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.

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?

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.

@EmeraldDreams73 Sorry to hear that. This kind of unreasonable behaviour would be a huge red flag for me because it would make me wonder: on what else are they going to be unreasonable? Eg think of Holland Park School, which was closed and reopened under new management for a scandal of emotional abuse, or the same allegations now surfacing at Mossbourne.

@AshCrapp Don't pretend you don't understand. The point is not banning religious schools. The point is using state funds to provide a fundamental state service (education, in this case) which discriminates based on religion (exact criteria differ, but religious schools tend to prioritise the admission of religious students). This is explicitly unconstitutional in many countries.

Again: would you be happy with a hospital, funded by your taxes, which sends those who believe in a different religion from you to a shorter queue?

You asked which countries.
Well, in France the secularity of the State and of its services is a very, very strong principle.
In Italy the Constitution sets out that the State must provide free education for all, and that independent schools can be created only if they are not a financial burden for the State.

I could go on, but I don't need to.

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.

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.

"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.

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?

To be fair, I think the hospital analogy was related to faith school admissions, rather than the teaching of RE. The OP has not helped herself by going down that alleyway, as it's a completely different topic (covered on many other threads).

@GretchenWienersHair Did you even read what I wrote? It seems not.
The hospital analogy was not to do with the teaching of RS but with all taxpayers funding state faith schools which give priority in their admissions to religious children.
All taxpayers fund a crucial service, but that crucial service discriminate by prioritising some citizens over others. Clearer now?

@sprucinup My daughter has often asked if I am a Christian and what she is. I always tell her that I am not, that other people in our family are, and that when she grows up she'll decide for herself. The part that confuses her the most is that other parents do not have this approach, so Muslim parents tell their children they are Muslim, Catholic parents tell their children they are Catholic, etc. I think that's completely nonsensical, it's like saying that a child is Tory or Labour. Religion, like politics, is something that can only be chosen as an adult.

"The part that confuses her the most is that other parents do not have this approach, so Muslim parents tell their children they are Muslim, Catholic parents tell their children they are Catholic, etc. I think that's completely nonsensical, it's like saying that a child is Tory or Labour. Religion, like politics, is something that can only be chosen as an adult."

@ParentOfOne There is no need for her to be confused by this ... just explain to her that for many families their belief system is part of their identity, heritage and culture. They want to bring up their children that way, and that is their right in a free country. Calling it "nonsensical" marks you out as intolerant, and if your children use words like that at school they will be rightly called out by their fellow classmates, never mind their teachers.

Politics can also be part of someone's identity, heritage and culture. Many children adopt their parents' politics. Some change tack when they're older, some don't. Just like religion.

Oh I see. I misread.

In dds secondary it wasn't compulsory, it had to be taken as an option.
I guess some schools do it so they get a gcse out of the time that has to be given to pastoral or citizenship in the timetable.

@sprucinup I keep the part about it being nonsensical to myself, I don't tell her, but it's a perfectly legitimate opinion and no, it's not intolerant.

Many organised religions have specific rites of passage where children must confirm their belonging to the church / pledge allegiance etc.
Catholic parents get their children to do the Confirmation sacrament aged 9-11 (12-14 in other countries) . That is complete, utter bullshit. How on Earth can a 10 year old be mature enough to opine on something like religion? Sure, teach them your religion if it is so important to you, but don't pretend that a 10 year old can make an informed decision about confirming their faith. That is bullshit.

See, I am telling my child that she will decide for herself when she grows up. Most religious parents tell their children that a child should have the same religious beliefs as their parent.

Oh, way more children have different politics from their parents than religion. Must be something about indoctrination at an early age.

We are not religious and considered withdrawing our DS from GCSE RE (which is a compulsory at his school) purely because of workload - he had 12 GCSEs (super-selective state) and we thought RE would be the easiest one to convince the school to let him drop due to the legal position. We were aware this would mean independent study in the library, but this was what we wanted so he could focus on his other subjects. He informally asked his teacher about this (on the basis of workload) and was given some flannel that only students who had achieved less than a 6 in their mocks could drop it. It was enough pushback to put him off pursuing further (he's very lazy!) and in the event, quite enjoyed the course and got a 9 (better than he did in his other humanities subjects). So it's an 'easy' GCSE to do well in (and interesting). There was no indoctrination, lots of time for debate (which your DD would enjoy) and DS remains resolutely atheist!

You seem very black and white in your views op - school 'lied' not teacher mistaken, and I don't think the Catholic Church are making scientifically incorrect claims about condoms. Condoms aren't 100% effective they an split or slip off or be used incorrectly. Abstinenceand fidelity are more effective ( if unrealistic)
I think it would actually be good for your daughter when she has such a dogmatic mother

@ParentOfOne "Catholic parents get their children to do the Confirmation sacrament aged 9-11 (12-14 in other countries) . That is complete, utter bullshit."

It's part of their culture and heritage. They get to dress up, get presents, etc. If they are at a Catholic primary then all their school friends will do it at the same time and they will learn about it at school. Many will question it when they are older, and decide not to send their own children down that path. Others will question it, but send their children down that path anyway because the RC primary school appears to be their best local option but they will privately share their views with their children and tell them it's just a cultural thing "like Christmas". For others, it will be more meaningful. All of these positions are legitimate in a free country. Using labels like "bullshit" just marks you out as ignorant and intolerant.

