The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Religious Observance in Scottish schools: Report on the Consultation

two: overview

2.1 Introduction

We begin our report of the findings with a brief overview of the results of our analysis of the responses to the consultation exercise. ( See Appendix 2 for an annotated version of the questionnaire.) One of the first steps was to determine who had responded to the Consultation Paper - either by submitting a questionnaire, or by making their views known to us via other forms of written submission. It is to this issue that we now turn. We conclude this section by outlining the main messages to emerge from the consultation exercise.

2.2 The respondents

We received a total of 1,473 submissions via the consultation questionnaire. Of these, 70% were from individuals, and 30% were responses made on behalf of an organisation. ( See Appendix 3 for a complete list of the responses from organisations.) Table 2.1 below presents an overview of the respondents, broken down by category.

* Including 109 CARE for Scotland (Christian Action Research and Education) lobby (7% of total responses or 18% of all public/other responses).

There are a number of caveats that should be borne in mind when interpreting these data. Firstly, it transpired that a substantial number of returns (c. 130 - 9% of all responses) originally categorised as being 'individual' responses from members of the public in fact represented the views of an organisation that had organised a lobbying campaign (Christian Action Research and Education - CARE for Scotland). In our subsequent analysis of the questionnaire responses, we have therefore treated some 'individual' responses as part of an organisational response in order not to give undue weight to particular opinions. This is common practice in consultation exercises.

2.3 Representativeness

Table 2 indicates that the two largest categories of questionnaire respondents (apart from members of the public) were primary and secondary headteachers and teachers; and representatives of the Church of Scotland. These two groups accounted for 33 per cent and 12 per cent respectively of the total number of responses received.

It appears that the efforts of RORG to encourage representatives from other faiths to participate in the consultation exercise have met with limited success. Only a small minority of responses (2%) were from representatives of other faiths (or, in the case of the Humanists and other secular respondents, of none). This finding is difficult to interpret, and caution should be exercised in attempting to adduce explanations. However, it is important to reiterate the lengths to which the members of RORG went in order to include a diverse range of faiths in the consultation, and to include the voice of young people.

It appears that the RORG's effort to make the consultation paper as inclusive as possible, although ostensibly welcomed by the majority of respondents (68%), has in effect served to polarise the debate. As we shall see, the questionnaire elicited some strong views, particularly from those individuals and organisations that considered that the consultation paper represented a threat to the range of religious practices that they espoused.

The relatively small number of responses from denominational schools is perhaps an indication that 'religious observance' is a less contentious issue in this context.

It is also encouraging that so many local authorities have taken the opportunity to respond to the consultation ( see Appendix 3 for a full list); and that the consultation exercise has ignited a far wider debate on the role and status of religious observance in a multicultural society.

2.4 The main messages

We conclude this section with a brief summary of the main messages to emerge from the consultation process. We shall explore these in greater depth later in the report. Readers may wish to refer to the annotated version of the questionnaire ( see Appendix 2) at this point.

2.4.1 Definition and aims

• There was broad agreement with the definition of 'religious observance' proposed by RORG. Sixty-four per cent of respondents (across all groups) either 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed' with the description of religious observance as 'community acts which aim to promote the spiritual development of all members of the school community and express and celebrate the shared values of that community.'
• However, analysis of the open responses submitted by both individuals and organisations revealed that the terms 'spiritual development' and 'shared values' were highly contested; and the distinctions between religious observance and religious and moral education (RME) unclear. Both the General Teaching Council for Scotland and the Scottish Parent Teacher Council expressed major reservations about the use of terms in the consultation paper. Perhaps the most contested term of all was 'religious observance' itself. The organisational response from one key stakeholder group, the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland (ADES) expressed the view that 'there is a strong case for moving away from the term Religious Observance'.
• A substantial minority of individual respondents and representatives of the Church of Scotland disagreed with the proposed definition of religious observance (n 234; 46% and n 67; 42% respectively). From the responses to the open question it appears that they considered the 'inclusiveness' of the consultation paper and the breadth of the aims of religious observance contributed to the erosion of the position of Christianity in Scottish schools and in the wider community.
• There was broad agreement with the statement that the aim of religious observance is to promote the spiritual development of all members of the school community (30 per cent 'strongly agreed' and 47 per cent 'agreed'). However, we draw the reader's attention to the caveats raised above and explored in greater depth in Section 3.
• There was broad agreement with the statement that the aim of religious observance is to express and celebrate the shared values of the school community. (Twenty-four per cent 'strongly agreed' and 40 per cent 'agreed'.) Once again, we draw the reader's attention to the caveats raised above.
• A sizeable minority of Church of Scotland ministers and/or school chaplains also disagreed with the aims of religious observance as set down by RORG; (n 26; 16% with Aim 1; n 70; and almost half - 43% with Aim 2).
• The range of views expressed by primary headteachers and teachers in the section - the largest group of respondents excluding members of the general public - was narrower. Only 23 (7%) expressed disagreement with the definition of religious observance; and there was a greater consensus with the aims as defined by RORG. However, in their responses to the open question, a small minority of primary and secondary (head)teachers made explicit reference to other pressures (e.g. lack of time and the demands of the curriculum) that made the implementation of religious observance more difficult.

