Barnardo's Scotland Children and Young People Engagement Report – Religious Observance and Religious Education in Schools

4. Methodology

4.1 Engagement Design

The engagement design was informed by a review of questions and participatory approaches previously used by the Scottish Youth Parliament. Materials were developed to support children and young people to explore and respond to a set of key questions:

• Should parents have a right to withdraw children from Religious Observance (RO)? Why/why not?
• Should parents have a right to withdraw children from Religious Education (RE)? Why/why not?
• Should young people have an independent right to withdraw from RO/RE? Why/why not?
• If young people had an independent right to withdraw, at what age should they gain that right? Should this apply to both RO and RE, or only one?
• What would meaningful participation in this decision-making process look like for children and young people?

The design aimed to support open discussion and reflection, using a range of age-appropriate and participatory activities to enable children and young people to express their views in different ways.

The engagement was grounded in the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) principles, with particular reference to Articles 12 (participation ), 2 (non-discrimination), and 14 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion).

UNCRC Article (from the summary UNICEF document):

Article 12: (respect for the views of the child) Every child has the right to express their views, feelings and wishes in all matters affecting them, and to have their views considered and taken seriously.

How it was demonstrated through engagement:

• Engagement methods were designed to be accessible and participatory (e.g. discussions, activities, visual tools).
• Young people were involved in shaping aspects of the engagement (e.g. materials design, how sessions were run).
• Their views were recorded, valued, and used to inform findings and recommendations.

UNCRC Article (from the summary UNICEF document):

Article 2: (non-discrimination) The Convention applies to every child without discrimination, whatever their ethnicity, sex, religion, language, abilities or any other status, whatever they think or say, whatever their family background.

How it was demonstrated through engagement:

• Two workshops were developed with adapted materials for older and younger ages
• The symbol programme Widgit was used to support all young people with visual understanding.
• Engagement in the community was mostly with neurodiverse young people
• Equal opportunities data was also collected for each child

UNCRC Article (from the summary UNICEF document):

Article 14: (religion) Every child has the right to think and believe what they choose and also to practise their religion, as long as they are not stopping other people from enjoying their rights. Governments must respect the rights and responsibilities of parents to guide their child as they grow up.

How it was demonstrated through engagement:

• Both denominational and non-denominational schools were included
• A safety agreement was agreed at the beginning to set a tone of respect for the different perspectives
• Young people were supported to express their own beliefs, values and perspectives freely through the discussions and activities

These principles shaped both the development of the materials and the approach to facilitation.

Power dynamics were carefully considered when discussing school curriculum and activities, as being within the school setting could influence what young people felt able to say. To mitigate this, teachers were not present during engagement sessions, while still adhering to safeguarding procedures if concerns arose. It was emphasised during consent that views on RO and RME would remain anonymous and would not be shared with teachers or caregivers. Additionally, tools like the Mentimeter and creative outputs were used to give spaces which young people could contribute to when and how they wanted to.

4.2 Young Person’s Steering Group

To support the design and delivery of the engagement, a steering group of four secondary school aged young people was established. Participants were recruited through an existing partnership with a local secondary school. A sample of four pupils was selected, ensuring a balance of gender (two male, two female) and stage (two S2 and two S6). This approach enabled inclusion of perspectives from both younger and more senior learners with differing experience of RME. The role of this group was advisory and not representative.

The group took part in three co-design sessions facilitated by Barnardo’s Scotland, using an iterative, rights-based feedback approach.

• Session 1: Participants were introduced to the project background and reviewed draft materials using a “Bin it, Keep it, Adapt it” approach to vote on each activity. This provided structured feedback on content, clarity, and accessibility. They also selected emojis to show participants in the main engagement that young people had been involved in designing the materials, without revealing their identities.
• Session 2: Participants reviewed a selection of early responses from engagement sessions. This session introduced basic analysis concepts, including identifying themes and grouping ideas. During this session, the steering group identified four core themes, that mirrored those also identified by Barnardo’s facilitators, which informed the structure of the report:

1. ‘It should be your choice’

2. Joint decision making

3. Dependent on age and reason

4. RME is important.

• Session 3: The group reviewed a draft of the report and contributed to decisions about how findings should be presented. This included developing the foreword and reflecting on how to represent views from across different groups.

One young person from the steering group also co-presented the findings from the engagement alongside Barnardo’s staff to Scottish Government and Education Scotland.

We would like to acknowledge the hard work of the steering group. All members received letters of appreciation from the then Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, Jenny Gilruth MSP, along with a reflection sheet from Barnardo’s highlighting the skills they contributed. The young person who presented the findings also completed five hours of involvement and has been formally recognised with a Youth Scotland Hi-Five Award.

4.3 Sessions delivered to schools and community settings

Engagement sessions were delivered in both school and community settings using a range of participatory activities. The activities were designed to facilitate discussion and reflection, using interactive approaches to support engagement and encourage young people to express and explore their views. This helped create a safe and inclusive environment where participants could consider different perspectives on RO/RME and withdrawal. A mix of approaches were used to ensure that those who may be less comfortable sharing their views in a group setting also had opportunities to contribute via written and creative methods. These activities included:

