Schools - religious observance and religious education: consultation analysis

Executive summary

Introduction

This summary provides an overview of the main findings from the independent analysis of the Scottish Government consultation on proposals to amend the legislation on religious observance (RO) and religious and moral education (RME) in schools to support alignment with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

More specifically, the consultation sought views on proposed changes to section 9 (conscience clause) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (‘the 1980 Act’) to give due weight to children and young people’s views when parents^[1] are exercising their right to withdraw their child from RO and RME^[2]. The proposed changes would effectively align legislation with the existing Scottish Government guidance on RO which notes that pupils’ views should be considered.

Consultation responses

A total of 530 validated responses were included in the analysis. The vast majority (88%) of consultation responses are from individuals, with the remainder (12%) from organisations.

A good mix of responses were received from individual respondents, including parents of a school aged child, teachers, and other individual respondents (for example, parents of a non-school aged child, grandparents, retired teachers). The number of responses to the consultation from pupils was low, and the Scottish Government is undertaking direct engagement with children and young people, including with members of the Scottish Youth Parliament, to address this issue.

Responses from faith organisations and schools accounted for nearly half (47%) of all organisation respondents. This is followed by local government, parent organisations, teacher associations, and other organisations.

Two campaign responses were identified, including one from the Scottish Catholic Education Service (SCES) and one which could not be attributed to a specific organisation.

Setting the consultation analysis in context

It is helpful to consider the consultation analysis within the context of the challenges that may have shaped how respondents engaged with the questions. While these may have influenced individual responses, the analysis still provides a valuable overview of the range of views expressed.

The following is based on EKOS’ review of the consultation paper and of the consultation responses.

Brevity of the consultation paper

The Scottish Government consultation paper was specifically designed to be brief for ease of reading and to encourage more responses to the consultation. Details of the precise mechanism for implementing the proposed changes were limited, as this aspect of the policy was still under development and the intention was that the consultation responses could help inform these considerations. However, the limited detail may have contributed to varied interpretations of the level and nature of the proposed changes to section 9 of the 1980 Act. Respondents may also have found it difficult to make an informed response to some questions.

Respondents also strongly called for further clarification and comprehensive guidance from the Scottish Government on how the proposed changes are expected to be implemented consistently in practice. To further illustrate this point, respondents requested clarity on how ‘due weight’ would be defined in legislation and on how schools would be expected to resolve differing views among parents and their child when parents exercise their right to withdraw their child from RO/RME.

Misinterpretation of the level and nature of the proposed changes

As indicated above, the varied interpretations influenced how some respondents answered specific questions, with both supportive and unsupportive responses often based on the assumption that changes would give children and young people a new right to withdraw independently.

The consultation paper conflates RO and RME

Some respondents highlighted that the consultation paper appeared to conflate RO and RME (by grouping them together in both the consultation paper and in legislation). Analysis of responses was more difficult where respondents were not explicit about whether they are referring to RO or RME or both when answering the question set. Some respondents also raised concerns that this conflation reinforces misconceptions - particularly that RME promotes a single worldview - rather than reflecting its intended pluralistic and inclusive approach.

Key findings

Respondents who do not support the proposed changes

When looking at the only closed question asked in the consultation paper (Question 4), a majority of all consultation respondents (62%) indicate that the proposed changes do not offer a reasonable way forward to address questions about UNCRC compliance. Individual respondents (64%) are more likely to respond in this way than organisation respondents (44%).

When analysing the wider consultation responses of respondents who do not support the proposed changes, many expressed the view that the proposed changes ‘do not go far enough’. Here, there are two clear groupings:

• some respondents strongly support allowing children and young people to independently opt-out of RO/RME regardless of their parents’ views
• others suggest that an opt-in approach would be more appropriate, reflecting Scotland’s increasingly secular and religiously diverse society

The consultation responses also identify a much wider set of reasons why these respondents are not supportive of the proposed changes. The range of points raised centre on concerns about:

• a perceived negative impact of the proposed changes on parental rights
• the potential of the proposed changes to undermine the important role, benefit, and value of RO/RME – as well as the potential to diminish the value and viability of the RME curriculum
• challenges in implementation of the proposed changes, in particular for denominational schools, given the central role played by religious faith in these schools’ ethos and practice, and the associated difficulty of extricating a pupil from all experiences which are influenced by the school’s faith character

Another view among those seeking more significant reform is that schools should not be required to provide RO at all.

Respondents who support the proposed changes

Similarly, when looking at the closed question within the consultation paper, many consultation respondents (31%)^[3] indicate that the proposed changes do offer a reasonable way forward to address questions about UNCRC compliance. A relatively similar proportion of individual and organisation respondents shared this view.

Supportive responses generally highlight that the proposed changes are a right-based reform that would bring Scottish legislation into alignment with the UNCRC, uphold children’s rights, and/or emphasise the important role that RO/RME plays in a school setting. There is a view that the proposed changes are a necessary safeguard against undue parental or institutional control over pupils’ religious freedom and choices at school.

Note: some of these respondents (across both categories) may have misunderstood the nature and level of the proposed changes, as described earlier.

