Schools - religious observance and religious education: consultation analysis

8. Addressing questions about UNCRC compliance

Introduction

Question 4: Do you think the proposed changes offer a reasonable way forward at this time to address questions about UNCRC compliance?

A majority of all consultation respondents (62%) indicate that the proposed changes set out in the consultation paper do not offer a reasonable way forward to address questions about UNCRC compliance, see Table 8.1.

Individual respondents (64%) are more likely to express this viewpoint than organisation respondents (44%) - many organisation respondents also answer ‘No’ to this question, and a sizeable proportion of organisation respondents did not answer the closed question at all. See Appendix A for a breakdown of responses.

Base = 530 (Individuals = 468, Organisations = 62).

A majority of consultation respondents (72%) then provide further qualitative feedback on their response to Question 4. This includes 13 respondents (mainly individual respondents) who answered the closed question but then provide qualitative feedback which does not align with their ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ response to Question 4.

By way of summary, the vast majority (91%) of consultation respondents who provide qualitative feedback to Question 4 identify issues or concerns with the proposed changes – regardless of whether they think the proposed changes offer a reasonable way forward to address questions about UNCRC compliance or not. Many (31%) consultation respondents provide positive feedback about the proposed changes^[5].

Views expressed by those who do not think the changes offer a reasonable way forward

A majority of respondents (62%) (across all organisation and individual sub-groups) do not think the changes offer a reasonable way forward to address questions about UNCRC compliance, see Table 8.1. A vast majority of these respondents provide qualitative feedback, and the main themes are considered below.

Theme 1: The proposed changes do not go far enough to address questions about UNCRC compliance

Many (38%) of the respondents (predominantly other individuals, parents of a school aged child, as well as other organisations) who provide further feedback on why they do not think the changes offer reasonable way forward feel that they do not go far enough to ensure compliance with the UNCRC.

Many of these respondents reiterate earlier points to illustrate what they see as a more effective way to ensure UNCRC compliance. These respondents call for more extensive changes, with suggestions including to:

• allow children and young people to independently withdraw from RO and/or RME, without parental consent – or limit independent withdrawal to RO only, as RME is part of the Curriculum for Excellence
• adopt an opt-in approach for RO/RME for all pupils
• remove RO/RME from all aspects of school life and consider abolishing denominational schools

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

“In a well-intentioned but toothless initiative, in recognition of the UNCRC, the Scottish Government wants young people’s “views to be taken into account” in relation to statutory religious observance. It in no way allows for them to opt out altogether, contravening Article 14, which specifies children’s right to hold no faith” Organisation respondent (Edinburgh Secular Society)

“In our assessment, the existing opt-out provision does not fully align with the UNCRC and must be extended to school pupils. The current guidance on religious observance - while recognising the need to consider pupils’ views - is constrained by the legislation that prohibits pupils from independently withdrawing. By amending the legislation to better reflect the non-statutory guidance without also extending the opt-out provision, the proposed changes fail to address questions about UNCRC compliance.” Organisation respondent (Humanist Society Scotland)

Theme 2: The proposed changes could undermine the benefits of RO/RME and a child’s right to education

Many respondents (across all individual sub-groups, as well as parent organisations, faith organisations and local government) believe that, while the proposed changes aim to enhance compliance with the UNCRC, they may inadvertently undermine pupils’ right to education. These respondents argue that withdrawal from RO/RME could deny pupils valuable opportunities for personal development, ethical reflection and understanding of diverse worldviews - skills they consider integral to Curriculum for Excellence.

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

“Questions about UNCRC compliance require to be addressed across the whole curriculum, not just RME and RO. There is no hierarchy of curriculum areas value in CfE: RME is as baked into the overall curricular experience as all the other curriculum areas. To try to establish some kind of hierarchical value of some curricular areas would result in damaging the integrity of CfE as a whole.” Organisation respondent (The Church of Scotland)

“Refusal to learn about the thinking and values of others is not sound education. The implications of building an education system which allows a child to say, "I don't want to learn about that" makes the building of a broad and comprehensive curriculum impossible and would undermine the core values of the Scottish Educational enlightened tradition.” Individual respondent (Other)

Theme 3: The proposed changes could negatively impact parental rights

Many consultation respondents (primarily parents of a school aged child, and parent and faith organisations) feel that the proposed changes do not offer a reasonable way forward as they could have a negative impact on parental rights, for example under Article 5 of the UNCRC (to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of their UNCRC rights).

