The ninth, and final, theme within the ASL Review is “Assurance mechanism and inspection” – which sounds dull, but it extremely important. After all, there is little point in having a review and publishing a report filled with recommendations if no-one is making sure that those recommendations are actually being put into practice and making a difference for children with additional support needs.Continue reading “Potential Energy (Part 10)”
Following consideration of Theme 1: Vision and visibility, we turn our attention to Theme 2: Mainstreaming and inclusion. This obviously covers a lot of the same ground as the revised “Guidance on the presumption to provide education in a mainstreaming setting” on which I recently completed a ten-part series of blogs. You can read my conclusions on that guidance in Mainstreaming, I presume? (Part 10).
Thankfully, this review reaches many of the same conclusions about mainstreaming, and explicitly adopts many of the key concepts and principles from the guidance:
- the review confirms that the “physical presence of a child” in a mainstream school alone does not constitute inclusion;
- it adopts the four principles of inclusion from the guidance – present, participating, supported and achieving; and
- it underlines the importance of inclusion “in the life of the school” which includes the playground, school trips, sporting events, social events and being “visible as part of the community”.
Continuing our consideration of the ASL Review Report, the main section of the report begins with “Theme 1: Vision and visibility”. This covers two big issues. One is that there is no defining national agenda or narrative in relation to additional support needs, demonstrated perhaps by their absence from the National Improvement Framework. The second is that the term “additional support needs” continues to be misunderstood and misinterpreted, with the result that particular groups of children and young people who are covered by the law missing out on their rights in practice.
As you may have read elsewhere, the Humanist Society of Scotland are bringing a judicial review against the Scottish Government’s decision not to review the law in relation to religious observance in schools. At present, the law affords an opt-out for parents, but not for children.
- Humanist Society Press Release
- Humanist Society Briefing
- Scottish Government letter, which is the subject of the challenge
Following on from recommendations from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child at the last UK “inspection”, the Humanist Society called upon the Scottish Government to review the law to allow older children to take their own decision. The Scottish Government have refused, stating:
“There is no equivalent statutory right to withdraw afforded to children and young people. However many schools will find it helpful and sensible to include young people in any discussions about opting out, ensuring their wishes are aired.”
My own views on this are already on record elsewhere, and have been for some time:
“The right to withdraw from religious instruction or observance is given to the parent of a pupil, rather than to the pupil themselves. In light of more recent legislation, including the Human Rights Act 1998 (cf. art.9: freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and the Equality Act 2010, schools should also have regard to the views of the child in relation to such matters.”
And what does the law actually say? It can be found in three main places, which is not always appreciated. As always the legislation is written as if all children have only one parent (or two who always agree on everything) – there is no rule for what happens if parents disagree about religious observance!
First, Section 9 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 sets out the basic rule, under the section heading “Conscience clause”, which is to the effect that the parent of a pupil at a public school has the right to withdraw them from “any instruction in religious subjects” and “any religious observance” in any public school or grant-aided school. Interestingly, the term “pupil” is used here, rather than child – so the right remains with parents in relation to pupils even after they have turned 16. Remember also that this is a right to withdraw, not a right to ensure participation. Arguably – and this may indeed be what the Scottish Government end up arguing – a child or young person who wishes to withdraw from religious observance could insist on other rights (the Human Rights Act 1998 or Scotland Act 1998 in terms of their Article 9 rights) to achieve that result. There is nothing in this preventing the school from granting such a request.
The children’s rights issue arising from Section 9 would be where a pupil wishes to participate in religious observance – and is prevented from doing so by reason of a parent’s withdrawal request. An interesting cause for the Humanist Society to be taking up!
Section 10 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (“Safeguards for religious beliefs”) applies to pupils who board at a residential school (or at a hostel for educational purposes). This affords parents the right to insist on the child being permitted to attend worship, receive religious instruction and participate in religious observance in accordance with the tenets of their parents’ religion. There is no equivalent to this for the child, but again the duty on the school is to permit the child to do these things (outside school hours and not incurring unreasonable costs) – there is no requirement to compel the pupil to take part. Nor is there anything preventing the school from allowing the pupil to participate in worship in relation to their own religious beliefs (if they differ from those of their parents).
Finally, Regulation 12(3) of the Schools (General) Regulations 1975 applies to pupils at a special school (includes a special unit within a mainstream school). This ensures that no education authority may compel a pupil to attend religious observance or receive religious instruction against the wishes of their parents. Further, it requires the authority to give the parent an opportunity to express their wishes – a requirement not present in the other sections. Again, the children’s rights issue which may arise is that of a child who wishes to attend religious observance – although this could be permitted, so long as it is not compelled!
The law is no doubt in need of revision – even the terminology barely fits modern educational practice – particularly in non-denominational schools. However, the Scottish Government’s position is that the law does comply with pupils’ Convention Rights (when read with the guidance and Curriculum for Excellence). Given the nature of the duties set out above, this may just be correct – although there may be a question mark over how well schools understand this. If there is an area where the law may breach a pupil’s Convention rights it is for the child who wishes to attend religious observance, but is prevented from doing so because of their parent’s decision to withdraw them.