Schools - religious observance and religious education: consultation analysis

7. Insights into how the right to withdraw currently works in practice

Introduction

Question 3: What insights or experiences do you have regarding how the right to withdraw from RO and RME/RE currently works in schools, including how schools communicate with parents, the pupil’s voice, and the practical application of the withdrawal process?

Around 83% of consultation respondents answered Question 3. The following themes identify the main insights or experiences identified within the consultation responses.

Theme 1: Current withdrawal process – how it works, and what works well and less well

A majority of consultation respondents (all individual and organisation sub-groups) provide details of how the right to withdraw process from RO and RME currently works (or should work) in schools, often drawing on their own knowledge and experience of this, and/or commentary on what works well and/or less well with how the process currently works in schools.

It is important to note that the withdrawal process and the extent to which it works well or less well, may vary between schools and school types. That is, what happens in one school may not happen in another. The consultation responses do not consistently highlight these differences.

How the process works

Where information is presented in consultation responses on how the process works in practice (primarily in local government organisation and teacher association responses) these respondents typically identify element or elements of the process such as:

• information on the right to withdraw from RO and RME is included in communication guides such as the school handbook, or in school leaflets or website
• parents submit a written or verbal request (typically written) to the school to ask that their child is withdrawn from RO and/or RME
• school staff invite all parties (parents, pupil, headteacher or senior teacher) to an in-person meeting to discuss the withdrawal request. Responses note that meetings are used by a school to ascertain the nature of the withdrawal request (to ensure compliance with conscience clause) and to address any questions or concerns a parent may have about the curriculum. Staff are also able to clarify that schools are required to teach RME
• the parent decides to either proceed or withdraw the withdrawal request - if the withdrawal request proceeds, alternative provision to RO and/or RME is offered. Responses note that this includes, for example, home/classwork for other subjects that pupils complete with supervision from another teacher or support staff either on their own, as a part of a group or another class

The following quotes are broadly reflective of the points raised.

“School staff would discuss a request to withdraw a pupil from religious observance and RME/RE to ascertain the nature of the request and discuss any questions or concerns a parent may have about this aspect of the curriculum. Staff are also able to explain that RME/RE is a statutory element of the curriculum and therefore the school is required to deliver the religious education within the curriculum to learners. Alternatives to RO may be offered, however this may lead to potential issues related to staffing and supervision.” Organisation respondent (Perth and Kinross Council, Education and Learning)

“If parent asks for their child to be withdrawn, this is usually a written request delivered by the pupil. In this instance, I would contact the parent to discuss and identify why we do what we do and the benefits that RME offers…Pupil is then accommodated normally in PS [sic] for the period of removal.” Organisation respondent (Denominational High School)

What works less well about the current process

Many consultation respondents (primarily individuals and teachers), based on their experiences, identify issues with how the current process works in practice.

There may be a lack of meaningful educational learning and supervision offered to pupils who are withdrawn from RO and/or RME at some schools

Some consultation respondents (primarily teachers, parent and all organisation sub-groups) suggest that some schools may lack the capacity and resources to provide alternative purposeful educational learning to pupils who are withdrawn from RO or RME. These consultation responses report that withdrawal requests can create logistical and management issues for schools in terms of providing purposeful educational learning and supervision for pupils who are withdrawn, or that it can be a particular challenge for denominational schools as described elsewhere in this report.

These consultation responses also note that pupils withdrawn from RO or RME may also miss out on crucial learning opportunities and that this could lead to social exclusion and ‘othering’ of pupils which goes against the inclusive nature of schools, and that it could also damage pupils’ relationships with their peers.

Where mentioned, alternative purposeful educational learning is said in consultation responses to typically include homework/classwork for other subjects that pupils complete with supervision from another teacher or support staff either on their own, as a part of a group or another class.

These respondents question whether this can always be considered purposeful educational learning. In some cases, consultation responses note that parents are allowed to take their child away from the school, with some raising concerns about the ability for purposeful educational learning to be provided in these circumstances.

A point raised, albeit not by many, is that the perceived lack of alternative purposeful educational learning in some schools could discourage withdrawal requests from RO and RME as pupils do not wish to be excluded or ‘othered’. While this is a minority view, it suggests that some families may weigh the social and educational costs of withdrawal.

