THE HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS OF THE REMOVAL OF THE ‘RIGHT OF WITHDRAWAL’ FROM RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN WALES: WHAT, PRECISELY, IS PLURALISM?

asecularhuman

TO INCLUDE AN ANALYSIS OF THE CHURCH IN WALES AGREED SCHEME OF WORK FOR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 

February 2020

1.0 ABSTRACT

This paper is written in response to the Welsh Government Consultation on ‘Ensuring Access to the Full Curriculum’ and the proposed removal of the ‘Right of Withdrawal’ from religious education.  We are sadly compelled by the Welsh Government’s failure to consider, let alone understand, let alone give due regard to the numerous and significant human rights implications emerging as a direct result of this policy change; and the consequential and substantial impact that its implementation will have on the rights of children in Welsh schools of a religious character. 

Further, we afford greater scrutiny to the implementation in Wales of ‘Article 14 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.’ An Article that defines the religious rights of children, which addresses freedom of conscience, thought and religion, and which – given the assurances set out in the ‘Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011’ – places an obligation on the State not to indoctrinate in any particular religious conviction. 

Further still, we attempt to disassemble a fundamental and common defence argument by evidencing that schools of a religious character do not presently teach religious education in a pluralistic or objective way; nor are they being obliged to do so.  For this to be successful, we are required to define and establish what pluralism encompasses in the context of religious education, and thereafter outline the legislative obligations in place that should ensure that this definition is being met by all State parties, in all contexts.

The State must, in order to comply with its international human rights obligations, avoid a situation where the differences applied to the teaching of Christianity – in state-funded schools – as compared to that of other religions and philosophies, are not only quantitative but also qualitative. 

We hereafter attempt to define whether this proposed policy change, and the consequences thereof, fulfils these clear and justifiable obligations. 

2.0 STATE INDOCTRINATION: FOLGERØ AND OTHERS V/ NORWAY

To begin, and quoting from the Welsh Government’s own consultation document on proposals to ensure access to the full curriculum for all learners:

“The courts have established that RE must be taught in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner; in particular, the state is not permitted to pursue an aim of indoctrination.”

One of those courts was the European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR], who, in 2007, sat to hear Folgerø and others v/ Norway. In a judgement dated June 29th, 2007, the ECtHR held that the refusal to grant the applicants exemption from the ‘Christianity, Religion and Philosophy’ instruction for their children violated Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, of the European Convention of Human Rights, which reads:

“No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”.

The Court’s conclusion was: 

“Notwithstanding the many laudable legislative purposes stated in connection with the introduction of the KRL subject in the ordinary primary and lower secondary schools, it does not appear that the respondent State took sufficient care that information and knowledge included in the new curriculum be conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner for the purposes of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1”

“Accordingly, the Court finds that the refusal to grant the applicant parents full exemption from the KRL subject for their children gave rise to a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.”

2.1 INFORMATION NOTE ON THE COURT’S CASE-LAW NO. 98 JUNE 2007 FOLGERØ AND OTHERS V. NORWAY [GC] – 15472/02

The intention behind the introduction of the new syllabus in Norway had been that, by teaching Christianity, other religions and philosophies together, it would be possible to ensure an open and inclusive school environment. This intention was clearly consistent with the principles of pluralism and objectivity embodied in Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, and is additionally consistent with the Welsh Government’s motives that underpin its new RE curriculum.

Further, and with intentions shared by the new Welsh curriculum, the aim of KRL was to avoid sectarianism and foster intercultural dialogue and understanding by bringing pupils together within the framework of one joint subject rather than allowing for exemption. The fact that knowledge about Christianity represented a greater part of the curriculum than knowledge about other religions and philosophies could not in itself give rise to an issue under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR. In view of the place occupied by Christianity in Norway’s national history and tradition, this had to be regarded as falling within the State’s margin of appreciation in planning and setting the curriculum. However, it was clear to the Court that preponderant weight was given to Christianity.

