Schools - religious observance and religious education: consultation analysis

4. Positive implications

Introduction

Question 2a: What do you anticipate being the main positive implications of these changes, including for schools, pupils, parents, and any financial implications?

Circa 95% of all consultation respondents answered Question 2a but not all responses identify positive implications of the proposed changes. Rather, many respondents (all individual and organisation sub-groups) who answered Question 2a either:

• stated there would be few or no benefits (often tied to concerns about parental rights, curriculum value, or legislative necessity)
• used the space to reiterate concerns already raised
• left Question 2a unanswered, typically indicating that they are not supportive of the proposed changes at Question 1 or Question 4

A majority of the consultation respondents who answered Question 2a, however, identify positive implications of the proposed changes as described below.

Theme 1: Strong support is expressed for listening to children and young people’s views and involving them in discussions about their school experience, including on RO/RME

The vast majority of consultation respondents (all individual and organisation respondent sub-groups) who identify positive implications of the proposed changes to the 1980 Act express strong support that children and young people’s views and voices are heard in discussions about their school experience and in matters which directly affect them, including what they learn and are taught at school.

This is broadly viewed as positive and reflective of a ‘rights-based’ approach – these consultation responses often comment that the proposed changes would ‘respect’ and ‘uphold’ children and young people’s right to freedom of thought, religion, and belief, and ‘could open up a healthy discussion’.

This viewpoint is further reflected in consultation responses which express support that pupils would be ‘empowered’, and their voices would be ‘clearly heard’ and their personal beliefs, views, and opinions ‘considered’, ‘respected’, and ‘valued’ in discussions when parents exercise their right to withdraw their child from RO and RME. It is also acknowledged that the proposed changes ‘reflects existing practice’ or would give children and young people ‘more control’ over their learning and their own life, and to make their own decisions.

The following respondent quotes are broadly reflective of the comments made by these respondents.

“Pupil voice should be central, but it needs to be well informed and supported.” Individual respondent (Parent of a school aged child)

“For pupils, it should be down to personal choice - personal freedom and agency should be paramount in schools. Empowering young minds to think for themselves.” Individual respondent (Parent of a school aged child)

“Aligning us with the UNCRC and giving us the ability to listen to and respect a young person’s perspective on this.” Individual respondent (Teacher)

“The positive implications of such amendments align with pupil rights, promoting positive family relationships and bringing greater legal clarity, aligning policy with practice.” Organisation respondent (North Lanarkshire Council)

While support for a rights-based approach was widely shared, a number of responses refer to ‘empowerment’ and ‘personal choice’ in ways that may reflect a broader aspiration than the actual scope of the proposed legislative changes. These responses highlight strong alignment with the principles behind the change, even where the detail may not have been fully understood.

Theme 2: The proposed changes do not go far enough

While supportive of the general intent of the proposed changes, many consultation respondents (across all individual and organisation respondent sub-groups) feel that the proposed changes ‘do not go far enough’. This theme represents a more radical stance than the general support for a rights-based approach and generally reflect a belief that the current proposals represent a minimum step and fall short of real legislative alignment with Scotland’s children’s rights obligations.

This viewpoint is further reflected in consultation responses which recognise that the proposed changes to the 1980 Act are for example, ‘moving in the right direction’ or ‘insufficient to align with UNCRC’. The range of different viewpoints expressed by consultation respondents who feel that the proposed changes do not go far enough include that the changes:

• do not bring Scottish legislation into alignment with the UNCRC – they do not give children and young people the right to independently opt-out of (or opt-in to) RO at school, and breach children and young people’s right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion
• are inconsistent with the approach taken to young people in Scots law (for example, 16-year-olds can vote, join the army, and leave school without parental consent)
• do not reflect the fact that a majority of Scotland’s population, including the school-age population, is non-religious

The following respondent quotes are broadly reflective of the comments made by these respondents.

“We support the principle of embedding children’s right to have their views heard in legislation, no matter the issue at hand. The fact remains, however, that existing non-statutory guidance already instructs schools to consider pupils’ views on the provision of religious observance. Whilst the right to withdraw from religious observance remains reserved to parents, the positive implications of this proposal for young people will be extremely limited.” Organisation respondent (Humanist Society Scotland)

“The proposed legislation is a small step towards quite rightly reducing imposition of religious observance on children and young people in a country where the majority of the population, according to the latest national census, is non-religious.” Individual respondent

Theme 3: Other positive implications of the proposed changes

Many consultation respondents identify wider positive implications of the proposed changes in their consultation response. These are anticipated or potential implications, which are often not evidenced or made clear how these outcomes could be achieved. The proposed changes to legislation could:

• improve pupil morale and confidence
• encourage local government and schools to refresh their policies and guidance (for example, to make clear the process for withdrawal and the positive reasons for participation in RO/RME), as well as encourage schools to think carefully about meeting the pastoral needs of their pupils (improvements in the delivery of RO/RME) and involve pupils in the planning and delivery of interfaith RO, and promote a more inclusive school environment
• 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)
• enable conversations about the role that faith still plays in a secular society
• ensure that those who wish to participate in RO/RME can do so without disruption, while providing an alternative for pupils who do not wish to take part (for example, allowing them to use the time for other subjects or independent study)

The following respondent quotes are broadly reflective of points raised under this theme.

“More time on subjects with better life prospects and career opportunities. Better morale in students as their voice heard be it for learning about faith or against.” Individual respondent (Teacher)

“Pupil voice-especially with regard to choosing and planning assemblies and RO.” Individual respondent (Teacher)

Theme 4: Schools and/or parents would not be able to unduly restrict children and young people’s religious freedom at school

Some individual respondents feel that giving due weight to children and young people’s views when parents withdraw their child from RO and RME is a necessary safeguard against undue parental or institutional pressure to adopt particular religious beliefs through school education.

However, a number appear to interpret the proposals as enabling pupils to independently withdraw themselves from RO/RME, which is not the intention. Under the proposed changes a pupil could potentially override parental wishes to remain in RO/RME, but they would not be able to withdraw themselves against parental wishes.

The range of points raised by respondents who expressed this viewpoint is that protecting pupils’ religious freedom in this way could: ensure that children and young people are not required to participate in RO/RME against their wishes; support children and young people in making their own choices about their education and personal beliefs; or lead to a more integrated society.

The following respondent quotes are broadly reflective of the points raised under this theme.

“Freedom of choice and lack of indoctrination.” Individual respondent (Parent of a school aged child)

“Children should be able to make their own choice as to whether or not they attend religious observation in line with their human rights.” Individual respondent (Parent of a school aged child)