• Sorting Activity (Primary/Secondary): Categorising statements about RO and RE to explore initial ideas and assumptions (see Appendix 1). This was an important activity as we wanted the young people to discuss what in their perspectives RO and RME looked like to them. RO especially was not a term used by young people, so the sorting activity helped to establish the definitions and differences between them.
• Menti (Secondary): Enabled anonymous digital polling, generating word clouds and vote results on key questions, helpful in facilitating more discussion (see Fig. 5). An anonymous space to contribute enables young people to share views that more accurately reflect their true feelings, without fear of repercussions. It can also support neurodiverse young people; for example, using tools like Mentimeter allows participants to focus on what they are typing rather than maintaining eye contact, making engagement more comfortable and accessible.
• Experiences Activity (Primary & Secondary): Sharing and reflecting on any experiences of RO/RE and how these shaped their perspectives about the right to withdraw (see Fig. 7). This provides a foundation for understanding why children and young people may or may not wish to withdraw from RO/RME, either independently or through their parents.
• Participation Timeline (Secondary): Asked pupils to map out when and how children and young people could be involved in decision‑making processes (see Fig.13). This activity aimed to prompt thinking about when decision-making is appropriate at different ages, ultimately leading to the question: at what age do you feel you should be able to challenge decisions about being withdrawn from RO/RME, or choose to withdraw independently?
• Vote Activity (Secondary): Structured voting on issues such as parental withdrawal rights and independent withdrawal rights (see Fig 14). We aimed to capture changes in thinking after young people had heard a range of perspectives. Voting was used before and after a discussion on the pros and cons of withdrawing from RO/RME, providing a simple, low-pressure way to understand how views developed.
• Scales Activity (Primary & Secondary): Explored impacts of giving young people an independent right to opt out of RO and RME, including how this decision might affect their confidence, relationships, learning, and future opportunities (see Fig. 17)
• Decision‑Making Machine (Primary): Creative tool helping children explore how decisions are made and who should be involved (see Fig. 12). For the younger age group, this was delivered as group work to reduce the pressure of speaking individually and instead encourage a more collaborative approach to sharing ideas.
• Evaluation (All Groups): Collected feedback on the session to ensure young people's views shaped future engagement activities (see Appendix 1). This enables us to adapt sessions due to what works for young people and what doesn’t. It also gave us a barometer to whether the young people felt listened to throughout the engagement sessions.

All sessions began with an activity designed to establish a safe and supportive environment, asking participants to identify ‘one thing that would make me feel comfortable in this session’. Some examples of these were:

• Listen to me
• Be respectful
• Be kind

Facilitators used prompts and activities to support participation across different ages and settings. Engagement sessions were delivered across participating schools, with up to four groups per school. Each session involved between five and eight young people, providing a manageable group size that supported meaningful discussion while allowing all participants to contribute. Sessions lasted approximately 50 minutes.

Each session was facilitated by two Barnardo’s staff members: one leading the discussion and activities, and the other responsible for recording key points. Detailed notes were taken to capture emerging themes as well as direct quotes from participants. In addition, written outputs produced by young people during activities were collected and included in the analysis.

Data analysis involved reviewing all notes and written materials and organising the information into key themes, allowing common patterns and differing perspectives to be identified across groups.

Across all activities, Barnardo’s adhered to their Voice and Influence Quality Standards. The measures taken under these standards are detailed in Appendix 2.

4.4 Sampling Strategy

Schools were recruited from a list provided by the Scottish Government and approved by Directors of Education. Barnardo’s met with each school individually, to understand where the groups would best fit with school life. Each school was asked to arrange four groups of eight young people, with the aim of including a mix of backgrounds, identities and experiences.

Percentage (%) of Children and Young People per Local Authority

It was recognised that a school based sample would not fully capture the views of children and young people who are less engaged in formal education or who face barriers to participation. To address this, additional sessions were delivered through Barnardo’s community services. These groups included a higher proportion of neurodivergent young people, many of whom have experienced challenges in school settings.

Overall, 85% of sessions took place in schools and 15% in community settings.

This sampling approach aimed to include a range of perspectives but was not designed to be representative. Findings should therefore be interpreted as qualitative insights rather than generalisable evidence.

4.5 Participant characteristics

In total 195 children and young people took part in the engagement.

• 63% were aged 9 -12 years old, 23% were aged 13 –15 years old, and 15% were aged 16 –18 years old.
• 56% identified as female, 37% identified as male, 5 % preferred not to say, 1% identified as non-binary and 1% as other
• 60% identified as White-Scottish or White-British, while the remaining 40% identifying across a range of ethnic groups (including Asian, Black African, Mixed and other backgrounds)
• 12% identified as having a disability
• 5% identified as care-experienced

This demographic information was collected via an anonymous MS form, whether that was online or a paper copy.

Figures 2-4 provide an overview of the distribution of participants by age, gender and ethnicity.

Percentage (%) of young people per age

Percentage (%) of young people per self-identified gender

4.6 Methodological considerations

This engagement was designed to gather in-depth qualitative insights rather than representative findings. The following considerations should be taken into account when interpreting the findings:

• This work is based on facilitated group discussions and participatory activities. Findings reflect the views expressed by participants in these settings and may be influenced by group dynamics, facilitation style, and the specific framing of questions.
• Participants were recruited through schools and Barnardo’s services, which may introduce selection bias. Schools were identified via the Directors of Education in 5 local authorities proposed by Scottish Government. The remaining 4 local authorities were chosen through Barnardo’s links.
• Participating groups were arranged by schools, which may influence who took part.
• Age distribution was unintentionally skewed toward younger participants. We acknowledge this has implications for the findings, being based more on younger participants’ experiences.
• A range of participatory methods were used to support engagement across different ages and communication styles. Methods such as word clouds reflect frequency of responses but do not capture the strength, nuance, or context of participants’ views.
• The identification of themes was informed in part by the young person steering group. While this supports a participatory approach, it may also shape how findings are organised and presented.
• Quotes are included to illustrate key themes but should not be interpreted as representative of all participants.
• Discussion related to religion, beliefs, and family and school expectations, which can be sensitive topics. Some participants may have been reluctant to express views that differ from peers, family, or school ethos, particularly in group settings.