Creationism (Schools) (PE1530)
Agenda item 4 is consideration of a petition. On 27 January 2015, the Public Petitions Committee referred PE1530, by Spencer Fildes on behalf of the Scottish Secular Society, to this committee. The petition
“Calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to issue official guidance to bar the presentation in Scottish publicly funded schools of separate creation and of Young Earth doctrines as viable alternatives to the established science of evolution, common descent, and deep time.”
Members have the note from the clerk, which provides links to the petition and the Public Petitions Committee’s previous consideration of the matter. Do members have any comments or suggestions for further action that the committee might or might not wish to take on the petition?
I would like clarification, convener. I would be interested in seeing some information on why other UK Administrations have issued guidance that creationism and intelligent design should not be considered.
Paragraph 14 of the clerk’s note, which I think was prepared for the Public Petitions Committee, says that neither the Educational Institute of Scotland nor School Leaders Scotland believes that guidance is necessary and
“they do not believe that teaching of creationism is prevalent or a serious problem in Scottish schools.”
I am sure that that was meant as a reassurance, but the use of the terms “prevalent” and “serious problem” rather than just “problem” raises questions about the number of cases that we are talking about.
I do not necessarily support intervention through guidance, because that goes against the grain of ministers’ interaction with what happens in schools, but I note that the EIS has said that
“the curriculum is a matter for teachers, both individually and collectively, and ... legislative interference in the content of the curriculum is both undesirable and unnecessary.”
Although I agree with that comment, I observe that in the recent past there has been controversy about items being placed on the recommended reading list for Scottish studies in a way that seems to move slightly away from that overarching principle. It would certainly be helpful to get the clarification that Mary Scanlon seeks, but as I have said, I am reluctant for ministers to issue guidance on the matter, given that there will be other areas where similar guidance will be sought.
I was a member of the Public Petitions Committee when the petition first raised its head. Although I will go along with what the committee decides, I suggest that we send the Scottish Secular Society and those who support creationism away with Einstein’s message that
“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”
They should go into a room and discuss that and just let everyone else get on with the curriculum as it is.
Thank you for that.
I am quite happy to take on board the suggestion by Mary Scanlon and Liam McArthur that we should find out a bit more information, but I accept Liam’s point about the nature of Scottish education and the fact that directives are not issued here in the way that they might be elsewhere. That might be the difference that Mary Scanlon was wanting to know about. The Scottish Government has made it quite clear that it does not issue guidance in that sense, and I certainly accept the point.
In advance of the petition coming before the committee, a member of the public forwarded me a letter that they had received from Aileen Campbell MSP, who had obviously written on the person’s behalf to the Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland’s Languages, Alasdair Allan. His response contains quite a useful paragraph that I want to make members aware of. It says:
“In relation to school science teaching, guidance is provided by Education Scotland in line with Curriculum for Excellence ... The guidance does not identify Creationism as a scientific principle and consequently it is not and should not be part of science learning and teaching. Likewise, Education Scotland does not identify Creationism as a scientific theory or a topic for inclusion within the curriculum. Therefore, Creationism should not be taught within science lessons.”
That is quite a clear statement from Alasdair Allan on the issue, but given the questions that have been raised, I think that, just for clarity, it might be appropriate—and I will ask the committee for its views on the matter—to write to the Government to ask Mary Scanlon’s question about the difference between what happens here and what happens across the rest of the UK. I think that it is to do with the different traditions in the education system. We will also ask the Government to confirm the position as laid out—quite fairly, I think—by Alasdair Allan in his letter of 26 February.
I entirely support that suggestion, convener, but it might also be helpful to inquire whether the Government has a sense of how “prevalent” or how much of a “serious problem” this is. It will be up to local authorities to take action on any concerns that are raised. Indeed, there was a prominent case in which such concerns were raised, but there are others and it would be helpful to get a sense of how widespread the issues are and how frequently they have arisen.
You said that the Government does not offer guidance, convener, but the letter that you read out seemed like pretty clear guidance to me.
The guidance is from Education Scotland.
Is the letter to the committee, or did it go out to all local authorities?
No. The letter was from the minister to Aileen Campbell MSP. I presume that she was raising a question with the minister on behalf of a constituent, and she got that response. She passed the response to the constituent, who then sent it to me.
She would have got that letter a few years ago, then.
No. It is dated 26 February 2015.
Right. It was from work on behalf of a constituent. Given that the letter makes things absolutely clear—I am fine with that—will it be made available to all local authorities?
No. It is a letter from the minister to an MSP who was acting on behalf of a constituent.
Okay. It states the Government’s position quite clearly.
I think that it is quite clear, but for clarity the committee should ask the Government these questions. Instead of using a letter about a constituent, we will get its response to our questions and then the position will be available for everyone to see.
That would be very helpful.
That is why I am suggesting that we write to the Government for clarity on the position that is set out in the letter of 26 February to an individual member of the public; on the question that Mary Scanlon raised on the difference in culture with regard to the information and guidance that is issued elsewhere in the UK; and on Liam McArthur’s point about prevalence. Are members content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
That brings us to the end of the agenda. I thank members for their attendance and co-operation, and I close the meeting.
Meeting closed at 12:32.Previous
Educational Attainment