Schools - religious observance and religious education: consultation analysis

3. Views on the proposed changes

Introduction

Question 1: What are your views on the proposed changes, including in terms of practicality for schools and ease of implementation?

Almost all consultation respondents (97%) answered Question 1.

As Question 1 was open-ended, responses varied widely in scope, ranging from expressions of general support to detailed reflections on implementation.

There is significant overlap in the consultation responses provided to Question 1 and Question 2. Question 2 asks consultation respondents for their views on any positive implications of the proposed changes as well as any negative implications and how any negative implications could be mitigated.

Given the thematic overlap between Questions 1 and 2, this section focuses specifically on respondent views regarding the principle and practicality of the proposed changes, while implications are discussed in the next section.

In analysing the qualitative responses to Question 1, we have sought to gauge the extent to which respondents who have answered the question are supportive or otherwise of the proposed changes, and the reasons provided, and/or consider the implementation of the proposed changes easy or otherwise, and the reasons provided.

Extent to which consultation respondents are supportive or not of the proposed changes

The vast majority (87%) of consultation respondents who answered Question 1 express a view on their level of support for the proposed changes. There are then two main groupings, comprising:

• consultation respondents who do not express support for the proposed changes
• consultation respondents who express support for the proposed changes, including those who caveat their positive response in some way

Theme 1: Consultation respondents who do not express support for the proposed changes

A majority (70%) of consultation respondents who expressed a view on the proposed changes oppose them. This group includes individuals across all sub-groups and a number of organisations (primarily but not limited to faith organisations and parent associations).

Qualitative responses can be clustered under several themes which reflects the diversity of viewpoints expressed.

Among those respondents who do not express support for the proposed changes, many (32%) expressed a concern that the proposed changes are insufficient to uphold children’s rights as enshrined in the UNCRC. These responses tend to support greater autonomy for pupils in opting out of RO/RME, or those who advocate for an opt-out or opt-in approach.

Further, consultation respondents who answered Question 1 and express a view on their level of support identify various reasons why they do not support the proposed changes. In order of frequency (from highest to lowest), other points raised are presented below.

Parental rights could be diminished

Some consultation respondents express concern that the proposed changes to give due weight to children and young people’s views when parents exercise their right to withdraw their child from RO and RME could diminish parental rights. Some respondents either note that young children or all school aged children are too young to make important or informed decisions regarding their participation in RO/RME, and that parents are better placed to make decisions in the best interests for their child, including choice of school/education.

The important role, benefits and value of RO/RME could be undermined

Some consultation respondents feel that the proposed changes could undermine the important role, benefits, and value of RO/RME. Points highlighted include that: pupils derive a range of learning and personal development benefits from participation in RME; it is an integral or distinctive component of the curriculum; the proposed changes could undermine RO/RME and dilute its impact; and/or pupils should not be able to be withdrawn from RME as they are not allowed to be withdrawn from other aspects of school education.

The proposed changes would be difficult for denominational schools in particular to implement

Some consultation respondents emphasise the distinctive approach of denominational schools, in that RO and RE are embedded and integrated into the daily life of a school and into delivering the school mission and vision. Their view is that the proposed changes would be difficult for denominational schools in particular to implement. Further comments include that as parents have selected a denominational school for their child then there should be an ‘expectation they take part in all aspects of that school’s curriculum’ or that ‘many families, regardless of their own faith, choose these schools because of their faith-based environment, and there are no barriers to pupils participating and learning in this setting.’

There should be no mandatory requirement for schools to provide religion in school

Some consultation respondents express that RO/RME should not be part of the school curriculum. They suggest that removing RO/RME from state schools would simplify the system, or that all schools should be non-denominational. Further, others specifically suggest participation in RO should be a personal choice.

Others argue that religion is a private matter best explored at home or in a place of worship. Some also suggest that an opt-in approach may be more appropriate than an opt-out system.