The following quotes are broadly reflective of the points raised.

“We have had a small number of children who practice other world religions and have had to be removed from class/assembly etc. any time any religious activity was taking place. This was very difficult to manage as it meant the child being isolated and made different to their peers. This had a negative impact on their relationships within the class.” Individual respondent (Teacher)

“The current legislation stipulates that meaningful alternatives must be provided for children whose parents have opted them out of religious observance. However, we know of many cases where pupils are left to do homework and ‘babysat’ by teachers or administrative staff while their classmates attend religious worship. It is highly debatable whether such practice could be considered a meaningful alternative.” Organisation respondent (Humanist Society Scotland)

“Catholic schools are very clear about Gospel values underpinning culture and ethos. There is therefore a challenge within Catholic schools of identifying time to withdraw from Religious Education as Catholic faith and teaching is evident throughout school day and not only at specified times.” Organisation respondent (Association of Directors of Education in Scotland)

Withdrawal request can be met with resistance and reluctance by some schools

Some respondents (primarily parents) highlight variability in their experience of initiating the withdrawal process across different schools and local authority areas. These respondents say that in some cases it can be a ‘struggle,’ and suggest that schools can respond in different ways to withdrawal requests. They often cite their own experiences either as a child or as a parent of a school aged child and say that their personal experience with the withdrawal process was difficult and that it was met with some ‘resistance’ or ‘reluctance’ from the school. It is further suggested that these issues may stem from individual school leadership rather than a school’s policy or a wider systemic failure.

These respondents add that the process can feel that it is reliant on the proactive nature of the parent in the absence or lack of follow-up communication from the school once a withdrawal request has been submitted (this is discussed further below), and that their experience is that they or their child had to attend RO services or participate in RME due to delays in processing the withdrawal request.

In the absence of standardised follow-up procedures, these respondents note that the onus falls disproportionately on parents, and this may disadvantage families less familiar with the system or less confident in advocating for their rights.

The following respondent quotes reflect some of the points raised.

“A number of non-religious parents have reported facing resistance and undue scrutiny from school leadership when seeking to withdraw their children from religious observance. Parents tell us that school leaders often fail to understand why they wouldn’t want their children to attend religious worship.” Organisation respondent (Humanist Society Scotland)

“In some schools, including the Jewish denominational school, teachers facilitate conversations with the family to ensure that pupil’s views are sought and shared, and, despite practical difficulties, seek to foster an inclusive ethos even when children are withdrawn. There are, however, schools in which pupils are sometimes made to feel ‘other’ if the possibility of withdrawing is even raised let alone acted on.” Organisation respondent (The Jewish Council of Scotland)

Schools could improve communications to parents and pupils about the withdrawal process

As noted above, the school handbook is identified in consultation responses as a key mechanism that schools can use to make parents and pupils aware of the right to withdraw process.

Some respondents (primarily schools, local government, and teachers) suggest that school handbooks can sometimes contain only a brief mention of the right to withdraw - or fail to mention it at all. Another point raised by these respondents is that school handbooks may typically only be available or promoted to parents during secondary school induction. There is a perception that some parents may miss this information and/or may not be aware of the right to withdraw their child from RO and/or RME.

These consultation respondents suggest that increased communication between schools, parents and pupils could increase transparency and awareness of the right to withdraw process. For example, a small number of respondents suggest that annual reminders of the right to withdraw from RO/RME could be communicated to parents.

The following quotes are broadly reflective of the points raised.

“In many cases, communication about the right to withdraw is inconsistent or underemphasised, leaving parents and pupils unclear about their options.” Individual respondent (Teacher).

“EIS members attest that currently whilst young people being withdrawn from, or withdrawing from RO/RME, is not exceptional, it involves small numbers of individuals. Members have queried whether this is a case of most pupils and families ’going with the flow’, and whether consideration has to be given as to how effectively information about withdrawal is communicated, disseminated, and understood.” Organisation respondent (Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS))

The extent to which pupil voice is meaningfully heard and considered may vary from school to school

Some respondents (primarily individual respondents and local government organisations) provide mixed feedback regarding the extent to which they feel the pupil’s voice is actively considered when a parent exercises their right to withdraw their child from RO and/or RME. They suggest that there may be inconsistencies in how schools consider the pupil voice in these discussions, and that additional guidance could help address this issue.

