Let’s not withdraw: Philosophy with Children as an alternative

Dr Claire Cassidy, Professor of Education at Strathclyde University

February 16, 2026

In this guest blog, Professor Claire Cassidy explains why compulsory religious observance (RO) flies in the face of Scotland’s commitment to children’s rights. She also provides a blueprint for an inclusive alternative that encourages pupils to think for themselves: Philosophy with Children (PwC).

From our earliest days, we are taught how to behave and interact with others. We ought not to bite or hit, we should share with friends and be kind. We learn this through family, friends, the television programmes we watch, the stories we read or hear, the people we encounter in the street, and the teachers in whose classrooms we sit.

Indeed, children in Scottish schools have moral education as part of their curriculum. They are taught by teachers who must meet a set of Professional Standards (GTCS, 2021) that require them to embrace social justice, foster trust and respect, and demonstrate wisdom and courage. Importantly, their responsibilities include: “Respecting the rights of all learners as outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and their entitlement to be included in decisions regarding their learning experiences and have all aspects of their wellbeing developed and supported” (GTCS, 2021, p.4).

Children must be heard on religious observance

Being mandated to respect children’s rights is fundamental to teachers’ practice and to the enactment of the UNCRC (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024, which appears now to be in question. The fifty-four articles of the UNCRC, in short, apply to all children under all circumstances, and we (adults) cannot pick and choose which ones children enjoy.

In seeking to make an exception to the UNCRC (Incorporation) (Act) 2024 by proposing that children should not have the right to withdraw from Religious Observance, teachers’ professional practice and the Standards they are mandated to meet are compromised, not to mention the undermining of children’s rights themselves. After all, Article 12 of the UNCRC dictates that children should be consulted on matters that affect them and that their views should be given due weight.

It’s worth noting that Article 1 dictates that those under the age of eighteen are considered children while Article 2 states that children should not be discriminated against due to their “ethnicity, sex, religion, language, abilities or any other status, whatever they think or say, whatever their family background”. So far, so good. There is one notable exception, however: age. Age discrimination, though, is covered by the Equality Act (2010), meaning children should be protected by this legislation.

It’s interesting that adults can accept children’s ability to think in the abstract to accept an omnipotent, omniscient entity but that they don’t have the capacity to determine whether they wish to attend Religious Observance, whatever form that might take.

Age is important in the context of children having the right to withdraw from Religious Observance because it sits alongside their right to be consulted on matters that affect them (UNCRC Article 12). Not only should “pupils in attendance at the school… [be] given an opportunity to make their views known” (Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc. Act 2000) with respect to the day-to-day running of the school, the question of Religious Observance is certainly a matter that affects them. The suggestion that children should not be permitted to express their views, and have these influence their time in school, with respect to Religious Observance, reinforces the mistaken assumption that children lack capacity, that they are irrational, unreasonable and immature.

It is not the place, here, to explore the existence or not of a deity/deities or even the place of religion in schools. However, the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient entity is a challenging concept to grasp, and one that adults expect children to understand or accept. It requires that children can think in the abstract, that ideas don’t have to correlate to concrete objects. It’s interesting that adults can accept their ability to think in the abstract to accept this entity but that they don’t have the capacity to determine whether they wish to attend Religious Observance, whatever form that might take.

Philosophy with Children

That even young children are able to think in and about abstract ideas, is evidenced repeatedly in research relating to Philosophy with Children (PwC). PwC is a structured approach to dialogue that enables children to engage with ideas and fundamental questions that articulate with their lives and the lives of others. They might explore whether it is acceptable to eat meat, if people should be put in prison for the crimes they commit, what makes someone’s job worth more pay than another’s, their purpose in life – or even whether they should be able to make decisions about their schooling.

PwC is an inclusive approach that recognises that children are competent, that they think about things, that they can reason and engage with others about ideas that shape their thinking and way of being.

The goal of PwC is not to teach children what to think, but how to think. Through dialogue, children work together to explore philosophical questions that they pose. The goal is to create shared meaning, though not necessarily agreement on the issue at hand. Indeed, the nature of philosophy requires disagreement and is such that it raises questions that are contested and often ones we have in common (Lipman, 2003). It was Socrates, some 2,000 years ago, who claimed that the unexamined life is not worth living.