Further, many of those respondents who express support for the proposed changes caveat their response in some way, namely that:

• there are some who feel that the proposed changes ‘do not go far enough’ to align with the UNCRC – as pupils would not be able to independently opt-out of RO/RME
• there are those who feel that other issues would need to be given due consideration and clarification – such as the pupil’s age and maturity, the reasons behind withdrawal requests (for example, conscience versus preference)
• additional support and resource may be required to support schools with implementation (as considered further below)

Challenges in implementing the proposed changes

Regardless of whether consultation respondents support the proposed changes or not, a majority of consultation respondents consider that they will pose a range of issues for schools and/or for families.

The main concern raised relates to the practical and logistical challenges that schools may face, for example, should there be an increase in the number of withdrawal requests (albeit as noted above, some respondents have misinterpreted the level of the proposed changes). These include challenges such as managing the withdrawal process, designing alternative learning activities for pupils who are withdrawn from RO/RME, providing a teacher to supervise or teach them, and handling potential disputes.

To mitigate this issue, respondents commonly identified a need for additional support for schools, including financial and staffing resources, as well as workforce development and training.

Wider challenges in implementation identified by respondents are reflected in the narrative above – for example, some respondents feel the changes may be particularly challenging for denominational schools, where RO/RME is closely tied to the school’s ethos and daily practice, and where parents may have chosen the school for this reason.

A smaller number of consultation respondents (primarily individual respondents) who comment on the practicality for schools feel that the proposed changes should be relatively easy to implement. They argue that schools already consider pupils' views in a range of contexts. In their view, the proposed changes would simply formalise existing Scottish Government guidance on considering pupils’ views on RO.

How the current process for withdrawing pupils from RO/RME works in practice

A majority of consultation respondents provide details of how the withdrawal process from RO and RME currently works (or is intended to work), often drawing on their own knowledge and experience, and/or commentary on what aspects of the current process work well or could be improved. Further, some consultation respondents also note that withdrawal rates are low, citing sources such as the SCES 2024 survey of Roman Catholic Schools.

Many consultation respondents who provide feedback on what works well and/or less well with the process identify areas that could be improved. Points raised include that there is a perception of inconsistency across schools, particularly in how meaningfully the pupil’s voice is heard and considered, and that some schools may lack capacity and resource to provide alternative purposeful educational learning to pupils who are withdrawn from RO or RME.

A small number of respondents report that some schools have been hesitant or reluctant to accommodate withdrawal requests. Further it is suggested that communication between schools and parents could be improved to ensure that all parties clearly understand the withdrawal process, and that meetings involving the school, parents and pupils are considered constructive and helpful.

Effective mechanisms when considering withdrawal from RO or RME

A majority (55%) of consultation respondents who answered the question about effective mechanisms for ensuring pupils’ views are considered during withdrawal from RO or RME provide suggestions. The remainder of respondents (45%) either left the question unanswered or reiterated points raised in response to previous questions.

The main point raised by those respondents who identify effective mechanisms when considering withdrawal from RO or RME, is to build on existing mechanisms schools have for engaging pupils and asking for their views and/or to develop new mechanisms.

Suggested approaches include: standardised tools such as age-appropriate polls, surveys, questionnaires, and/or consultations; safe and supported conversations and discussions to gather pupils’ views on RO/RME and possible alternatives if withdrawn – as well as involving pupils in conversations about RO and RME and in the planning and celebration of RO; and using existing forums such as pupil parliaments or class/pupil/student councils to promote open dialogue – though some raise concerns about how representative these forums are.

Further suggestions include staged conversations, where pupils first share their views independently with a teacher, followed by joint discussions with parents, and designated staff advocates to support pupils in expressing their views and ensuring they are respected.

Wider themes that emerged from the consultation analysis include: mechanisms for schools to educate and communicate with parents and pupils on the purpose and benefits of RO and RME, and to involve all parties in discussions when a parent exercises their right to withdraw their child from RO and RME; and guidance and support for schools to support consistent implementation of the proposed changes.

Further, in line with earlier points, some respondents also propose establishing a mechanism for children and young people to independently opt-out of or opt-in to RO and/or RME.

Impact of proposals on children’s rights and equalities

Of the 53% of respondents who answered the consultation question on the potential impact of the proposed changes on children’s rights and equalities:

• the vast majority (84%) identify a potential negative impact – for example, some of these respondents suggest that the proposed changes could have a negative impact on a child’s right to education or that the changes do not uphold children’s rights (as pupils would not have a right to independently withdraw from RO/RME)
• some (27%)^[4] identify a potential positive impact – for example, some of these respondents suggest that the proposed changes could have a positive impact given that children and young people would continue to have a voice/say in the process when their parents exercise their right to withdraw them from RO/RME

However, it is important to note that respondents were also separately asked what they anticipate being the main positive implications of these changes in general terms – including for schools, pupils, parents, and any financial implications. A majority of the 95% of respondents who answered this question identify positive implications of the proposed changes, including a broad view that the changes are reflective of a ‘rights-based’ approach which respects and upholds children’s right to freedom of thought, religion and belief. Examples of positive implications identified by respondents include:

• listen to children and young people’s views and involve them in discussions about their school experience, including on RO/RME
• increase awareness and discussion of the purpose and value of RO/RME as part of a holistic education, and provide an opportunity for greater dialogue and discussion between all parties (that is, pupils, parents, teachers)
• improve in pupil morale and confidence