2.4.2 An inclusive approach

• The consultation paper was generally regarded as a 'helpful' and 'inclusive' document by all categories of respondent, including those few representatives from minority faiths.
• The two groups which expressed the greatest reservations in this regard were the representatives from the Church of Scotland; and members of the public - a substantial number of whom (c 109) were responding on behalf of CARE.
• RORG's efforts to adopt an inclusive approach were widely acclaimed as laudable. However, there was a strong current running through the responses to the open question that the inclusive approach might be pursued more effectively through the existing channels of Religious and Moral Education (RME), and to a lesser extent Personal and Social Development (PSD).
• However, analysis of the responses to the open question indicates some endorsement of the involvement of other faiths and religious leaders in the organisation and delivery of religious observance; and, on the other hand, endorsement of the role played by the chaplain.

2.4.3 A general assembly

• The responses to Questions 5 and 6 ( see Appendix 2) generally indicate that there was a perceived need for some form of communal reunion within schools: there was considerable support for what might be described as the 'PSD assembly'; and also for meetings involving smaller groups of pupils. These views were echoed amongst participants at the Church of Scotland Young People's Forum.
• There appeared to be a number of practical difficulties associated with organising assemblies: dealing with disruptive behaviour; and identifying meaningful activities for those children whose parents had chosen to withdraw them from religious observance. There was almost unanimous support for the parental right to withdraw. Indeed it was suggested by a number of respondents (including representatives of key stakeholder groups such as the Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association and the Humanist Society of Scotland) that parents and pupils should opt in rather than have the right to opt out.

2.4.4 Frequency of opportunities for religious observance

• The main message in respect of the frequency of religious observance was the emphasis on quality rather than quantity. This view was endorsed by several key stakeholder groups including the Church of Scotland Committee on Education and The General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTC); the Advisory Council of Learning and Teaching Scotland (LTS), the Association of Christian Teachers (Scotland) and the Scottish Parent Teacher Council.
• The majority of primary headteachers and teachers who responded (n 194; 65%) believed that primary school children should have opportunities for religious observance at least once a week; however, a sizeable minority (n 85; 24%) considered that opportunities for religious observance should be offered on regular occasions at the school's discretion. (See the point made in 2.4.1 above in respect of other pressures on the education system.)
• The majority of secondary headteachers and teachers (n 63; 51%) thought that the opportunities for religious observance should be provided at least once a month; a substantial minority (32; 26%) thought that the school should be able to exercise more discretion in respect of the frequency of opportunities for Religious Observance. This view was also supported by the Headteacher's Association of Scotland, the Advisory Council of LTS and the Scottish Parent Teacher Council.
• In contrast, 43% (n 222) of the members of the general public who responded would like daily opportunities for religious observance in secondary schools; 50% would welcome daily opportunities in primary schools.
• Over 70% of respondents in the 'other educational interest group' category ( see Table 2.1) were, at the very least, in favour of the maintenance of the status quo in respect of the frequency of opportunities for religious observance in the primary and secondary sectors. ( See Appendix 4 for summary tables.)

2.4.5 Practical guidance and support

• There were a number of specific requests for guidance and practical advice. However, few practical suggestions were forthcoming, and the exemplar provided ('A Muslim Story') received a fairly lukewarm reception: only 19% of primary headteachers and teachers and 4% of secondary counterparts found it 'very helpful'; and 19% of Church of Scotland ministers/chaplains described it as 'not at all helpful'. It was considered to 'tend towards RME, but with an ethical edge'. Specific criticisms included that it was 'unrealistic' for use in a large groups; and that it lacked indications as to the age group for which it might be suitable.

2.5 Moving on ...

We hope that this overview of our findings has served to orient the reader; and also to draw attention to the complexity of some of the issues raised by the consultation exercise and the diversity of opinion generated by it. In the succeeding sections, we will look at some of these in greater detail, and begin to draw out some of the implications of some of the findings. We begin by looking at how some of the key terms used in the consultation paper were construed by the respondents.

« Previous | Contents | Next »