Further, approximately half of the items listed in the curriculum referred to Christianity alone, whereas the remainder of the items were shared between other religions and philosophies. When taken together with the Christian object clause , the description of the contents and the aims of KRL set out in the 1998 Education Act and other texts forming part of the legislative framework suggested that the differences applied to the teaching of Christianity as compared to that of other religions and philosophies were not only quantitative but also qualitative. In view of these disparities it was not clear how the further aim of promoting understanding, respect and the ability to maintain dialogue between people with different perceptions of beliefs and convictions could be properly attained.

Further still, and importantly, the Court was not convinced that the possibility, invoked by the Government, for parents to have their children educated in private schools (or community schools in Wales) could dispense the State from its obligation to safeguard pluralism in all State schools which are open to everyone. Against this background, notwithstanding the many laudable legislative purposes associated with the introduction of the new curriculum in the ordinary primary and lower secondary schools, the respondent State could not be said to have taken sufficient care that information and knowledge included in the curriculum be conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner for the purposes of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR.

2.2 FOLGERØ AND OTHERS V/ NORWAY: CONCLUSION

One of the main arguments upon which this ruling was taken, was that preponderent weight was given to Christianity in the RE curriculum in state-funded schools.  It is important here to note that the amount of Christianity in the KRL curriculum in Norway, and thus the level considered to be excessive and therefore non-pluralistic by the Court in this judgement, was around fifty percent.  A figure significantly inferior to that of Christian teaching in state-funded schools of a religious character in Wales. Analysis of the agreed Church in Wales RE scheme of work would indicate levels equal to or exceeding 90%, which plainly, is significantly higher than the onus probandi in Folgerø and others v/ Norway.

Once the ‘right of withdrawal’ from RE is removed, the Welsh Government will find itself in an virtually identical legal position to that of the Government of Norway in the Folgerø case; a situation where children, in state-funded schools, are obligated [without choice] to accept teaching from a RE curriculum in schools of a religious character, that is not, by the standards set out by the ECtHR in the Grand Chamber, pluralistic.

The ECtHR also made it clear that it was not convinced by the suggestion, proposed by the Norwegan Government, for parents to have their children educated in other types of schools could dispense the State from its obligation to safeguard pluralism in all State schools which are open to everyone. 

2.3 LEGAL BASIS FOR OBJECTION

We hereby therefore contend, using the judgement handed down in Folgerø and Others v/ Norway as precedent, that the Welsh Government, by removing the right of withdrawal from RE will create a situation that places a considerable number of children in a position with similar and significant human rights implications.

We contend that by not taking sufficient care that information and knowledge included in a compulsory RE curriculum, in state-funded schools of religious character, be conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner, for the purposes of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, the Welsh Government will be plainly breaching its international human rights obligations under the ECHR.

3.0 ARTICLE 14 OF THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD AND THE CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS ON THE FIFTH PERIODIC REPORT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND CRC/C/GBR/CO/5

Pursuant to Section 1 of the Rights of Children and Young Person’s (Wales) Measure 2011 (and the ‘Children’s Scheme’), the Welsh Government must give full consideration not only to the principles and provisions of the ‘UN Convention on the Rights of the Child’, but also the ‘General Comments of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child’ and also the ‘Concluding Observations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.’

Particularly relevant to this Consultation and the ‘Right of Withdrawal’ is Article 14, and Concluding Observation CRC/C/GBR/CO/5. Neither of these were referenced in either Integrated Impact Assessment undertaken by the Welsh Government, and are conspicuous by their absence in a Consultation considering religion, and the consequent obligation placed on a State not to indoctrinate.

Article 14 states:

1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. 

2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child. 

