Schools - religious observance and religious education: consultation analysis

6. Addressing any negative implications

Introduction

Question 2c: How might any negative implications best be addressed?

Around 75% of all consultation respondents answered Question 2c, with many offering multiple suggestions for how to address the potential challenges of the proposed changes.

Theme 1: Provide schools with guidance, resource, and support with implementation

Some consultation respondents (primarily teachers and other individual respondents and local government and teacher association organisation respondents) suggest that providing additional support and resource to schools could help address the negative implications of the proposed changes. There is a call for clarity in the legislation and in the guidance provided to schools and to parents to help ‘avoid any confusion’. Specific points raised relating to guidance are captured in more detail in Chapter 2 and have not been repeated here.

The main point made by these consultation respondents is that additional resource may be required to ensure schools have the capacity and capability to implement and deliver the proposed changes, and to support schools to deal with the range of practical and logistical challenges that may arise. Additional resources, including financial support, staffing, workforce development and training, and materials such as the provision of templates and tools, were emphasised.

Theme 2: Leave the current legislation as it stands

Some consultation respondents (21%) who provide suggestions for how to address the potential challenges of the proposed changes suggest that leaving the current legislation unchanged could mitigate the negative implications. This viewpoint is primarily expressed by parents of a school aged child and other individual respondents, and a small number of other organisation respondents.

Within the individual respondent consultation responses, this viewpoint is reflected in various comments such as ‘drop the proposal’, ‘scrap the proposal’, ‘leave the legislation as is’, ‘keep the status quo’, ‘the questions make the assumption that such an exercise is necessary’, and ‘keep the system of choice for parents’.

The most commonly cited reason put forward by individual respondents and other organisation respondents for not expressing support for the consultation exercise and/or for the proposed changes is that they consider the current legislation/ guidance sufficient.

Further individual consultation respondents note in their responses that children and young people may lack the maturity or capacity to make an informed decision about their participation in RO/RME, and/or that the final decision should rest with parents.

Within these consultation responses, some respondents further suggest that there could be a regular review of each withdrawal throughout a child’s education, or for older children and young people to be able to make their own informed decision about their participation in RO/RME regardless of their parents’ view. A small number of individual respondents argue that the consultation and proposed changes represent a ‘waste of taxpayers’ money’, and that funding would be better directed toward educational attainment or activities that directly benefit children.

Theme 3: Educating and communicating with parents and with pupils on the purpose and benefit of RO/RME

Some consultation respondents (across all individual and organisation respondent sub-groups) suggest that upfront, clear, and ongoing communications between schools, parents, and with pupils (and faith leaders where appropriate) could help address the negative implications of the proposed changes.

It is suggested that such an approach to communications with parents and pupils throughout a child’s education journey could foster open, honest, and transparent communication and debate and lead to increased dialogue between all parties. For example, it could help ensure the issue of participation/withdrawal is discussed on a ‘mutual basis’, help navigate ‘differing perspectives’ sensitively and cooperatively, and help ‘prevent conflicts’. They suggest it could also help to avoid any confusion or ambiguity in the legislation and/or guidance.

A common suggestion is that schools should be supported in equipping parents and pupils with the necessary information to make informed decisions about the child or young person’s participation in RO/RME. Consultation respondents suggest communications that:

• set out the purpose and scope of the proposed changes - emphasising that the changes complement rather than override parents’ rights, and to improve parents understanding that their child or children have a right to have their views heard and be involved in discussions
• assure parents that their views in guiding their child’s education will be not ignored as part of the process – and to articulate the benefits of including children and young people’s voices in these conversations, discussions, and in decision-making
• communicate the purpose of RO/RME to parents and pupils to increase knowledge and understanding, including on the rationale for RME’s inclusion as part of the Curriculum for Excellence, and on the syllabus – to show that it offers educationally valuable knowledge, learning, and experiences for pupils
• assure parents of the quality and objectivity of the RME learning experience – including efforts to enhance the quality and appeal of RME to make it more appealing and engaging for pupils

Some of these consultation responses suggest that communications could take the form of short videos, information leaflets, letters, and information provided on the school website and through its social media channels as well as through meetings involving the school/teacher, parents, and pupils.

Theme 4: The proposal should be amended to allow children and young people to independently opt-out of RO and/or RME (or opt-in)

Some consultation respondents (primarily other individual respondents and other organisation respondents) reiterate an earlier viewpoint that pupils should be able to opt-out of RO/RME independently, without parental consent, as a way to address negative implications of the proposed changes.

Where further explanation is provided, responses fall into one of two categories:

• other individual respondents typically say that children and young people should be able to independently opt-out of RO/RME as there should be no religion in a school setting and/or if the current legislation that mandates the provision of RO/RME in schools remains in place
• while other organisations say that children and young people should be able to independently opt-out of RO/RME to protect freedom of religion and belief and individual choice, and to ensure compliance with the UNCRC

Additionally, some respondents suggest that an opt-in approach to RO/RME could be more appropriate.

Theme 5: There should be no instruction in religious subjects or RO in schools

Some consultation respondents (all individual respondents, primarily other individuals followed by parents of a school aged child) object to religious instruction and RO in schools. These consultation respondents commonly note in their responses that negative implications of the proposed changes could be addressed by ensuring that publicly funded schools do not promote a particular religious faith or be required to hold RO, or by removing (or minimising) RO in schools – these respondents suggest that learning about religion is more appropriately done at home.

Theme 6: RME should be broad, balanced, and inclusive

Some consultation respondents (primarily but not limited to individual respondent sub-groups) suggest making RME more ‘broad’, ‘balanced’, and ‘inclusive’ could help mitigate the negative implications of the proposed changes. This is reflected in comments which reiterate the wide ranging benefits of participation in RME for children and young people in a school setting - if it is delivered in a pluralistic and inclusive way.

These responses emphasise that the RME curriculum is designed to be ‘educational and informative’ and to provide opportunities for pupils to learn about a ‘range of religious and belief systems’ - for example, these respondents believe that non-denominational schools provide the ‘facts rather than advocating a pupil to become a follower of any particular religion or set of beliefs’.

Further, a small number of individual respondents suggest that rebranding RME to ‘Cultural, Moral and Philosophical Studies’, teaching ‘morality without the religious aspect’, incorporating ‘philosophical content’ into the RME curriculum, and/or teaching a ‘basic understanding of all major religions/beliefs systems’ could help avoid parents withdrawing their child or children from RO/RME because the teaching and learning experience does not fit with their own religious views.

Theme 7: It is difficult to overcome the negative implications

Some consultation respondents (mainly individual respondents such as teachers, and schools and local government organisations) suggest that it may be very difficult to overcome the negative implications of the proposed changes or address their concerns.

The main points raised by these consultation respondents are that it would be practically impossible for a denominational school to remain true to its identity, ethos, mission, and values, and that schools where RME and RO are not fully supported could see a decrease in participation that leads to removal of the subject specialism being timetabled or planned for pupils.

Related points raised by a small number of individual consultation respondents are reflected in the quotes below.

“Parents and pupils who are not willing to participate in the faith life of the school they choose should reconsider attending the chosen school to begin with.” Individual respondent (Parent of a school aged child)

“In the case of family disputes concerning pupils at schools with a particular religious character, since the family has already effectively opted in to the ethos by selecting that school, we suggest there should be a strong presumption against withdrawal.” Organisation respondent (Jewish Council of Scotland)