Curriculum documents and policy items worldwide emphasise the value of including Religious Education (RE) as a component of the curricula in publicly funded schools. However, as many scholars have identified, the extent and quality of provision can fall short of such ambitions. Indeed, as Peter Schreiner (2024 & 2020) has observed, RE can be subject to ‘marginalisation’. By examining Schreiner’s work, we can identify four broad features of the marginalisation of RE that can be considered in different national, regional, and/or local contexts (Scholes, 2025).
First, there’s the issue of limited valuing, referring to situations wherein the aims of RE, whatever they might be, are persistently, and perhaps deliberately, misunderstood, ignored or distorted. The devaluing of RE can stem from attitudes within schools among pupils and other practitioners, and it can also be connected to broader social tensions surrounding religion in the public sphere.
Second, RE can be understood as being marginalised when there is restricted enactment, referring to the in-school factors that limit provision. This is most readily noticeable in terms of the amount of curricular time allocated to the subject. It also involves considering the quality of staffing and leadership the subject enjoys, for example, whether non-specialists are deployed to deliver the curriculum.
Third, inhibiting infrastructure can also signal marginalisation. This feature captures the ecosystem beyond individual schools that determines RE provision, including education and curricular policy, teacher preparation and associated legal directives. Furthermore, the associated research community, which examines and supports RE provision in a particular context, is also an essential aspect to consider.
Finally, and perhaps unexpectedly, attempts to mitigate the marginalisation of RE are indicators of marginalisation. The activities of professional subject associations in supporting professional learning, along with their lobbying efforts in national forums, highlight the challenges the subject faces and the steps being taken to overcome them.
Looking at the RE in both non-denominational and Catholic schools in Scotland, it is evidently subjected to marginalisation. Various groups can contest the value of the subject. Provision can be restricted in terms of time and the opportunities for practitioners (especially in primary schools) to develop their subject knowledge. The legal parameters, inspection activities, and limited research infrastructure can hinder progress.
Still, my research has highlighted potential solutions to the challenge of marginalisation. Professional learning that centres on connecting practitioners and giving them time to share and explore practice together can undoubtedly support provision. Moreover, a vital step forward would be for practitioners to actively and confidently share what RE is and why it matters in their local contexts. RE teachers can articulate what they do and why they do it very effectively. I suggest that informing others, such as families, school leaders, and other decision-makers, can help address limited valuing and further mitigate the marginalisation of RE in Scotland and beyond.
To read more about the marginalisation of RE in Scotland, read my recent article: “The Marginalization of Religious Education: Solutions for a Shared Challenge from Scotland” in Religious Education: https://doi.org/10.1080/00344087.2025.2541484
