Schools - religious observance and religious education: consultation analysis

5. Negative implications

Introduction

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

Approximately 85% of all consultation respondents answered Question 2b.

The vast majority (93%) of consultation respondents who answered this question identified negative implications of the proposed changes. Only 7% of respondents stated that they did not see any negative implications associated with the proposals.

The following themes present the main negative implications identified within the consultation responses.

Theme 1: The proposed changes would undermine the important role, benefit, and value of RO/RME

Many consultation respondents (primarily individuals such as teachers and parents and organisations including faith organisations, schools, local government, and parent organisations) who identify negative implications of the proposed changes emphasise that pupils who are withdrawn from RO/RME may miss out on key knowledge, learning, and understanding, and that it may also undermine the educational framework.

The majority of these responses consistently highlight that RME offers several key educational benefits, such as:

• (when delivered inclusively) RME allows pupils to be exposed to a diverse range of views and cultures and helps them to develop a well-rounded knowledge and understanding of various religions and of the views of people of no faith
• helping pupils to develop empathy, respect, and tolerance, reducing prejudice and fostering understanding across different faiths and cultures
• enabling pupils to develop vital listening skills and an opportunity to hear other points of view and perspectives and to discuss and debate issues in a safe and supportive environment

Points raised on RO include that it: provides a structured setting for exploring ethics and spirituality which supports character, education, and moral development; and helps to fulfil the aims of Curriculum for Excellence around holistic development and complements other aspects of education and learning, while also promoting the shared vison, values, and ethos of schools by bringing pupils together and creating a sense of identity and community.

Related points made by these consultation respondents include that some children may feel ‘overwhelmed’ or ‘pressured’ into making a choice on whether to participate or not or ‘may not have the cognitive maturity’ to weigh the long-term consequences of making such a decision - and withdraw from RO/RME prematurely without a full understanding or knowledge of an integral part of their learning, personal and social development, and connection to the school community.

In addition, they suggest that withdrawal from RO/RME could result in increased social exclusion for those pupils who are withdrawn from shared activities, such as assemblies or seasonal celebrations - that is, it could create an ‘unintentional divide’ or that pupils withdrawn from RO/RME may feel ‘left out’, ‘excluded’ ‘different’, or ‘stigmatised’ in some way.

Further, faith based schools and organisations with a particular religious character (and individual respondents) emphasise in their consultation response that the proposed changes would be difficult for these schools to implement (as described earlier in Chapter 2).

Theme 2: The proposed changes could create a resource issue for schools

Many consultation respondents (across all individual and organisation sub-groups) who identify negative implications indicate that the proposed changes may result in a resource issue for schools if there is a large increase in withdrawal requests from parents and/or pupils. For example, a large increase could be driven by pupils being influenced by peer pressure rather than personal conviction, or due to a lack of interest, or without the pupil experiencing or fully appreciating what it is about.

While the resource concerns are legitimate, some responses may reflect misunderstandings of the proposals’ scope.

A viewpoint expressed is that the proposed changes could place an increased burden on schools and create significant logistical issues – at a time when schools’ financial and staff resources are considered ‘stretched’. This may exacerbate the situation for schools who require to arrange, accommodate, and manage meaningful alternatives, curricular options, and learning opportunities for pupils who have been withdrawn from RO/RME.

A common set of issues and challenges are raised within these consultation responses, including that the proposed changes could:

• have increased financial cost implications for schools arising from implementing the proposed changes and/or result in schools diverting funding from core educational activities – for example, costs associated with managing the withdrawal process, designing alternative learning activities for pupils who have been withdrawn, providing a teacher to supervise or teach pupils who been withdrawn from RO/RME, and handling potential disputes
• increase the administrative burden placed on schools – for example, implementing systems to consult pupils about their participation in RO/RME, managing the process, managing adjustments to classes and timetables, ensuring alternative activities align with the school’s ethos, and managing school attendance
• create additional workload pressure and strain – additional time and resources may be needed for planning, staff training, revising policies, and creating alternative activities for pupils who have been withdrawn from RO/RME
• create logistical, timetabling, and staffing challenges – arranging supervision and classroom space, as well as minimising any disruption to classroom dynamics
• create time and capacity constraints for schools and for teachers to formally process withdrawal requests and initiate and facilitate family conversations – in particular where there may be differing views between a pupil and their parents in respect of withdrawal from RO/RME (see Theme 3 below)

Theme 3: Lack of clarity regarding family conflict resolution and decision-making hierarchy

Some consultation respondents (primarily individual respondents across all sub-groups and local government and faith organisations) who identify negative implications of the proposed changes raise concerns related to the potential for increased family ‘conflict’, ‘disagreement’, ‘dispute’, ‘division’, or ‘friction’. This could be in situations where the child or young person materially disagrees with their parents about whether or not to withdraw from RO and/or RME or if parents disagree, and the child or young person sides with one parent against the other.

There is common and consistent feedback that such situations could lead to the potential ‘breakdown of relationships’ and ‘trust’ between families and schools and/or have a negative impact on family unity and harmony.

