't go into the pot of subjects from which pupils choose for GCSE without being compulsory. After all, it's at least equally desirable that children should do history in order to understand how we got where we are today, including the part that religion has played in that, and including such elements as the history of empire, the industrial revolution and the development of the constitution: but no-one insists that that remains compulsory after year 9.

RE has been part of the U.K. Education system for decades and while we're not exactly a nation of church goers (at least compared to the US) plenty of people are ignorant about other faiths (and intolerant).

faith schools and academies are allowed to set their own RE syllabus so there isn't really any central control over what is taught. It all sounds very vague.

I suspect that some school RE is good, other RE is just box ticking and other RE deliberately reinforces existing opinions.

It really is just another case of the faith lobby getting its own way again, isn't it?