The Parental ‘Right to Withdraw’ from RME in Scotland’s Non-denominational Schools

Dr. David Lundie of Glasgow University has been organising and chairing a series of  online ‘Holyrood Faith Debates.’ The most recent of these, on 23rd February 2021, explored the issue of whether the current parental ‘right to withdraw’ pupils from Religious and Moral Education (RME) should itself be withdrawn. Dr. Lundie (University of Glasgow), Graeme Dixon (Aberdeen University) and Joe Walker (Senior Education Officer, Education Scotland, with the remit for RME, Psychology, Sociology and Philosophy) each shared brief presentations. Graeme Dixon reviewed the case for deleting the ‘right to withdraw’, Joe Walker set out clearly the current context and curriculum of RME in the non-denominational sector, and Dr. Lundie shared summaries of UK research on the ‘right to withdraw.’

It was interesting, and somewhat surprising, to discover how few parental requests for withdrawal from RME and RO are actually made. Dr. Lundie quantified the figures: 270 withdrawals were requested in 2016 in Scotland from a total of 684,415 pupils[1] (0.04% of pupils). More anecdotally, Joe Walker mentioned that in 27 years of teaching RME, he had received two parental requests for withdrawal, both of which were dropped when the content and teaching methods of the RME curriculum were explained to the concerned parents.

Dr. Lundie summarised his contribution to recent research with school staff on the parallel right of withdrawal in England’s schools[2]. A survey form sent to the Headteacher of every one of England’s 25,193 had resulted in 434 completed responses. This was a sufficient sample size to draw ome clear conclusions. While 72% of the schools reported that they had at some point received requests for withdrawal of pupils, in 99% of the schools this amounted to fewer than ten pupils – a fraction of their whole school rolls. Two-thirds of the schools reported that, at the point of the survey, they had no pupils currently withdrawn from RME. Lundie & O’Siochru’s research paper examined those occasions on which withdrawal had been requested and found that in the majority of these instances the request was for partial withdrawal (i.e. from only one aspect of the English RME curriculum), usually predicated on an anti-Islamic, and therefore racist, basis.

Those taking part in the debate represented Schools of Education and of Law from several Universities, Education Scotland, The Humanist Association, the Equality & Rights Commission, and CVE Scotland. In the ensuing discussion there was a very clear and overwhelming consensus of opinion that it may be time to remove the ‘right to withdraw’ from RME in Scotland. The grounds for this were numerous:

• Given the small numbers involved, the ‘right’ is simply redundant and irrelevant
• The framework of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child positively promotes development of beliefs, and respect and tolerance of beliefs: withdrawing students arguably contradicts the Convention
• The ‘right to withdraw’ is an anachronism that was designed in 1872 to protect the right of non-Presbyterian families to withdraw from Religious Instruction. Given that our RME is now non-confessional, philosophically neutral, and consciously inclusive, there are no grounds for withdrawing as protection from proselytism or indoctrination.
• To ‘withdraw’ from RME is not simply a case of dropping one subject area. Within the Curriculum for Excellence, the skills and capacities relating to beliefs and the development of values are cross-curricular and it is difficult to see how elements of RME can be disentangled from the rest of CfE.
• RME is central to the acquisition of values, to the formation of character and capacities, and to the creation of responsible citizens and effective contributors. It is more important than ever that RME is taught. It is a subject of rising, rather than diminishing, importance.

The discussion was inevitably curtailed by the short time-span available but covered some very interesting ground.  Dr. Lundie made the point that the data on English withdrawals from RME had often centred around racist motivations – and countering such racism and extremism is itself a strong argument in favour of preventing withdrawal from a curriculum which reinforces tolerance, understanding and mutual respect. Another point raised by several contributors was the constant confusion and blurring between RME and Religious Observance (RO or ‘Time for Reflection’). The two need to be distinguished from one another. The tension between offering pupils ‘experiences’ of faith while maintaining a non-confessional position is also a fine line to navigate.

The representative of the Humanist Association suggested that, as a matter of balance, if the ‘right to withdraw’ is removed then the current specifications of providing benchmarks for Christianity (detailing, for example, learning about Jesus and about bible stories), but not for other faiths and beliefs, should also be removed. However, my personal feeling is that a better balance – more in keeping with the inclusiveness of the Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) – would be to allow other faiths and beliefs to specify benchmarks. Joe Walker had also made the point earlier that the teaching of RME in Scotland’s non-denominational schools is already non-confessional, non-mandatory and that there is no National Curriculum for RME in Scotland. The contexts for learning in RME can already be determined by each school as long as they can show it meets the capacities and aims of the CfE.

So what do you think?!

Steve Younger

[1] https://www.gov.scot/publications/summary-statistics-schools-scotland-7-2016/pages/5/

[2] Lundie, D.  and O’Siochru, C. (2019) The right of withdrawal from religious education in England: school leaders’ beliefs, experiences and understandings of policy and practice. British Journal of Religious Education,

https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/206096/7/206096.pdf

Responses and comments can be emailed to cve@cve-scotland.org.uk or messaged/posted on the relevant social media posts.