3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

In its Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland CRC/C/GBR/CO/5, the Committee stated the following:

D.Civil rights and freedoms

35.The Committee is concerned that pupils are required by law to take part in a daily religious worship which is “wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character” in publicly funded schools in England and Wales, and that children do not have the right to withdraw from such worship without parental permission before entering the sixth form. In Northern Ireland and Scotland, children do not have the right to withdraw from collective worship without parental permission.

36. The Committee recommends that the State party repeal legal provisions for compulsory attendance at collective worship in publicly funded schools and ensure that children can independently exercise the right to withdraw from religious worship at school.

Why then, did the Welsh Government fail to reference or mention Article 14 in either Impact Assessment, when this is arguably the most relevant Article in the entire Convention?

Why then, when fulfilling its legal obligations, did the Welsh Government determine that the Committee would not object to religious education “wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character”, even though it should have understood – upon claiming to have given due regard to the Convention and Concluding Statements – that the Committee had, only three years previously, recommended that laws governing a very similar situation be repealed?

Article 14 of the Convention confirms for the child the fundamental civil right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, which is upheld for “everyone” in the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’. The Committee emphasises that it is the child who exercises the right to freedom of religion, not the parent; this role of providing direction and guidance diminishes according to the evolving capacities of the child. The Committee also states that;

“Freedom of religion should be respected in schools and other institutions, including with regard to choice over attendance in religious instruction classes, and discrimination on the grounds of religious beliefs should be prohibited.” 

The Convention requires that the school environment should be about equality for all and encourages a pluralistic and balanced teaching of all religions and all world views; as is proposed for all maintained schools across Wales. To ensure non-discrimination this approach should be applicable to all state-funded schools, including schools of a religious character across Wales. Children should not be discriminated against by being made to attend neither the monotheistic teaching of one religion, nor non-pluralistic RE lessons, at the expense of a balanced teaching of all religions and worldviews.

3.1 UNCRC CONCLUSIONS

In the Welsh Government Consultation on ‘Ensuring Access to the Full Curriculum’, and in the associated ‘Integrated Impact Assessment’, UNCRC Articles 2, 12, 13, 17, 24, 28, 29, 33, 34 and 36 were considered, and given due regard.  However, and rather oddly, given the context of the Consultation, Article 14 [Freedom of Conscience, Thought and Religion] was not considered, and, by extension and therefore, not given due regard. The fact that analysis of Article 14 was omitted from a Consultation concerning religion, is particularly disconcerting, and any reasonable argument that the Welsh Government gave due regard to the UNCRC, whilst ignoring Article 14 in both Impact Assessments, fails entirely..

The Welsh Government is therefore breaching its own obligations under the Rights Measure. It should honour its commitment to realising all articles of the Convention especially, and in this instance, Article 14.

Further, Kirsty Williams, the Assembly Minister for Education, recently admitted that the obligation on all schools to offer a compulsory act of daily worship of “wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character” has obvious human rights implications. She went on to state that given a chance to re-write these laws from scratch, she would not enshrine them in their current form.  It is a curious thing, then, that she is, rather oxymoronically, introducing legislation that does exactly what she has recently acknowledged to be potentially unlawful; namely obligating all children [in schools of a religious character] to attend educational elements that are of a “wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character”. Plainly, this is contrary to Concluding Observation CRC/C/GBR/CO/5 and to Article 14 itself.

3.2 LEGAL BASIS FOR OBJECTION

We contend that the Welsh Government, whilst claiming to have given due regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, failed entirely to give due regard to Article 14. Further, the fact that analysis of, or any reference to, Article 14 in particular, was omitted from a Consultation concerning religion, is disconcerting.

We contend that removing the ‘right of withdrawal’ from the new RE curriculum, places a significant number of children, who attend schools with a religious character, in a position which gives rise to significant human rights implications.

We contend that the RE curricula in state-funded schools of a religious character do not meet the onus probandi for pluralism, nor objectivity.  We contend that this, therefore, amounts to indoctrination by the State, and therefore breaches Article 14 of the UNCRC and Concluding Observation CRC/C/GBR/CO/5.