These respondents view parents as the ‘first and best educator’ and feel that parental authority is central in guiding children’s moral and spiritual development, in line with their interpretation of the UNCRC. These respondents note that younger children may lack the maturity and capacity to assess the implications of withdrawing from RO/RME and could be more susceptible to peer pressure, or if given the option, would wish to withdraw from other aspects of school education.

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

“Respect should be given to the historic freedoms of parents to educate their minor children in accordance with their own conscience, belief, faith and views on the world. This ensured a diverse and just society.” Organisation respondent (B E)

“The Free Church of Scotland believes the current legislative position is Scotland is compliant with UNCRC. The current provisions respect parental rights by allowing parents to withdraw their children from RO and, in practice, from certain elements of RE if these conflict with their beliefs. This approach aligns with Article 5 of the UNCRC, which emphasises the importance of parental guidance in line with the child's evolving capacities. Parents are recognised as primary educators in matters of faith and conscience, ensuring that decisions regarding RO and RE are consistent with family beliefs. This strikes a balance between a child's developing autonomy and the role of parents in guiding their moral and spiritual upbringing, as acknowledged in Article 14.” Organisation respondent (Free Church of Scotland)

Views expressed by those who think it does offer a reasonable way forward

Many respondents (31%) (across all organisation and individual sub-types) consider the proposed changes do offer a reasonable way forward to address questions about UNCRC compliance, see Table 8.1.

A majority of these respondents provided additional qualitative feedback. These consultation respondents mainly note in their responses that the proposed changes amplify children’s voices, reflecting a rights-based approach aligned with Articles 12 and 14 of the UNCRC. These respondents note it is important that children’s voices are heard in decisions which directly impact them.

Another viewpoint expressed is that the proposed changes balance children’s autonomy with the role of parents, maintaining shared decision-making while prioritising children’s views. These respondents highlight that the proposed changes allow for parents to direct the religious education of their children, upholding Article 5 UNCRC.

A different viewpoint expressed is that the proposed changes represent an incremental improvement, supporting them as a necessary first step toward fuller UNCRC compliance, even if they would like to see further progress over time. These respondents emphasise that the proposal is ‘reasonable’, though caveat their response noting that they would like to see additional changes to legislation, particularly for children to be able to independently opt-out of RO/RME.

Notably, around 80% of those who said the proposed changes offer a reasonable way forward also include caveats in their qualitative responses. Many expressed concerns that the application of changes should vary by school context – for example, across denominational and non-denominational settings.

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

“When parents choose a Catholic school, they are explicitly choosing a school with a Catholic culture and identity. This implies an understanding that RE and RO are integral to how that faith tradition is lived within the school community.” Organisation respondent (St. Modan’s High School)

“SCES continues to respect the right of parents as the first and best educator of their child while also noting the responsibility that those parents who actively opt for Catholic schools have to support the school of their choice when it has a Religious character.” Organisation respondent (SCES)

“I have answered ‘Yes’ (reasonable way forward) on the understanding that in choosing to attend a denominational school, the parent and child are accepting the integral nature of RE and RO.” Individual respondent (Teacher)

Views expressed by those who did not answer the closed question on whether the changes offer a reasonable way forward to address questions about UNCRC compliance

A small number of respondents (7%) (primarily other individuals, schools, local government and faith organisations) did not answer the closed Question 4, see Table 8.1. Some of these organisations explained that they consulted with multiple stakeholders, resulting in a range of different views that could not be easily reduced to a single ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response.

These respondents feel that the complexity of perspectives they gathered made it difficult to choose a definitive response to the closed question. The points raised by these respondents are reflected elsewhere in the report. For example, some argued that in selecting a denominational school, parents are agreeing to their child participating in RO/RME. Others noted that pupils who withdraw from RO/RME may miss out on important educational and personal development opportunities.

The following theme emerged from the other qualitative responses by respondents who did not answer the closed question on whether the changes offer a reasonable way forward to address questions about UNCRC compliance.

Theme 1: Further clarity on the proposed changes and support for schools is required

Some respondents (primarily local government, faith organisations and teacher associations) who did not answer the closed Question 4 consider there to be a lack of clarity on the proposed changes and how they would be expected to be implemented consistently in schools.

Some respondents noted that they require further clarity on the details of the proposed changes as they do not feel that they have a full understanding of what the changes will involve.

Additionally, some respondents feel that there could be further information provided on how the proposed changes would be implemented and the practical implications this may have on schools (for example, requiring additional resourcing and/or staffing).