Good in Parts: The DE’s Curate’s Egg Response to JR87..

On 3 February 2026, Education Minister Paul Givan responded to the Supreme Court’s JR87 ruling with an Oral Statement and a Circular on withdrawal from Religious Education and collective worship. As with the curate’s evaluation of the rotten egg served to him by his bishop, the Department’s response is “good in parts”.

The circular substantially improves withdrawal procedures. The Purdy review promises proper curriculum reform through consultation, with a new RE syllabus by September 2027. These represent genuine progress. But for the next eighteen months, improved withdrawal arrangements will serve as the primary protection for nearly 40,000 non-Protestant pupils in controlled primary schools receiving confessional Christian instruction, the Supreme Court declared to be indoctrinating.

A critical question is whether the Minister’s claim that collective worship reflects “the overwhelming wishes of the people of Northern Ireland” can withstand scrutiny—and whether procedural improvements to an opt-out system are sufficient when the demographics have shifted so dramatically.

“Overwhelming Wishes”?

The Minister’s assertion deserves examination against the demographic evidence. When parents designate their children for school enrolment, they make active choices about religious categorisation. The Department’s 2024/25 Religion Statistics for controlled primary schools show:

• Protestant: 41,934 (52.6%)
• Non-Protestant combined: 37,738 (47.4%)
  • No Religion: 17,724 (22.2%)
  • Other Christian: 7,492 (9.4%)
  • Catholic: 6,505 (8.2%)
  • Other Religion: 2,101 (2.6%)
  • Unclassified: 3,916 (4.9%)

47.4% of controlled primary pupils—nearly 40,000 children—are designated non-Protestant by their parents. The ‘No Religion’ category alone (22.2%) exceeds the combined totals of Catholics, Other Christians, Other Religions, and Unclassified.

At the individual school level, the pattern is even more pronounced. As documented throughout this series: Belmont PS (71% ‘Other’), Orangefield PS (53% ‘Other’), Rathmore PS (52% ‘Other’), Elmgrove PS (45% ‘Other’). Several Catholic Maintained schools show the same trend: St Malachy’s PS (58% ‘Other’), Holy Rosary PS (54% ‘Other’).

These are stated preferences—actual parental choices recorded in official census data. When nearly half choose ‘non-Protestant’ designations, the claim of “overwhelming wishes” for Protestant Christian worship becomes difficult to sustain (see fig. 1).

Figure 1: Controlled Primary Schools (excluding integrated) 2014-2025

Source: DE School Census

The Minister might point to low withdrawal rates (1.2%) as evidence of satisfaction. But the Supreme Court explicitly rejected this inference. Lord Stephens found that withdrawal placed an “undue burden” through stigmatisation, compelled disclosure, and deterrent effects. Low withdrawal rates in a burdensome system demonstrate the cost of dissent, not consent. The Queen’s University research captured this: “1.2% children are withdrawn, but many, many other children are not withdrawn because their parents feel they do not want to ‘other’ them.”

When 47.4% of controlled primary pupils are non-Protestant through parental choice, and the Supreme Court established that low withdrawal rates reflect systemic burdens, the “overwhelming wishes” claim requires substantial evidence that the demographic data contradict.

What the Circular Delivers

The circular improves withdrawal procedures substantially. Schools must now provide clear information at admission and annually, accept standard-form requests without meetings or approval processes, confirm within five school days, maintain pre-existing alternative arrangements, and ensure at least one non-religious gathering per term. These requirements directly address the Supreme Court’s concerns about stigmatisation, disclosure, and deterrent effects.

The annual information requirement could be coordinated with the School Census in October, when parents already designate their child’s religious affiliation (Protestant, Catholic, No Religion, Other Religion, etc.). If parents are asked to categorise their child’s religion for census purposes, that’s the natural moment to also inform them about RE provision and withdrawal rights. This would make the information timely and relevant—parents designating their child as ‘No Religion’ or ‘Other Religion’ would immediately receive details about what RE actually involves and how to withdraw if it doesn’t align with their beliefs.

For parents choosing withdrawal, this is a genuine improvement. Schools face approximately eight weeks for full implementation (by the end of Spring Term 2026).

The Purdy review is the proper mechanism for curriculum reform. Professor Noel Purdy will chair a syllabus drafting group, with extensive consultation from the church and the public. The September 2027 timeline is reasonable—curriculum development of this significance cannot be rushed.

