GCSEs in England: which subjects / how many are compulsory? What can each school force kids to take?

[ItalianParent]

Can you please help me understand a few points about GCSEs in English (and I specifically mean in England, not in any other part of the UK) state secondary schools?

1. Are Maths, English language (not literature), and Science (whether combined or separate) the only subjects which are, by law, compulsory for all?

2. Is there a minimum or maximum number of subjects mandated by law? Does the law say something like: everyone must do those 3 above, but also at least 5 more of their choosing?

3. Can each school decide which other subjects are compulsory for its students? Eg if a school wants everyone to do religion, or history, or geography, or whatever, I presume families cannot object and say no, right?

4. Can each school decide a minimum number of subjects for each student? Must this number be the same for all? Or can a school say: John should do 9 GCSEs and Jane should do 11? Can families object? Can a family say that 11 GCSEs are too many and they'd rather the kid did 8-9?

For context, I am not complaining about a school forcing a particular subject.
But I have found these are some of the points on which many schools, at least in my area, are the least transparent and provide the least information.

I have even found some schools lying about it (whether through bad faith or just ignorance I don't know), and saying that some subjects are compulsory at GCSEs by law (one school said it about history, another about religion) and it wasn't the school's choice. I have no qualms about GCSEs in either, but why give the wrong information?

Thanks!

@Phineyj I look at evidence. And consider how it supports (or not) my own experience.
Do you not apply a bit of critical thinking yourself to what you read?

The strawman in this sentence is the exact opposite of critical thinking.

You posted a metastudy which conflated setting and streaming, without any distinction, and which criticises both.
When pressed, you admitted that you actually agree with setting for some subjects.

So my point stands: I remain confused as to why someone would share a study while disagreeing with a big part of its conclusions.

If you post a study which says "A and B are both bad", and you add nothing else, it is only logical to conclude you agree that A and B are both bad.

If you think that only B is bad, why not post the study but then say: "this explains why A and B are bad, but I don't agree in full, I actually think A is good"?

To be cleared, I am simply puzzled - but otherwise unaffected; the opinions, consistency or lack thereof of complete strangers on the internet tend not to be my greatest preoccupations.

What do you want out of this thread, @ItalianParent?

You implied to begin with that you were choosing a school. But maybe you aren't. You said you had concerns about religious elements in UK education. But then you said you didn't really. Then you started talking about academy trusts and the extent to which they're genuinely independent. Then whether retail business was an academically rigorous subject. Then setting and streaming.

What do you want out of this? I mean you don't have to say but it might focus the discussion a bit.

To add to the setting and streaming point, something that hasn’t been mentioned so far is that some schools run a nurture or transition group. When looking at a school’s policy on setting/streaming, it can be useful to consider if they have such a class/classes. Comparison and research into nurture and transition classes is difficult because schools run them in different ways. Some schools only run them for Y7, some Y7&8, some for KS3, some right through to the end of Y11. Some have mixed year group classes, some run their nurture/transition groups as single year group classes. Some stay in this group for all lessons, but at other schools it is only a selection of subjects, not all. Some decide which pupils to put in their nurture/transition group purely on literacy levels, some look at wider academic ability and others look at wider readiness for secondary school.

I am wondering if the OP may be AI. The discussion is so strange...

@Phineyj The main thing I wanted was a clarification on which subjects / how many are compulsory at GCSE. I have received that clarification - thank you again to all the posters who contributed.

I then dared point out that I find it puzzling that you would choose to post a meta-study which criticises both setting and streaming, but then, when pressed, you admitted that you are actually OK with streaming for maths. So why post something if you disagree with half of its conclusions? I continue to find it puzzling, but whatever.

It is hilarious to see what has now become a get out of jail card for those who are struggling in a discussion: the other party must be AI. Yes, sure, please feel free to believe whatever you prefer.

I don’t think anyone is struggling in the discussion – but what started as a clear enough enquiry about GCSE subjects has become something else, led by continued posts from the OP. No one is looking for a get out of jail card (!) but I did wonder from the tone of your posts if you were researching a news story or a blog post on education in England or similar.

If not then happy days. Good luck with the school decision for your DC.

I don’t think @Phineyj is struggling in this conversation. After all, she isn’t the one who has had a post deleted or the one who feels the need to stoop to the level of repeatedly insulting other posters because they don’t agree with her.

So I am struggling because I dared say that I find it puzzling to post a study then disagree with its conclusions?

OK, time to unwatch the thread.

Goodbye, thank you all for your time, and thank you for clarifying my original question about which/how many subjects are compulsory.

So I am struggling because I dared say that I find it puzzling to post a study then disagree with its conclusions?

No-one has said that.