The Children, Young People and Education Committee of the Welsh Parliament has now published its Stage 1 Report on the Curriculum and Assessment (Wales) Bill, which quotes and discusses my written evidence in relation to proposed changes to the teaching of religion in Welsh schools. For a discussion of the proposed changes see my previous blog post.
The Report supports the change in name of Religious Education to Religion, Values and Ethics (RVE) and the removal of the parental right to withdraw noting that ECHR rights will not be breached if ‘in all schools parents can elect for their child to receive objective, critical and pluralistic RVE provision’ (para 558). And it concludes that there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure this (560). However, it does call on the Welsh Government to make available its draft RVE guidance (561). It also states that it would be inappropriate to use the Bill as a vehicle to legislate in relation to collective worship (637).
There are three particular points of controversy, however, where the Report cites my written evidence and makes recommendations to the Welsh Government:
Teaching RVE in Schools with a Religious Character
Under the Bill, schools with a religious character will usually have to have two versions of RVE: denominational RVE reflecting the religion of the school and non-denominational RVE reflecting the agreed syllabus of the locality. Non-denominational RVE would be the default in foundation and voluntary controlled schools with parents having the right to opt for denominational RVE instead. In voluntary aided schools, the reverse would be the case with denominational RVE as the default and parents being able to opt into the non-denominational RVE.
The Report discusses the concerns about there being more than one syllabus in schools with a religious character. It quotes my argument that the agreed syllabus should be available in all schools with denominational RVE being supplementary (581). It notes that this argument was also made by Estyn (the inspections body) and the National Secular Society.
The Minister is quoted as responding to this concern by recognising that this will have an impact on schools but because ‘the number of parents who previously withdrew their child from RVE was negligible our expectation is that this will be mirrored with this proposal’ (596). She added that funding would be made available for the Catholic Education Service and the Church in Wales to ‘develop further guidance to support denominational RVE’.
This response is, in my view, unconvincing. The number that currently opt out of denominational RE does not affect the point of principle here that all Welsh pupils should have non-denominational RVE as the default. Moreover, giving funding to faith groups to support denominational RVE misses the point: if funding is needed then surely it should be for them to develop their non-denominational RVE. And such funding should not be specifically for faith groups given that such RVE is taught in all schools. (The Report recommends that a framework is provided for the core professional learning, resources and specialist support needed to deliver the necessarily objective, critical and pluralistic teaching of RVE under the New Curriculum’ (648). This is to be welcomed).
The Report concludes that ‘as a minimum – the ability for parents to require that their child receives agreed syllabus RVE is a necessary safeguard’ (600). But on the potential impact of there being more than one syllabus it concludes that they ‘remain to be convinced that the practical impact of these provisions will be as significant as feared by some’ (601). The Report bases this on the fact that some schools in some circumstances are already required to provide more than one type of religious education, that faith groups and schools emphasised that the RE they provided was already objective, pluralistic and critical and that few parents withdrew their children from it.
Again, these reasons are not convincing. It is currently rare that there would be more than one type of RE while under the new provisions it would become the norm in schools with a religious character. The Report is right to express faith group’s concerns that there is no evidence that current RE in schools with a religious character is not objective, pluralistic and critical. But there is also no evidence that it is objective, pluralistic and critical either.
The Report considers, however, whether children’s rights could be further realised by requiring all schools to provide agreed syllabus RVE, either on its own or supplemented by denominational RVE (611). It notes that this would raise concerns about breaches of trust deeds but that it is difficult to come to a view on the issue as the Committee ‘are not party to schools’ individual trust deeds and cannot be certain what will be included in the agreed syllabi’. It notes that the Bill as drafted would leave it possible for schools to ‘prepare one syllabus that complies with both requirements for denominational RVE and any agreed syllabus’. The Report asks the Minister in consultation with the Children’s Commissioner for Wales to explore further ‘the options to further realise children’s rights in relation to the Bill’s provision for the mandatory element of RVE’ (612).
This recommendation is welcome and it is to be hoped that the argument for non-denominational RVE as the default will at least be considered. It would be preferable too for denominational RVE to always be in addition to non-denominational RVE rather than replacing it.
There are two other recommendations of note in relation to RVE in schools with a religious character:
The Report also asks for clarification as to why the Bill does not include a right for learners of sufficient maturity to choose the RVE provision they receive where a choice exists (610).
In the Bill as drafted, voluntary aided schools are required to design a syllabus that ‘accords with’ the agreed syllabus while other schools are just required to have ‘regard to’ it. The Report recommends that the Welsh Government clarifies during the Stage 1 debate whether there could be consistency between the different types of school in relation to this (603).
The ‘Mainly Christian’ Requirement
The Report also mquotes my concern that retaining the current legal requirement that teaching in schools should reflect that fact that the religious traditions of Great Britain are mainly Christian ‘is likely to encourage both a Christian bias and a conservative approach’ and that ‘it would be advisable to enshrine the pluralistic requirement in legislation’ (592).
The Minister is cited as saying that the reference to Great Britain is consistent with current provision but that she has asked her officials ‘to consider whether this is something that could be revisited for government amendments at Stage 2’ (598). The Report recommends that the Government ‘explore options to amend the Bill to refer to religious traditions and non-religious philosophical traditions in “Wales” as opposed to “Great Britain”’ (613).
This recommendation is again welcome. However, my concern was not about the words ‘Great Britain’ but about the reference to Christianity. The wording does need to change but this change needs to remove the ‘mainly Christian’ reference.
SACREs
The Report also discusses the position on SACREs and cites my written evidence that questioned the need for local SACREs and locally agreed syllabi ‘given the nature of the new curriculum (which will be created at a school level) and the fact that there will be statutory guidance’ (624).
The issue was not raised directly with or commented on by the Minister (625). The Report recommends that the Government proceed with its plan to change the title of SACREs but ‘that consideration be given to addressing concerns raised by the need to be clear about what Standing Advisory Committees (SACs) exist to advise on’ (626) and the balance and fairness of their composition particularly in relation to voting rights (627).
This recommendation is welcome as far as it goes. An argument can be made that SACs should play a minimal role, which further underlines my argument quoted in the Report that consideration should be given of whether there should now be just one Wales wide SAC.
Overall, the Report gives the green light to the Welsh Government’s bold proposals. However, it is clear that there remains a number of points that are left to be resolved. There remains the scope for the Welsh Government to be even bolder and this is needed to achieve its policy objective.
Russell Sandberg 