Is This Sufficient for Eighteen Months?

The circular is good in parts. But given that withdrawal procedures must serve as primary protection until September 2027, several concerns remain:

Scale: When nearly half of controlled primary pupils are non-Protestant, is an opt-out model the appropriate framework? The system presumes confessional Christian instruction suits the majority, requiring dissenters to act. But 47.4% non-Protestant suggests the presumption no longer matches the population.

Schools with ‘Other’ majorities: At Belmont (71% ‘Other’) and Rathmore (52% ‘Other’), as well as similar schools, majorities have explicitly chosen non-denominational designations. Even with improved procedures, withdrawal assumes a Protestant default is appropriate. When majorities choose ‘Other’, that assumption collapses.

Stigmatisation persists: The circular requires schools to avoid isolating withdrawn pupils and hold non-religious gatherings. These help. But if a child is one of the few withdrawn—particularly in small schools—they’ll still be visibly different. The Supreme Court found “ample evidence” of stigmatisation.

No inspection: Schools implement without accountability until inspection legislation passes. The circular notes this is “intended”, but provides no timeline. The ETI can currently only inspect RE if Governors request it, which they rarely do.

No interim RE guidance: The Oral Statement instructs schools to add “objective, critical and pluralistic material” while teaching the current core syllabus. But the circular provides no detail on what this means. Schools must reconcile contradictory obligations—teach the indoctrinating syllabus (statutory duty) while avoiding indoctrination (ECHR obligations)—without clear guidance until summer 2026.

The Opt-In Alternative

As argued previously, the demographic evidence strengthens the case for inverting the default. Rather than presuming confessional instruction for all with opt-out for dissenters, offer inclusive Religion and Worldviews Education as the default, with confessional instruction on an opt-in basis. This eliminates stigmatisation, disclosure burdens, and deterrent effects entirely. Wales provides the model—their Religion, Values and Ethics curriculum is explicitly designed so “no one would need to withdraw.”

When 47.4% of pupils are non-Protestant, and 22.2% are ‘No Religion’, the opt-out presumption appears demographically untenable. The circular makes it easier to opt out. But it doesn’t question why opting out is necessary, given the fundamental demographic shift.

Conclusion

The Department’s response genuinely is good in parts. Withdrawal procedures are substantially improved. The Purdy review is proceeding properly. But examine the response against the demographic evidence, and the Minister’s “overwhelming wishes” claim appears contradicted by parents’ actual choices.

For eighteen months, nearly 40,000 non-Protestant pupils will receive confessional Christian instruction that the Supreme Court has declared indoctrinating. Improved withdrawal procedures will provide better protection than before, but they remain an opt-out framework presuming Protestant worship as the default. When nearly half of controlled primary pupils are non-Protestant, when multiple schools serve ‘Other’ majorities, and when parents’ preferences directly contradict claims of overwhelming support, perhaps the system needs more fundamental reform than just improved withdrawal procedures.

The circular makes it easier to escape the bad egg. The question is whether—come September 2027—Professor Purdy’s new curriculum will finally cook something genuinely fresh, or whether we’ll need another round of improved opt-out procedures when demographics shift further still.

The numbers are clear: 47.4% non-Protestant. The law is clear: the core syllabus is indoctrinating. The timeline is clear: September 2027. What remains unclear is whether a system designed for Protestant majority populations in the 1940s can truly adapt to pluralist populations in 2026, or whether improved withdrawal procedures are the closest we’ll get to true reform.

This is the eighth article in a series examining educational governance in Northern Ireland. Previous articles: ‘The Transformation Majority That Doesn’t Count’ (I); ‘It’s Not Just Protestant Schools’ (II); ‘Take Down the Hurdles’ (III); ‘The Irony of Integration’ (IV); ‘Time to Flip the Switch’ (V); ‘Beyond Indoctrination’ (VI); ‘Eight Per Cent After Forty Years’ (VII).

Sources: Re JR87 [2025] UKSC 40; Oral Statement: Religious Education and Collective Worship (3 February 2026); Circular on the Right of Withdrawal (3 February 2026); DENI Religion Statistics 2024/25 (via FOI, Parents for Inclusive Education NI).