A Time for Reflection in practice

Religious Observance may offer some children the opportunity to examine their life, but it remains unclear the way in which this might take place in the classroom. It fails to recognise that not all children are religious or that those who are share a religion. In 2014, Education Scotland produced a document that proposed Religious Observance might be considered Time for Reflection, and some schools, in an endeavour to be inclusive of those of all religions and none, adopted this term and an approach that did not involve religion or reference to it. Indeed, the Church of Scotland supported Time for Reflection – until they didn’t, and for reasons that remain somewhat unclear (Cassidy & McCarthy, 2018).

The goal of PwC is not to teach children what to think, but how to think. Through dialogue, children work together to explore philosophical questions that they pose. The goal is to create shared meaning, though not necessarily agreement on the issue at hand.

Time for Reflection allows children the space to explore what they think about things, to consider who they are and what their place is in the world. Enabling this kind of reflection is clearly in the best interests of the child (Article 3) and, I’d argue, wider society. However, even a move to Time for Reflection can be problematic if teachers have no guidance on how it might be undertaken. PwC, I propose, provides an approach that facilitates children’s voice (Article 12) (Cassidy, 2023) and is a meaningful approach to Time for Reflection (Cassidy, 2018) and Religious and Moral Education (Cameron & Cassidy, 2022).

It allows them to consider matters that affect them. It provides opportunities to engage with their peers about these matters to help them to understand what they and others think and, importantly, why. It provides safe opportunities for disagreement, uncertainty, and finding one’s way. It helps children to understand themselves and others. It avoids a deficit view of children and promotes engagement with the world in which they – we – live. It doesn’t require resources. It doesn’t require the teacher to be a moral compass, nor does it presume that reference to religion makes one good. There is no need to withdraw oneself or to be withdrawn from class.

Religious Observance may offer some children the opportunity to examine their life, but it remains unclear the way in which this might take place in the classroom. It fails to recognise that not all children are religious or that those who are share a religion.

PwC is an inclusive approach that recognises that children are competent, that they think about things, that they can reason and engage with others about ideas that shape their thinking and way of being (Lone, 2012; Cassidy & Lone, 2020). As a rights-respecting approach, it provides space for children’s voices to be heard in matters that concern them. It is in their best interests to explore ideas for themselves and to develop as fellow human beings in a creative, inclusive and supportive way. It also allows teachers to retain their integrity and ensure that they fulfil the requirements to ensure children’s rights are met. Fundamentally, it supports children in their development as individuals and as members of society. One step in learning who one is and the kind of society in which one wishes to participate is not to withdraw individuals (willingly or otherwise) from opportunities for dialogue but to recognise that they have something worth saying and to foster all possible opportunities for that to take place. Religious Observance doesn’t offer this, though Time for Reflection might, and practising Philosophy with Children will.

Dr Claire Cassidy is a professor in the School of Education at the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.

References

Cameron, E. & Cassidy, C. (2022). Collaborative, child-led philosophical inquiry in Religious and Moral Education. British Journal of Religious Education, 44(2), 172-187.

Cassidy, C. (2023). Philosophy with Children: Considering factors to facilitate voice, Precollege Philosophy and Public Practice Spring (5), 3-25.

Cassidy, C. (2018). Philosophy with Children: an alternative to religious observance. In P. Cumper & A. Mawhinney (eds), Collective Worship and Religious Observance in UK Schools: Challenges and Opportunities. Oxford: Peter Lang International Publishing. Chapter 9, pp.223-246.

Cassidy, C. & McCarthy, F. (2018). Religious Observance in Scotland. In P. Cumper & A. Mawhinney (eds), Collective Worship and Religious Observance in UK Schools: Challenges and Opportunities. Oxford: Peter Lang International Publishing. Chapter 3, pp. 59-85.

Cassidy, C. and Mohr Lone, J. (2020). Thinking about childhood: Being and becoming in the world. Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis 40(1), 16-26.

Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in Education. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

Lone, J.M. (2012). The Philosophical Child. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.