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

[ParentOfOne]

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.

Are you the types of persons who think that religions shouldn't be criticised because doing so would be offensive?

Um, no. I’m the type of person who thinks you shouldn’t be rude to posters who try to answer your question.

I wonder if going to some RS lessons and seeing how teachers encourage healthy discussions might help you communicate a little more politely.

@titchy Why are you attacking me and insulting me for no reason?
I was not talking about the Catholic attitude to gays, so why mention that so specifically?

The world is full of religious leaders with extremely backward views on many things, including sexuality. This much is a fact.

@AshCrapp And you think that RE GCSE in the UK is full of girls who accept old men dictating how they should live their sexuality
No, and I'd appreciate it if people stopped putting words in my mouth.

Neither are modern day churches in the UK.
I disagree.
In the Catholic Church, the concept that contraception is a sin remains very much part of their doctrine; that Church is more hierarchical than most others, and this concept applies at all latitudes, including in the UK.

Other churches are even more backward

these girls and women are often in the grips of far more complex social and political oppression, not reducible to whether they're religious.

That is a complex discussion, and would be off topic. I agree that they are in the grips of other kinds of oppression, too, but this doesn't negate the religious oppression.
Also, your point does not apply to Catholics. Catholics believe the Pope is infallible in matters of faith, and if he says contraception is a sin this applies to UK Catholics, too.
Of course, if most Catholics disagree with the Pope and then use contraception, then it's highly debatable how truly Catholic they are, but that's a separate discussion...

If they accept old men dictating how they should live their sexuality based on their (the old men's) interpretation of one of the many holy books of one of the many religions around, then that's not my definition of "taking no shit"

Who are you referring to then?

It would make no difference to the mark and would waste time needed to answer the questions.

You made that comment as a response to another poster saying plenty of religious girls take no shit - and that your kid isn't that special in terms of taking no shit.

There are lesbians within all religions - hell of a lot braver for them to come out and risk being ostracised than it is for your kid, with an opinionated parent, to parrot your views.

@titchy You cannot deny my point about religions still holding backward views, cannot admit that you put words in my mouth, so you feel compelled to i) conclude that my kid parrots my views and ii) to somehow compare the bravery of a pre-adolescent child you don't know to the bravery of the religious lesbians who come out?

You need help. Seriously. Goodbye!

I entirely agree that religion is mumbo jumbo.

However I find your view that religious girls cannot be 'take no shit' types pretty abhorrent actually. No better than assuming the woman in the hijab has to ask her husbands opinion before she accepts the job, or that the Catholic woman you interview is bound to get pregnant soon. Both assume something about someone solely because of their religion which is what you did.

Ironically RE is one way of divesting such views of people based on their religion.

Anyway this has been an incredibly thoughtful, insightful and helpful thread for you. But you've been rather rude and goady so I'm out.

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

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.

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.

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.

@scissor we are undecided between this and another school.
The decision will not be based on whether RS GCSE is compulsory or not.
The choice of subjects on offer is reasonable at both schools.

I didn't like the idea of having been lied to about GCSE RS being compulsory because of a national, legal requirement, and I wondered if that could hide the same type of attitude which other friends had seen elsewhere, and which no one replying to this post seems to have experienced.

I will do more digging on how RS is taught in practice at that specific school, but, all in all, it seems it's a non-issue, and it won't be the factor driving the choice.

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.

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.

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.

No, it's a state, non-faith school.

I hate the concept of a state faith school, but I'd be open to compromising on that if there isn't too much indoctrination and everything else is good. FWIW we have seen a faith school with no indoctrination, but academically it isn't great, otherwise we would have considered it.

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!

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

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!

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.

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.

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).

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

@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.

@Mysteryfemale 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)

I see what you mean, and I agree with it. It is shocking how many people don't know what Sunnis and Shias are, or who think that Iranians are Arabs - just to name the first two things which came to my mind, and which are quite important to understand today's world.

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.

@MJconfessions I explain that my concerns were driven by some friends' recent experience of dogmatic classes which didn't encourage an open debate, and you conclude that ... my child is poorly behaved????

You certainly didn’t learn about “condoms and HIV and the catholic approach”

Well, you do learn what religions think about contraception.
Some religions hold rather backward views.
Some religions have openly said falsehoods about this (like the Catholic Church lying about the HIV virus passing through condoms).

So I am not sure what is unreasonable about wondering how you learn about these topics.
If you learnt them in a sensible, non-dogmatic way, I'm happy for you.

But don't dismiss those who cannot be sure that the experience will be the same as the one you had.