Further, these consultation respondents often call for greater clarity from the Scottish Government on how the proposed changes are expected to be implemented consistently and how they would work in practice. Further guidance is requested from the Scottish Government, with points raised under this theme captured in Chapter 2 (for example, how schools would be expected to respond where there are differences in the views of the parents and the child or young person).

A related point, albeit reported by a small number of respondents under this theme, is that any ambiguity in the legislation could lead to disputes or challenges, potentially resulting in ‘legal costs for schools or local authorities.’

The respondent quotes below are broadly reflective of the viewpoints expressed under this theme.

“The consultation paper is silent about any proposed hierarchy for decision-making in such a case, and we suspect it will be left to schools to initiate and facilitate the family conversations envisaged above – without additional financial, staffing, or expert resources.” Organisation respondent (Jewish Council of Scotland, formerly the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, SCoJeC)

“Strained relationships may arise if there is disagreement over participation in religious education, leading to further complications within families. Who would decide what was in the ‘best interests’ for the child/young person if there was a dispute?” Organisation respondent (Falkirk Council, Education Services)

“Concern amongst our Roman Catholic schools emphasises the importance placed on the role that parental guidance plays in the spiritual journey of a child as they grow and how a school would respond where there is a material difference between the views of child and family. This contributes to a wider concern that clarity should be given over what would prevail between the views of young people if at odds with the views of parents. Consistency is important.” Organisation respondent (Aberdeen City Council)

Theme 4: The proposed changes could undermine or erode parental rights

Some consultation respondents (primarily individual respondents across all sub-groups as well as faith organisations, schools, and parent organisations) who identify negative implications of the proposed changes believe that the proposed changes could undermine or erode parental rights to make decisions for their child. This includes in decisions to shape their child’s moral and religious upbringing through education, and in guiding young children who may not yet have the maturity to make informed decisions about participation in RO or RME.

The standard and non-standard campaign responses related to the SCES response also consider that the proposed changes would undermine the parental authority of those who ‘actively choose Catholic schools for their child or children’. The points raised are reflected in the respondent quote below.

“Should the Scottish Government extend the ‘conscience clause’ to include the right of the pupil to have due weight given to their views when their parents are exercising the right to withdraw from RE and RO, we would hope that pupils, having understood the reasons why their parents had chosen for them to attend a Catholic school, would still want to participate as enthusiastically as they do now. We hope they would see the positive benefits that participation in experiences that reflect their school community’s beliefs have for their future role within Scottish society.” Organisation respondent (Scottish Catholic Education Service)

Theme 5: The proposed changes could diminish the value and viability of the subject and have wider implications for the school curriculum

Some consultation respondents (primarily individual respondents including teachers and parents of a school aged child and all organisation sub-groups except organisations in the ‘other’ category) who identify negative implications of the proposed changes feel that it could diminish the ‘value’ and ‘viability’ of RME as a subject and ‘set a precedent’ for withdrawing from other aspects of school education.

Common points raised by these consultation respondents include that if the proposed changes lead to a significant increase in the number of pupils withdrawn from RME then this could diminish the importance, worth, and value of RME in schools and diminish the status of one of the eight curriculum areas in Curriculum for Excellence.

Related points include that this could: lead to a decrease in the number of young people continuing to study the subject in the senior phase of their school education; lead to reduced access to RME in schools; affect the viability of the subject in schools, and result in the loss of experienced staff (job losses); and affect school attendance more generally.

The above points are also reflected in the standard and non-standard SCES campaign response which also notes that RO/RME:

“…have an important part to play in the development of the learner and complement other aspects of learning, while also promoting the ethos of the school by bringing pupils together and creating a sense of community. For Catholic denominational schools this ethos reflects the shared vision, values, and aims relevant to the school and its community and has the traditions, beliefs, and faith practices of the Catholic Church at its heart.” Organisation respondent (SCES)

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

“If however, RME is treated like any other subject then there is no need to offer the right to withdraw. The right is not offered in any other subject across the broad general education and is only offered in RME based on an outdated understanding of the subject being taught.” Organisation respondent (Glasgow City Council)

“Increased withdrawals from RME and RO could lead to further withdrawals from other core subjects, in the sense they may not be attending RME period 3, so do not bother to return for periods 4 and 5, or even the rest of the day. This would be very harmful to pupils’ attendance, wellbeing, and achievement.” Organisation respondent (School Leaders Scotland)

Theme 6: The proposed changes do not go far enough

Some consultation respondents (primarily but not limited to other individual respondents and other organisations) who identify negative implications of the proposed changes reiterate a view that the proposed changes ‘do not go far enough’. There is a repetition of views provided at earlier questions as reflected in the following quotes.

“It should not be reliant on parental choice, with the risk of continued pressure on children to participate.” Individual respondent (Other)

“There is no change to the current regulation given that only parents can choose for their kids. Why should parents have this control? For some families it might be dangerous that traditionalist parents even know about their children's choices.” Organisation respondent (Edinburgh Secular Society)

“In many cases, the views of school pupils would continue to be ignored if they did not align with those of their parent/guardian and their school. Children and young people’s decision-making capacity would continue to be undermined. Problematic assumptions regarding unity of belief within families and the scope of parental responsibilities would persist.” Organisation respondent (Humanist Society Scotland)