We contend that when fulfilling its legal obligations, to give due regard to the Concluding Statements of the UNCRC, the Welsh Government should not have determined that the Committee would not object to religious education ‘“wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character”, even though it understood that Committee had, only three years previously, recommended that laws governing a very similar situation be repealed.

4.0 QUANTIFYING PLURALISM

Pluralism can be defined as the worldview according to which one’s own religion is not held to be the sole and exclusive source of truth, and thus an acknowledgement that at least some truths and values exist in other religions. Religious pluralism can moreover be defined as respecting the assertions and worldviews of others, which, specifically in terms of freedom of religion, discourages the treatment of the religious practices maintained by those with opposing beliefs as immaterial or irrelevant. In terms of the legislative definition, and in terms of recent and applicable legal precedent, however, we draw attention to the following;

Fox v. Secretary of State, 25 November 2015;

“In carrying out its educational functions the state owes parents a positive duty to respect their religious and philosophical convictions… the state has a duty to take care that information or knowledge included in the curriculum is conveyed in a pluralistic manner… the state must accord equal respect to different religious convictions, and to non-religious beliefs; it is not entitled to discriminate between religions and beliefs on a qualitative basis; its duties must be performed from a standpoint of neutrality and impartiality as regards the quality and validity of parents’ convictions.”

Folgerø and Others v/ Norway;

[The content in KRL curriculum was a little over fifty percent Christianity, and the differences in its implementation and teaching were not only quantitative, but qualitative; much like faith schools in Wales. The only notable difference is that in the Church in Wales Scheme of Work for RE, for example, Christianity constitutes 90% of the teaching, and is significantly less pluralistic and objective than the KRL curriculum.]

“102.  Against this background, notwithstanding the many laudable legislative purposes stated in connection with the introduction of the KRL subject in the ordinary primary and lower secondary schools, it does not appear that the respondent State took sufficient care that information and knowledge included in the curriculum be conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner for the purposes of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. Accordingly, the Court finds that the refusal to grant the applicant parents full exemption from the KRL subject for their children gave rise to a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.”

In the vast majority of schools in Wales, the removal of the right of withdrawal will not give rise to human rights implications. Schools without a religious character are, quite rightly, obliged to teach the national curriculum in religious education which unarguably, is pluralistic, objective and critical. However, for those children who attend schools of a religious character, by choice or simply because of their geographic location, things are rather different.   

Again, from the Welsh Government’s own consultation document on proposals to ensure access to the full curriculum for all learners:

“The courts have established that RE must be taught in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner; in particular, the state is not permitted to pursue an aim of indoctrination.”

Once the right of withdrawal is removed, children in faith schools will be obligated to attend religious education, but these schools, currently, are not obligated to teach the national curriculum. This therefore creates an interesting legal juxtaposition. On the one hand, we have the 1944 Education Act and the School and Standards Framework Act 1998, and their subsequent revisions, which do not obligate faith schools to teach religious education from the national curriculum. Rather, they permit these schools to teach from their own scheme of work, which in reality, are only variations of curricula written by either the Church in Wales, or the Catholic Education Service. On the other hand, we have the ECHR and the UNCRC which state that all religious education curricula must be objective, pluralistic and critical.  The ECtHR has, as we have seen, gone as far as stating that a scheme of work including 50% Christianity is none of those things. Plainly, these separate but entwined pieces of legislation, whilst both relevant and applicable, are contradictory, and incompatible.

As far the author can see, and if the Welsh Government are insistent on removing the right of withdrawal, the only way to avoid litigation on the basis of breaches of the UNCRC and the ECHR, is to ensure that religious education curricula in schools of a religious character are pluralistic, objective and critical. This is, despite claims to the contrary, not currently the case, and significant reform will be required to achieve the levels of pluralism legislated for by these human rights conventions.