These respondents comment that the most common ways that schools and parents incorporate the pupil’s voice is either through parents having an informed discussion with their child at home regarding their right to withdraw from RO and RME, and that this may then lead to a formal withdrawal request submitted to the school, or a school-facilitated meeting with parent, pupil, and teachers following a withdrawal request.

A common point raised by individual respondents is that in some cases the pupil’s voice may be ‘overlooked’ as the final decision rests with parents. Some responses described cases where a pupil wished to participate in RO or RME but was withdrawn at the parent’s request, and vice versa where a pupil does not wish to attend RO or RME, but their parent has not exercised their right to submit a withdrawal request.

The following quotes are broadly reflective of the points raised.

“The extent to which pupils' voices are considered can vary from school to school. Some schools have robust systems in place, while others might not actively seek pupils' views.” Organisation respondent (Fife Council)

“It is important to recognise, however, that when the parental right to withdraw is exercised, the views of children and young people involved are often overlooked. Ensuring that pupils have a strong voice in decisions regarding withdrawal from RO/RME is therefore long overdue.” Organisation respondent (University of the West of Scotland)”

“Schools often frame RO and RME as mandatory, and pupils’ perspectives are rarely sought. Improving transparency around these rights, normalising discussions about withdrawal, and respecting alternative practices (for example, providing meaningful alternative activities) would create a more equitable and inclusive system.” Individual respondent (Teacher)

“At the moment, we do not tend to discuss this removal with the pupil if it is requested by the parent.” Organisation respondent (Denominational High School)

What works well about the current process

Some respondents (mainly individuals) believe the current process works well.

In particular, they highlight examples where schools have meetings with parents, and that this can help clarify the purpose and value of RO and RME and address any misconceptions. They add that such meetings can be constructive and beneficial for all parties and can, in some cases, lead to a withdrawal request being withdrawn by parents.

The following quote reflects the above point.

“In 20 years of teaching RME I have had several parents wish to remove their students from RME. However, after conversations with parents and explaining what the subject is about in non-denominational schools, there has only been one parent who, for religious reasons, still wanted their young person to not study the subject.” Individual respondent (Teacher)

Theme 2: There have been very low numbers of withdrawals from RO and RME

Some consultation respondents (primarily teachers, faith organisations and local government) report that their experience is that there have been very low numbers of withdrawals from RO and RME, and some also refer to published research in support of this viewpoint.

The standard and non-standard campaign responses note that the SCES 2024 survey of Roman Catholic schools (covering 217 schools or approximately 60% of the Scottish Catholic school estate across Scotland) found that a total of 78 pupils withdrew from RE and 746 pupils withdrew from RO from a total of 83,040 pupils attending the respondent schools - this represents 0.09% and 0.89% respectively. However, this evidence is drawn from one sector and may not reflect patterns in non-denominational schools.

Anecdotal feedback, particularly from teachers, suggests that Jehovah’s Witness pupils account for the majority of withdrawal requests. While this may reflect a genuine pattern in some schools, the evidence base for this feedback is limited.

Respondents point to several reasons why RO tends to attract more withdrawal requests than RME, including its location (for example, held in a church) and the level of active participation involved (for example, passive listening to a prayer versus active involvement in religious rituals such as nativity plays).

Some of these respondents also note that formal withdrawals may under-represent non-participation, as pupils can opt-out passively by not engaging (for example, sitting silently during prayers). This raises questions about how participation is defined and recorded.

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

“We have 5% of our pupils withdraw only from RO when it was within a Catholic Church, and that the same pupils were present in assemblies, remaining when there was prayer in class or at other events, and participating in RE activities both within and out with the classroom.” Individual respondent (Teacher)

“The evidence shows that 34% of the primary schools that responded had requests for withdrawal from RO whereas only 17.5% of secondary schools had similar requests. 12% of secondary schools had requests from RE withdrawal but only 6% of primary schools had similar requests. From the 217 submissions it is noteworthy that:

• 144 (66%) had 0 requests for either RE or RO withdrawal
• 10 (5%) schools had requests for both RE and RO
• 5 (2%) schools had requests only for RE withdrawals
• 58 (27%) schools had requests only for RO withdrawals”

Organisation respondent (SCES)