One Vatican representative, in 2003, did say that the Aids virus could pass through condoms, but it was widely called out as being unscientific and was never the formal view of the Catholic Church.

@BigSilly I don't think the Catholic Church are making scientifically incorrect claims about condoms. Condoms aren't 100% effective they an split or slip off or be used incorrectly. Abstinenceand fidelity are more effective ( if unrealistic)

What you think is, quite simply, factually wrong.
I am not aware of many people criticising the Catholic church for pointing out that condoms are not 100% effective.

But I have in minds episodes like the president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, repeating to the BBC Panorama programme the same claim of his Family Values versus Safe Sex document that the AIDS virus can pass through the condoms. The World Health Organisation called out these claims “totally wrong”, and scholars from the Infectious Disease Society of America and other expert organisations criticised the lie. @sprucinup It wasn't just a random priest in a small village. And, if I remember correctly, he was never officially reprimanded for the lie.

I think it would actually be good for your daughter when she has such a dogmatic mother
Please, do tell me again how it is dogmatic to call out a religious organisation about statements which are factually false. How it is dogmatic to tell my daughter "I am not Christian, other people in our family are, you will decide for yourself when you grow up".
Let me get this straight: that is dogmatic, but pretending that a 10-year old can make informed decisions about confirming their faith is not???

No they don't, not usually anyway. One of the schools my DD went to made citizenship and statistics compulsory. The one she's in now, you got to choose between RS and Citizenship as your compulsory option.

@sprucinup It's part of their culture and heritage.
It is still a 10-year old confirming their faith.

Using labels like "bullshit" just marks you out as ignorant and intolerant.
So thinking that a 10-year old who is possibly still playing with dolls or hot wheels is unable to reach an informed conclusion and make an informed decision about confirming their faith is ignorant and intolerant???

Note I am not saying there is anything wrong with teaching a child about your religion. I am saying it's wrong to pretend that a 10-year old can confirm they believe in and belong to the same religion as their parents.

There are many things which are part of culture and heritage which are, quite simply, wrong. Child wedding and child rape is a part of many cultures - is it ignorant and intolerant to call it out as wrong and reprehensible?
No, of course getting a child to do the Catholic Confirmation is not the same as marrying them off to an adult; it was just an example to point out that "being part of culture and heritage" must not shield a practice from legitimate criticism.

This document of the Westminster dioces https://rcdow.org.uk/att/files/faith/essential%20quick%20guide%20to%20confirmation.pdf
talks about psychological readiness. Do you really think that a 10-year old is psychologically ready to confirm their faith???

"It wasn't just a random priest in a small village. And, if I remember correctly, he was never officially reprimanded for the lie."

@ParentOfOne , I said he was a Vatican representative. I've no idea whether he was reprimanded by the Church, but he was certainly reprimanded by the media. These days, "cancel culture" would reprimand him too.

You incorrectly said that the statement was made by the Catholic Church, implying it was their formal position. It wasn't.

"So thinking that a 10-year old who is possibly still playing with dolls or hot wheels is unable to reach an informed conclusion and make an informed decision about confirming their faith is ignorant and intolerant???"

No. I said calling it "utter bullshit" is ignorant and intolerant. If you had said "a 10-year old ... is unable to reach an informed conclusion and make an informed decision about confirming their faith" I would probably have agreed with you, but you didn't. Words matter. The ability to present your views clearly and respectfully matters. That is what RE lessons teach, and why your child will benefit from them.

@sprucinup No. I said calling it "utter bullshit" is ignorant and intolerant. If you had said "a 10-year old ... is unable to reach an informed conclusion and make an informed decision about confirming their faith" I would probably have agreed with you

In fact, I said both: a 10-year old is unable to make an informed decision about confirming their faith. Pretending that he does is utter bullshit.

So you kind of agree with criticising the concept, but you disagree with the choice of words because "bullshit" is too strong? Whatever, you do you.
Just out of curiosity, what words would have been acceptable to you?

Are you the kind of person who thinks that when religions do something wrong we can kind of criticise it but never too harshly?

@sprucinup You incorrectly said that the statement was made by the Catholic Church, implying it was their formal position. It wasn't.
You're quite the apologist! You want to be pedantic? Fine: the cardinal who was the president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, i.e.the cardinal tasked by the Catholic Church to deal with these very matters, made scientifically false claims about condoms, in a document which is still available on the Vatican website: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20031201_family-values-safe-sex-trujillo_en.html#Pregnancy

So are you claiming that, when:

• the Cardinal tasked with dealing with these matters makes scientifically false claims
• these claims are never retracted and the entire document is still available on the Vatican website
• the Cardinal in question does not ger reprimanded nor removed from his post
• the Church does not issue a correcting statement to clarify that it was wrong and it's not the Church's official position

when all of the above happens, it is still incorrect to claim that the Catholic Church said it, because it was only a priest????? Do you truly, sincerely believe that???

"Child wedding and child rape is a part of many cultures - is it ignorant and intolerant to call it out as wrong and reprehensible?"

Those things are crimes in most countries. Confirmation is not. Equating the two is ignorant.

You must have missed the part where I said that

No, of course getting a child to do the Catholic Confirmation is not the same as marrying them off to an adult; it was just an example to point out that "being part of culture and heritage" must not shield a practice from legitimate criticism.

If something is wrong, it is wrong regardless of whether it is part of a certain culture and heritage.