The State must, in order to comply with its international human rights obligations, avoid a situation where the differences applied to the teaching of Christianity, in state-funded schools and including schools of a religious character, and as compared to that of other religions and philosophies, are not only quantitative but also qualitative. 

The ECtHR also made it clear that it was not convinced by the suggestion, proposed by the Norwegan Government, for parents to have their children educated in other types of schools could dispense the State from its obligation to safeguard pluralism in all State schools which are open to everyone. 

5.0 THE CHURCH IN WALES AGREED SCHEME OF WORK FOR RE

As we now understand, any compulsory religious education curriculum is required to be conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner for the purposes of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR, and for the purposes of Article 14 and Concluding Observation  CRC/C/GBR/CO/5 of the UNCRC. 

So, does the Church in Wales Agreed Scheme of Work for RE meet – or, indeed, come close to meeting – the threshold for any of these criteria?

We undertook a quantitative analysis of the scheme, which indicated that the Christian content of the curriculum is 87.85% – significantly greater than the KRL curriculum in Norway which was judged to be non-pluralistic and therefore unlawful.  The only two other religions covered in the Church in Wales scheme of work are Judaism and Islam, but by the admission of educators within the system, and by analysis of the curriculum itself one can assert without doubt that these additional religions, which are both Abrahamic, are not studied in any depth.  They are only studied in the context of beliefs and traits which are common and shared with Christianity. Plainly, this does not meet the threshold for compulsory curricula that must be conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner for the purposes of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR, and for the purposes of Article 14 and Concluding Observation  CRC/C/GBR/CO/5 of the UNCRC. 

Our quantitative analysis of the Church in Wales Agreed Scheme of work for RE can be found in Appendix Two, as well as the documents to which it relates in Appendix Six. Of course, there is a subjective element to such an analysis, so corroboration was required.  This came, amongst other information, in the form of correspondence from a Headteacher of a VA Church in Wales primary school in North Wales, who stated, verbatim:

“Whilst we do include other religions in our curriculum, I would estimate 90% of our RE is Christianity.” 

“Other religions we study are Judaism and Islam.” “These religion are compared with Christianity. We look at common beliefs and festivals rather than studying other religions in great depth.” 

This corroborates our analysis, and indicates without reasonable question, that the Church in Wales Scheme of Work for RE displays an extreme quantitative bias towards Christianity. The ECHR and the UNCRC are, however, also concerned with the qualitative differences in the teaching of different religions, and whether any such bias is apparent. Therefore we additionally undertook an analysis which attempted to establish whether any such differences occurred. The results were, as entirely expected, consistent with a strong and deeply entrenched bias towards Christianity. This is best illustrated by statements authored by the schools themselves; a selection of which can be found below, and evidence of which can be found in Appendix Four.

5.1 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

i) PAGE 1 OF ST DAVID’S CIW PRIMARY RE POLICY

“St David’s School is a Voluntary Aided Church in Wales primary school and differs from a county school in the matter of religious education. A church school such as ours starts from a different basis: it is a Christian foundation and believes that only with an understanding of Christianity can a pupil learn to see things from a Christian point of view and learn Christian truth.”

ii) PAGE 1 OF ST MARKS CIW PRIMARY SCHOOL CURRICULUM POLICY

“As a Church School our Christian ethos is at the heart of all that we do. A Church School develops a distinctive Christian character through its religious education, collective worship and ethos, that makes God’s love and presence known to the world.”

iii) PAGE 3 OF THE WICK AND MARCROSS CIW PRIMARY SCHOOL PROSPECTUS

“A church school develops a distinctive Christian character, through its religious education, collective worship and ethos, which makes God’s love and presence made known to the world. Our school is a place of mission and witness to the gospel. Our Mission Statement is reflected in the curriculum and the daily life of the school, where Jesus Christ is our foundation and children are encouraged to become members of a Christian community.”