There is no need for legislative change to the 1980 Act

A small number of consultation respondents emphasise that the right to withdraw from religious lessons has always existed in Scotland and that existing guidance asks schools to consider pupils’ views on RO and RME. A view expressed is that current arrangements work well in practice and that additional guidance to local government and to schools may suffice.

Theme 2: Consultation respondents who express support for the proposed changes, including those who caveat their positive response in some way

Of those who expressed a view, 30% are broadly supportive of the proposed changes, although many qualified their support with concerns or caveats. This viewpoint is expressed by individual respondents (all sub-groups, and primarily teachers) and organisation respondents (primarily but not limited to some local government, schools, and teacher associations).

Supportive respondents often framed the proposed changes as a timely and reasonable step towards greater inclusion of children and young people’s voices in decisions affecting their school experience.

Supportive respondents generally highlighted the following reasons for their support, including that the proposed changes are a rights-based reform that would bring Scottish legislation into alignment with the UNCRC, uphold children’s rights, and/or who emphasise the important role that RO/RME plays in a school setting. Others consider the proposed changes a necessary safeguard against undue parental or institutional pressure to adopt particular religious beliefs through school education.

Some respondents appear to advocate for changes beyond the scope of the proposal - such as an independent right for pupils to withdraw themselves from RO/RME - which may reflect either a misunderstanding of the current proposals or a desire for more comprehensive reform.

A majority of supportive respondents express some concerns and caveats to their support, focusing on either the adequacy of the proposed measures or practical barriers to implementation. Concerns raised include that:

• the proposed changes ‘do not go far enough’ to align with the UNCRC – these consultation respondents feel strongly that children and young people should be able to independently opt-out of RO/RME
• there could be issues and challenges for schools implementing the proposed changes – for example, challenges related to: timetabling; the distinctive approach within denominational schools; and in schools ensuring purposeful educational learning for pupils who are withdrawn from RO/RME
• in finalising the proposed changes, the Scottish Government should give due consideration to other factors – several respondents recommend that final decisions consider factors such as the pupil’s age and maturity, the reasons behind withdrawal requests (for example, conscience versus preference), and concerns about the conflation of RO and RME in the consultation paper (as described in Chapter 2)

Practical issues of the proposed changes for schools and ease of implementation

Many consultation respondents (across all individual and organisation sub-groups) - regardless of their level of support for the proposed changes - identify concerns about how practical the proposals would be for schools to implement. As some respondents misinterpreted the level and nature of the proposed changes, this may have influenced how they responded to this question.

Some respondents also emphasised that ease of implementation should not outweigh children’s rights when a decision about the final legislation is made.

“Practicalities should never override the pupil’s right to participate or otherwise in RO or RME.” Individual respondent (Teacher)

“Ease of implementation should not be a deciding factor in this much overdue change. However, clear messaging should come from both the Scottish Government and local authorities to support Head Teachers and schools through the change.” Individual respondent (Teacher)

Theme 1: The proposed changes would create issues and challenges for schools and for families

A majority of consultation respondents who identify issues in terms of the practicality for schools and ease of implementation consider that the proposed changes would pose a range of issues for schools and/or for families. This viewpoint is expressed by individual respondents (all sub-groups and primarily teachers) and by organisation respondents (all sub-groups).

The range of issues raised within these consultation responses are captured in Chapter 5 (Negative implications of the proposed changes), Theme 2. These include increased financial cost implications for schools, increased administrative burden placed on schools, additional workload pressure and strain, increased logistical, timetabling and staffing challenges as well as time and capacity constraints for schools and teachers to formally process withdrawal requests and initiate and facilitate family conversations.

Theme 2: The proposed changes should be easy for schools to implement

A small number of mainly individual respondents feel the proposed changes should be relatively easy for schools to implement. Some described the changes as ‘practical and straightforward to implement’ or noted that ‘the logistics are manageable and align with existing inclusive practices in many schools.’

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 and RME into legislation.

However, these responses do not make it clear whether their comments apply universally or primarily to certain types of schools - for example, non-denominational schools.