IV) PAGE 17 OF THE CHRISTCHURCH CIW PRIMARY PROSPECTUS

“Although Religious Education is compulsory in all schools, in Christchurch School it forms the basis of our school lives. It aims to help pupils to understand the Christian teachings of the Bible.”

V) PAGE 1 OF USK CIW PRIMARY SCHOOL RE POLICY

“Usk CIW Primary School aims to serve its community by providing an education of the highest quality within the context of Christian belief and practice. It encourages an understanding of the meaning and significance of faith, and promotes Christian values through the experience it offers to all its children and their families.”

VI) PAGE 15 OF GLADESTRY CIW PRIMARY SCHOOL PROSPECTUS

“Religious education is based firmly on Christian values and teaching while making references to others’ beliefs.”

VII) PAGE 1 OF GLADESTRY CIW PRIMARY SCHOOL PROSPECTUS

“The school aims to serve the community by providing an education of the highest quality within the context of Christian belief and practice. It encourages an understanding of the meaning and significance of faith, and promotes Christian values through the experience it offers to all its pupils.”

5.2 KEY FINDINGS

Whilst we have included references to only seven documents here, the study was significantly larger.  Our key findings are therefore that;

i) Faith schools teach everything from a basis of Christianity.

ii) Religious education in faith schools is much more expansive and immersive than in other types of schools, and it permeates every aspect of school life; it is not merely restricted to RE lessons.

iii) In faith schools, there is considerable qualitative bias, both in terms of the general application of Christian doctrine throughout the school day, and the approach to religious education specifically.

iv) In faith schools, religious education is firmly based on Christian values, and whilst other Abrahamic religions are mentioned, they are only referenced, and only in the context of those beliefs and doctrines that are shared with Christianity.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

The Welsh Government acknowledges the establishment by numerous and various courts that religious education must be taught in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner; and in particular, that the State is not permitted to pursue an aim of indoctrination.  

In Folgero vs Norway, the ECtHR has further established that a compulsory religious education curriculum with as much as 50% Christian content is not sufficiently plural, and consequently unlawful. The ECtHR also made it clear that it was not convinced by the suggestion that parents having their children educated in other types of schools could dispense the State from its obligation to safeguard pluralism in all State schools which are open to everyone. 

Additionally, our research indicates that currently, in schools of a religious character, the content of the religious education curriculum is around 90% Christian. Qualitative differences also exist, whereby Christianity as taught as the ‘truth’ and other religions are merely referenced. Without significant question, these religious education curricula do not meet the threshold for compulsory curricula that must be conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner for the purposes of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR, and for the purposes of Article 14 and Concluding Observation  CRC/C/GBR/CO/5 of the UNCRC. 

Therefore, and again without significant question, once the Right of Withdrawal has been rescinded, and unless the religious education curriculum taught in schools of a religious character undergoes significant reform, the Welsh Government will clearly be failing to meet and engage its international human rights obligations; both in terms of Article 14 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Article 2, Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights

Therefore we contend that one of three things must happen:

Either

i) The Right of Withdrawal remains as a safety valve for those children who – sometimes only by virtue of their postcode – attend schools of a religious character, and who learn from religious education curricula, written largely by the Church in Wales, or the Catholic Education Service, that are not taught in a pluralistic or objective way.

Or

ii) All schools, including those of a religious character, be obligated to teach the national curriculum in religious education, therefore removing the risk of indoctrination by the State, and the consequent human rights implications. 

Or

iii) Schools of a religious character be obligated to reform their religious education curricula, to a level that meets the thresholds of pluralism and objectivity established by international human rights conventions. This reform is not only required to be both quantitative and qualitative, but additionally, significant; as these curricula are currently operating well above the legally prescribed thresholds.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX ONE – ARTICLE 14 AND ITS ABSENCE FROM THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Pages 16 / 17 of the First Impact Assessment

Pages 23 / 24 of the Second Impact Assessment

APPENDIX TWO – ANALYSIS OF THE CHURCH IN WALES SCHEME OF WORK FOR RE

APPENDIX THREE – CORROBORATING CORRESPONDENCE

APPENDIX FOUR – QUALITATIVE EVIDENCE

I)  PARAGRAPH ONE OF ST DAVID’S RE CURRICULUM POLICY.

II) PARAGRAPH ONE OF ST MARKS VA CIW PRIMARY SCHOOL CURRICULUM POLICY

III) PAGE 3/33 OF WICK AND MARCROSS VA CIW PRIMARY SCHOOL PROSPECTUS.

IV) PAGE 17/31 OF THE CHRISTCHURCH CIW PRIMARY PROSPECTUS

V) PAGE 1 OF USK PRIMARY SCHOOL RE POLICY

VI) PAGE 15 OF GLADESTRY CIW PRIMARY SCHOOL PROSPECTUS

VII) PAGE 1 OF GLADESTRY CIW PRIMARY SCHOOL PROSPECTUS

APPENDIX SIX

The Church in Wales Scheme of Work for RE.

Each list item is a hyperlink to a web address, where the document can be found. 

If these hyperlinks ever fail, the author has digital copies of each document.

Autumn Term

RE_Scheme_Autumn_1_Nursery

RE_Scheme_Autumn_2_Nursery

RE_Scheme_Autumn_1_Reception

RE_Scheme_Autumn_1_Church_Year_1

RE_Scheme_Autumn_1_Festivals_Year_1

RE_Scheme_Autumn_2_Festivals_Year_1

RE_Scheme_Autumn_2_Jesus_Year_1

RE_Scheme_Autumn_1_Year_2

RE_Scheme_Autumn_2_Year_2

RE_Scheme_Autumn_1_Year_3

RE_Scheme_Autumn_2_Year_3

RE_Scheme_Autumn_1_Year_4

RE_Scheme_Autumn_2_Year_4

RE_Scheme_Autumn_1_Year_5

RE_Scheme_Autumn_2_Year_5

RE_Scheme_Autumn_1_Bible_Year_6

RE_Scheme_Autumn_1_CL__Values_Year_6

RE_Scheme_Autumn_1_Festivals_Year_6

RE_Scheme_Autumn_2_Church_Year_6

RE_Scheme_Autumn_2_Festivals_Year_6

RE_Scheme_Autumn_2_Jesus_Year_6

Spring Term

RE_Spring_1_Nursery_

RE_Spring_2_Nursery

RE_Spring_1_Reception

RE_Spring_2_Reception

RE_Spring_1_Year_1_Church

RE_Spring_1_Year_1_Festivals

RE_Spring_2_Year_1_CLV

RE_Spring_2_Year_1_Festivals

RE_Spring_2_Year_1_Jesus

RE_Spring_1_Year_2

RE_Spring_2_Year_2

RE_Spring_1_Year_3

RE_Spring_2_Year_3

RE_Spring_1_Year_4

RE_Spring_2_Year_4

RE_Spring_1_Year_5

RE_Spring_2_Year_5

RE_Spring_1_Year_6

RE_Spring_2_Year_6

Summer Term

Nursery RE_Summer_1

Nursery RE_Summer_2

Reception RE_Summer_1

Reception RE_Summer_2

Year 1 RE_Summer_1

Year 1 RE_Summer_2

Year 2 RE_Summer_1

Year 2 RE_Summer_2

Year 3 RE_Summer_1

Year 3 RE_Summer_2

Year 4 RE_Summer_1

Year 4 RE_Summer_2

Year 5 RE_Summer_1

Year 5 RE_Summer_2

Year 6 RE_Summer_1_Church

Year 6 RE_Summer_1_Other_Faiths

Year 6 RE_Summer_2_Bible

Year 6 RE_Summer_2_CL__Values

This article has been fact checked, but if you spot a mistake, please send an email with reasons for your proposed corrections to james@jamesbrunt.co.uk

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *