The Relationship Between Education and Religion in Slovenia in the Context of Increasing Cultural Diversity: Insights from a Pilot Study on the Visibility of Minority Pupils

Abstract

This article examines the complex interplay between plurality and neutrality in Slovenian education in the context of increasing religious and cultural diversity associated with global migration. Drawing on a pilot study conducted with five primary school counsellors working in high-diversity school environments, it explores the tensions between the normative principles of plurality and neutrality and their practical implementation in everyday school life. The aim is to highlight the concrete challenges that schools and school staff encounter when addressing religious and cultural diversity. The pilot study shows that schools react differently to religious and cultural diversity, depending on the challenges faced by pupils, staff, school management and family-school co-operation. While the study included pupils from various religious backgrounds, only certain minority groups, particularly Muslim pupils, emerged as the minority group most clearly observed in the interviews. This visibility reflects the combination of cultural and religious differences from the majority and the more explicit demands these pupils and their families raised within the school context. In contrast, Orthodox Christian pupils were generally perceived as culturally and institutionally aligned with the majority population, and their practices (such as observing their New Year or other holidays) were accommodated by the existing school system without specific challenges. It also suggests that there are different understandings of how schools should teach neutrality and plurality beyond the official curriculum. The study identifies common challenges that schools face in relation to religious and cultural diversity, some of which are closely linked to the multicultural approach to education. The challenges identified are illustrated using Muslim pupils as an example of the minority group most prominently observed in the data, while acknowledging that other minority groups may experience different or less visible challenges. The findings are therefore limited to the context observed in this pilot study and cannot be generalised to all minority pupils in Slovenia.

1. Introduction

In Slovenia, as in many other European countries, the phenomenon of increasing religious and cultural diversity is attributed to global migration. While the majority of Slovenians traditionally identify as Catholic, Slovenian schools are seeing an increase in the number of pupils from different cultural and religious backgrounds (Republic of Slovenia Statistical Office 2025: SiStat1). Ten years ago, around 4000 immigrant pupils attended Slovenian primary schools; today, this figure is more than four times higher. According to the latest data from the Ministry of Education, 17,326 pupils with foreign citizenship or permanent residence outside Slovenia are enrolled in Slovenian primary schools this school year. The largest proportion of these pupils comes from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia and Ukraine (Jereb 2024). This demographic change raises important questions about the role of religion in education, the promotion of mutual respect and the adaptation of school policies.

This article examines the constitutional principle of the separation of religious communities and the state in Slovenia, and discusses how, in the face of religious diversity, religion is not included in the compulsory curriculum of public primary schools but is included in the hidden curriculum. Although religious education is not compulsory, pupils encounter religious topics in subjects such as history, literature and civics. Compared to other European countries with different approaches, the Slovenian system is relatively neutral in terms of the formal curriculum. However, the practices in individual schools reveal different approaches to accommodate the increasing religious and cultural diversity regarding the integration of minority pupils, which is the focus of this article.

From a sociology of education perspective, the aim of this paper is to contribute to a better understanding of the complex issue of the diversity and inclusion of minority pupils, exploring the interplay and potential tensions between cultural and religious diversity in Slovenian primary schools. It aims to examine how Slovenian primary schools address religious and cultural diversity in practice through hidden curricula.

2. Religion, Education and Modernity

Religion has played a key role in shaping European societies. Despite the influence of Enlightenment theories on the shaping of European modernity, institutionalized religions and established churches have maintained their influence in the public sphere. Educational systems, which are by definition institutions of modernity, are an interesting example of the peculiar coexistence of tradition (religion) and modernity in European societies (Zambeta 2008).

Historically, the relationship between religion and education in the West has been characterized by the separation of church and state, the private and public spheres, and the scientific and spiritual. This has resulted in a complex interplay of elements regarding individual rights, particularly in schools, where families have rights in relation to the state and the church. Since the Enlightenment, education has been regarded as a means of fostering modern, educated and autonomous citizens who can effectively embody the principles of freedom, liberalism and democracy.

The case of education, the freedom of expression is limited by the relationships among different social spheres (Walzer 1984). While religious freedom is seen as an individual right in the private sphere, it is more problematic in public spheres such as education. Habermas (2006), drawing on the post-secular society, considers the legitimization of religious discourse in the public sphere, especially within his concept of the “post-secular society”. His approach is a middle ground that acknowledges the persistent relevance of religion while maintaining the necessary secular foundation of democratic law and democratic institutions. Habermas’s core legitimizing mechanism is the institutional translation proviso, which applies differently to the informal and formal public spheres. His argument is based on the distinction between public and private spheres, and he distinguishes between informal and formal public spheres. Informal public spheres such as civil society are marked by inclusion, and citizens are allowed and encouraged to express their political views and moral convictions using their religious language (e.g., drawing on biblical or theological arguments). This inclusive stance respects the freedom of religion and expression, recognizes religious traditions as valuable sources of moral insight and social solidarity, and avoids placing an undue burden on religious citizens to “split” their identity. Secular citizens must, in turn, be open to the possible “truth content” of religious contributions. However, the formal public sphere requires a translation. For a religious claim to influence binding decisions (laws, judicial rulings), it must be translated into a secular, generally accessible language or public reason. This is necessary to ensure the legitimacy of the law in a liberal democracy. A law is legitimate only if it can be justified to all citizens using reasons that are equally accessible and understandable, regardless of their religious or worldview commitments. The state itself must remain neutral.

In this light, education can be defined as a public sphere, upholding the democratic and liberal ideas and the ideals of modern plural, neutral scientific knowledge. Modern educational institutions have been strongly influenced by two opposing rationalities (Weber 1978, 2004), modern, reason-based knowledge on one hand and religious on the other. Religions, per se, are not a field for epistemic study, as their teachings transcend the system of reason and cannot be refuted (Durkheim 1995). In this sense, religions are at the opposite end of the spectrum from epistemic knowledge. Despite their importance and their great influence on the foundation of European universities and educational institutions in general, religions follow a different set of regulatory ideas than epistemic subjects and modern education. In Science as a Vocation, Weber points to the polytheism of values between science and religion. He defines scientific rationality as a commitment to empirical facts, causal analysis, and the pursuit of intellectual clarity. Its ultimate value is truth and methodical mastery of the world (a process he calls “disenchantment”). Religious rationality, on the other hand, is based on ultimate value positions, which provide an internal, systematic, and coherent meaning to the world (e.g., in the form of a theodicy, or an answer to the problem of evil and suffering). Its ultimate value is salvation or ethical consistency. It tells the believer what the world means and how to live a life based on that meaning. Weber emphasizes that modern life has separated these two spheres, making their ultimate values contradictory to one another. He claims that science destroys religious meaning and religion defies scientific method. The methodical, empirical, and intellectual rationalization of the world (science) systematically “disenchants” it, replacing divine explanations with causal ones. Religious truth is grounded in faith, revelation, and experience, not empirical, objective proof. From the perspective of scientific rationality, religious knowledge is ultimately irrational because it rests on non-verifiable, ultimate values.

While Weber’s argument is constructive, it tells us little about the practical implications for schools. Modern schools are not only a place of rational scientific behaviour and enlightenment ideals are not only based on the separation of the church and state, but also imply the self-limitation of both in relation to individual rights and freedoms, and the family’s right to educate their children based on their particular values (cultural, religious or other) (Condorcet 1994; Durkheim 2009). The core sociological conflict can be summarized through different sets of rights. Firstly, there is the right of parents (autonomy of the family) to direct the moral and religious upbringing of their children, which often involves making choices about religious schooling or homeschooling, or demanding exemptions from certain public-school activities or curricula. Secondly, children have the right to freedom of conscience and religion, exposure to diverse viewpoints and the opportunity to develop their own autonomy, which could limit the extent to which parents can control their children’s education from a religious perspective. Thirdly, the state has an interest in maintaining a secular, non-indoctrinating public education system that ensures children receive a comprehensive civic education promoting social unity and tolerance in a diverse, democratic society.

Religious beliefs in modern societies can therefore no longer claim the explicit privileged, dominant position in terms of explaining the world, imposing values and so on, but are implicitly present through religious influences on the family and individual, and claims for their freedom of expression. In terms of educational policy, this manifests through two dominant themes. The first is connected to democracy and is seen in debates about secularization and pluralism, namely, how to effectively promote educational neutrality without marginalizing religious identity in a rapidly pluralizing, multicultural society. The second is connected to science and presents itself as a religious-secular divide, including cultural and political battles over topics such as evolution versus creationism, and the separation of church and state in public. It also analyses how these conflicts impact the quality and equity of education for all students.

In light of contemporary events, and specifically the increased flow of migrant students and their families, Western education is faced with several challenges on two axes, intersecting both of the aforementioned themes. The first axis concerns the relationship between the dominant religion and the state (in the West, the dominant religion has traditionally been Christianity). Here, we distinguish between secular and religious schools, as well as the role that the Christian religion plays in a given national educational environment. The second axis includes the intersection of other religions, presenting not only as a division of the state and church, but also as a multicultural issue. Embracing the ideal of diversity in schools implies a complex interplay of the religious and cultural practices of students and their families.

Religious and cultural diversity intersect across virtually every aspect of community life, creating a complex, mutually influential relationship. For example, Lodigiani (2020) analyses Italian multicultural schools, and shows that for many groups of students belonging to a particular religion is equivalent to belonging to a particular culture (an ethno-religious identity). This is also reflected in clothing practices related to modesty or ritual, such as the hijab, turban and sari, as well as daily practices and customs—the routines and rituals that structure everyday life. In addition, diverse dietary laws (e.g., halal and kosher) and food preparation traditions are direct religious dictates that become cultural practices, as are religious holidays (e.g., Christmas, Ramadan, etc.), which become the basis for a society’s festivals and annual rhythms. Religious belief systems provide foundational moral codes that shape a culture’s ethical values, family structure, views on marriage and gender roles, and social justice.

The main challenges and tasks of schools in dealing with religious and cultural diversity reflect the increasing multiculturalism in society and schools. Lodigiani (2020) argues that there are several tensions between religious and democratic values in public schools. Schools face the dilemma of being both secular and multi-faith, and promoting respect and dialogue between different religious and cultural backgrounds to create a truly safe and inclusive space for all students. Schools are faced with various constraints, such as demands that female Muslim students are not allowed to participate in multi-day school trips or sit next to male classmates, or requests to deviate from the dress code during sports activities (e.g., long trousers, no swimming) These demands highlight the power dimension of school relationships and the role of religion in shaping students’ “worldview”. One of the biggest challenges is to reconcile the authority of the family and the school. The family is an important factor in the religious socialization that parental responsibility brings, but parental authority is weakened in adolescence by the influence of peers and school. The imposition of religious rules by the family, especially on girls, can hinder their personal freedom and integration. As Lodigiani points out, a misconception of secularism can lead to a complete denial of religious affiliations, limiting opportunities for dialogue and critical thinking. Neutrality can lead to a “neutralization” of diversity for fear of conflict or a lack of appropriate means to deal with it. Social inequalities are reflected in schools, particularly in the case of immigrant children who face the transmission of disadvantage from generation to generation and have fewer opportunities despite an inclusive approach being adopted (pp. 713–17).

Schools that embody truly democratic principles should act as laboratories for dialogue, where different voices can peacefully coexist. By developing interreligious and intercultural dialogue, the school promotes mutual knowledge, respect and acceptance of differences. In this way, it becomes a “safe space” for dialogue, integration and mutual respect. By addressing and respecting religious and cultural differences as an essential part of personal identity, schools can promote integration. Dealing with conflict appropriately can be an opportunity to strengthen social cohesion and build bridges between cultures. Schools need to help pupils develop critical thinking skills and learn to debate in a climate of mutual tolerance when confronted with different views, ideas, cultures and religions. This includes the ability to think critically about their own religious identity and traditions.

To summarize, systematic attempts to secularize and displace the church in the control of education and contributed to the political construction of nation states and have continued to mark the educational policy of national educational systems from the 20th century onward. However, the process of secularization was neither universal nor equally radical in all European societies (Green 1990). While the pursuit of enlightenment is based on trust in rationality and the confinement of religion to the private sphere, it also supports the right to dissent, which is rooted in freedom of conscience and tolerance (Coulby 2005; Zambeta 2008).

3. Religion in Schools in Slovenia

In its General Comment No. 20, the CRC Committee emphasizes that schools and other institutions should respect the right to freedom of religion and that there should be a choice to participate in religious education. In most EU Member States, children receive religious education in public schools, either as a compulsory or optional subject. In most cases, the option to opt out of religious education is subject to written parental consent (EU FRA 2017). Europe is generally a secularized society, and many countries are committed to the principle of secularity. However, there is no single model for the role and teaching of religion in the education system. The diversity of interpretations of the term “secularity” is related to the diversity of approaches to the teaching (or non-teaching) of religion in European education systems. Existing research describes four main models of religious education in public schools in secularized European societies. Uriarte and Rodríguez (2023) identify the following basic models: learning out of religion, learning from or through religion and beliefs, learning about religion, and the confessional model.

The Slovenian system for teaching about religion in public schools is a mixture that partly coincides with two different models identified by Uriarte and Rodríguez (2023): learning out of religion, and learning from or through religion and beliefs. Although the first model strictly excludes specific religious education in public schools in order to ensure state neutrality and religious equality, Slovenia partially adopts this approach. In Slovenia, pupils have a compulsory ethics subject. However, they also have the option of choosing a combination of ethics and religion. It is important to mention that this combination has no denominational character. Religious phenomena are still dealt with as part of the curriculum, but on an interdisciplinary basis. This means that it is the responsibility of individual teachers to integrate religious phenomena into their subjects. This approach is in line with the principle of freedom of conscience and non-coercion with regard to religious beliefs. Slovenia also partly adopts the from or through religion and beliefs model, which sees the school system as a crucial place where one learns to live in a pluralistic society by exchanging different worldviews. It encourages learning from religious traditions and the development of new forms of awareness and reflection. The inclusion of religious phenomena in the curriculum is functional here, focusing on their ethical potential, ancestral wisdom and ability to promote personal well-being and social cohesion. This model requires the development of specific content and the training of specialized teaching staff by secular state institutions, not religious institutions. This approach protects the freedom of religious traditions to express their ethical perspectives and the freedom of individuals to evaluate and subscribe to particular approaches.

Despite these different models, the documents of the European institutions, such as the Toledo Guiding Principles on Teaching about Religions and Beliefs in Public Schools (OSCE/ODIHR 2007), the White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue (Council of Europe 2008), make it clear that the secularization developing in Europe is promoting religious education. The teaching of religious and non-religious world views is seen as essential learning for life in an increasingly pluralistic society and for strengthening social cohesion. The general recommendation of the European institutions is in favor of intercultural and interreligious education (Uriarte and Rodríguez 2023).

3.1. Status of Religion in Education in Slovenia

In Slovenia, the role of religion in schools has been a controversial topic in both academic and political circles since the country declared independence in the 1990s (Gaber and Kodelja 1990). As part of the former socialist republic of Yugoslavia, there was a strict ideological understanding of religion in the public sphere, and it was perceived as an obstacle to progress not only in schools but also in general. The scientific and materialistic worldview of Marxism-Leninism is at odds with religious beliefs, and religion was seen as a promoter of superstition, an obstacle to rational thinking and a stumbling block to the development of a modern, secular socialist society. Furthermore, the socialist-communist regimes sought the complete loyalty and ideological commitment of their citizens to the state and the communist party. Religion, with its own beliefs, values and authority figures, was seen as a competitor to this total loyalty. Based on these views, socialist-communist regimes, like Yugoslavia, implemented policies aimed at restricting and ultimately eliminating religion, such as the separation of church and state.

The Roman Catholic Church once played an important role in education in Slovenia, and although education was secularized during the socialist era, some church schools remained active. Moreover, after Slovenia gained independence, the opportunity arose to re-establish public schools with a religious tradition (Kodelja 1995).

Documents such as the White Paper on Education in the Republic of Slovenia (1995) had an impact on legislation and led the relationship between school and religion in Slovenia to be regulated by the constitution and legislation, which guarantee the religious neutrality of public schools and the freedom of religion and belief of the individual. This means that public schools are neutral in this regard, and thus, there is no compulsory religious education or indoctrination in them. Teaching in all subjects must be non-denominational and objective. School premises should be ideologically neutral, i.e., religious symbols must not be displayed in a way that suggests affiliation with a particular religion. The freedom of religion and belief of pupils and teachers is guaranteed. Pupils and teachers have the right to freely express their religious affiliation outside the classroom and official school activities, provided this does not interfere with teaching or the rights of others. It is also possible to teach optional lessons about religions. For example, a compulsory elective subject “Religions and Ethics” was introduced in the 7th, 8th and 9th grades of primary school. The aim of this subject is to educate pupils about different religions and ethical systems in an objective and informative way, but not to teach pupils to follow a specific religion (Verstva in etika 2005). Different religions are presented in terms of their historical development, main characteristics, religious symbolism and so on, although this subject has not been fully implemented in practice. However, religious education was made possible in Catholic schools, which have more autonomy in designing their curriculum and values2 but still have to adhere to the national educational standards in the core subjects (Črnič and Pogačnik 2021).

In his work Laic School: Pro et contra (1995), Kodelja describes the educational debate at the time of the professional and political establishment of a democratic and modern state in Slovenia. The secular and neutral3 school that was to be offered by the newly emerging democratic state was to be based on plurality and ideological neutrality. He defines a neutral school in the context of religious and ideological beliefs. It consists of ideological neutrality (the principle of secularism) which according to Kodelja, the neutrality of schools means that public schools cannot and must not take official positions on religious or life philosophies (e.g., Christianity, atheism, humanism, etc.); are inclusive and accessible to all, which means that it must not discriminate against or favor anyone on the basis of their beliefs and school must takes a “neutral stance” in the sense that philosophies of life cannot be imposed from above (e.g., the state or school authorities do not impose them on students). A neutral school is one that tries to avoid the monopoly or imposition of any single ideology (political or religious). Its goal is to enable plurality and critical assessment of all views. The emphasis is on the fact that public education is obliged to provide neutral content for “general education”.

However, the author emphasizes that complete neutrality in education is neither possible nor desirable, as schools inevitably impart certain values. The fundamental question should therefore be how schools should balance pupils’ different values and beliefs, and here Kodelja discusses the importance of pupils’ critical thinking and autonomy in shaping their own values, with schools being a central space for promoting tolerance and intercultural dialogue. In the 1990s, arguments were made both in favour of and against school neutrality. The arguments against school neutrality point out that the ideal of neutrality is not possible as schools are already value-laden in their structure and functioning and have a responsibility to promote fundamental societal values such as tolerance, democracy and critical thinking. At the same time, they support the arguments in favour of neutrality as it should prevent indoctrination, preserve the enlightenment concept of knowledge and school, promote tolerance and avoid conflict and the imposition of moral and political views. In this context, a neutral and secular school was understood to be a school that ensures the absence of political and religious influences.

However, this latter point was and still is heavily debated. The political discourse in Slovenia is marked by continuous tension between secularist values inherited from the socialist past and enshrined through the democratic transition that resulted in the current legal framework, and the conservative demands for greater religious influence, primarily from the largest religious community, the Roman Catholic Church, articulated by right-wing political parties and seen as a vital part of national and cultural identity. The controversy began during the inception of democracy in Slovenia in 1991, and today, with the transformation of the school system in its final stage, it remains the hottest educational issue. Having passed parliamentary procedure in Spring 1996, the Education Bill and the concept of the new education system are now practical realities. The Catholic Church, society, and the state have comprised the main divisions within this national values controversy, each seeking to answer the question, what should be the role and nature of moral/religious education in the public-school curriculum (Hladnik 1997)? Both conservative parties and the Catholic Church have repeatedly called for the reintroduction of religious instruction (i.e., the Catechism) into public schools, often framing it as necessary to combat a perceived “moral crisis” among youth or as a fundamental right of parents, and to strengthen the cultural and national identity of Slovenians.

3.2. Balancing School Neutrality and Plurality with Social Cohesion: Between the Normative and the Practical

While the previous discussion focused on the first axis, that is relationship between the dominant religion and the state in connection to establishing democracy in a post-socialist state (Staničić 2021), we now turn to the second axis that includes the intersection of other religions, presenting not only as a division of the state and church, but also as a multicultural issue. In recent years, Slovenia has encountered an increased flow of migrant students and with it a heated political and scientific debate around integration policies, among which education is one of frequently debated political issues (e.g., Jereb 2024). Conservative discourse in Slovenia, primarily from political parties, often frames multiculturalism in public schools as an existential threat to the Slovenian national identity. These claims emphasize the fragility of the Slovenian language and culture against what is portrayed as an overwhelming influx of non-Slovenian influences. Multicultural education (or intercultural education) is seen as a vehicle for relativizing or diminishing the importance of Slovenian history, national myths, and cultural heritage in the curriculum. It is feared that public schools will cease to be primarily Slovenian language environments, thereby undermining the Slovene language’s central role as the foundation of national identity. Conservatives argue that the current focus on integration, rather than full assimilation, fails to ensure adequate linguistic competence, thereby creating linguistic “ghettos” or a permanent, non-integrated underclass (e.g., Sekulović 2025). On the other hand, liberals argue that while policies declare integration, the practical implementation, which heavily stresses swift Slovenian language acquisition without reciprocal recognition of the students’ home culture, forces a process of “quiet assimilation”. This pressure creates emotional difficulties and feelings of inferiority for non-Slovenian students. The curriculum is criticized for maintaining a Eurocentric worldview and failing to adequately integrate the histories, cultures, and contributions of immigrant and minority groups. Critics argue this sends a message that belonging to Slovenia requires abandoning one’s original identity. At the intersection of both the conservative and liberal views lies the challenge of interpreting the equal rights of (migrant) students and their families (e.g., Prebelič and Bačlija 2016; Total Slovenia News 2018). These political narratives are an example of the value-based problems schools face in implementing policy and exercising autonomy in relation to students’ families in a diverse local environments, while waiting for systematic support from the educational authorities.

The data for Slovenia on students with disabilities and immigrants in terms of school performance (Cankar 2020) shows, among other things, that first-generation immigrants lagged behind the rest of the population in terms of performance and socioeconomic status between 2009 and 2018. This finding is also supported by international studies (OECD 2023a, 2023b). Among pupils with a migrant background, 57% of young people are categorized as socio-economically disadvantaged, compared to 25% of the overall pupil population. At the same time, in the 2022 PISA survey (OECD 2023a, 2023b), around 84% of students with a migrant background (and 3% of all other students) stated that they speak a different language at home most of the time than the one with which they took part in the PISA survey. Significant differences in performance were found, with an average difference of 60 points in favour of students without a migrant background in mathematics and 47 points in reading. Even after adjusting for the socio-economic profile of students, significant differences in performance remain, emphasizing the need for tailored approaches and support for pupils with an immigrant background. According to data from the Ministry of Education, there has been an increase in the enrolment of children with a migrant background, pupils and students whose mother tongue is not Slovenian in recent years (2017–2022). In the pre-school sector, the data shows an increase in the number of enrolled migrant children from 3.06% of the population in 2017 to 9.14% in 2024. In primary school programmes, there has also been an increase in the number of enrolled pupils with a migrant background from 3.77% of the population in 2017 to 8.97% in 2024. The smallest increase can be observed in secondary education, where the proportion of pupils with a migrant background in the total population was 5.4% in 2017 and 6.9% in 2024 (Ministrstvo za vzgojo in izobraževanje [Portal MVI] 2023).

The Guidelines for the Integration of Children, Pupils and Students from Other Linguistic and Cultural Backgrounds into the Slovenian Education System (2024) focus primarily on learning the Slovenian language as one of the most important factors in the integration of pupils into Slovenian schools. While language is undeniably important, the guidelines—as well as similar policy documents—do not address the intersection of religious and cultural diversity in public schools. Religious and cultural diversity in Slovenia are closely intertwined in public schools, as a person’s religious beliefs often shape and are shaped by their cultural background. This intertwining presents both great opportunities and complex challenges for teachers, students and the entire school community. However, the intersection of religious and cultural diversity in public schools is a multifaceted aspect of modern education. While it presents significant challenges in terms of legal frameworks, pedagogical approaches and potential conflicts, it also offers invaluable opportunities to develop inclusive, empathetic and open-minded citizens. Effective management requires ongoing dialogue, culturally responsive teaching, clear policies and a commitment to promoting mutual understanding and respect among all members of the school community.

To summarize, Slovenia has a model of separation of the state and religious communities in public education that aims to ensure neutrality and freedom of religion. In practice, however, various questions and challenges arise in reconciling these principles, which are becoming increasingly important in the context of global migration and the integration of migrants into the Slovenian education system. The current challenges and debates are related to the practical implementation of neutrality in relation to worldviews—both religious and cultural. They arise in connection with questions about the presence of religious symbols in public schools or the way in which religious topics are dealt with in various subjects. While there is at least a basic consensus on the importance of having knowledge about different religions for living together in a pluralistic society, there is no uniform view on how this knowledge should be taught in public schools. There are still debates about whether religious education should be compulsory or optional, and what its aims should be (informative, cultural, and/or ethical). While these issues are important, they are mainly discussed in political and academic circles and are strongly influenced by the ideological and historical background of the Slovenian nation, while schools are confronted with the practical challenges of religious and cultural diversity resulting from the increasing diversity of the school population.

4. Methodology

The pilot study was designed as an exploratory first step within a broader research agenda, and therefore focuses intentionally on five counsellors from high-diversity school contexts rather than aiming for national representativeness. The aim of the pilot study was to explore the constitutional principle of the separation of religious communities and the state in Slovenia by investigating religious diversity and inclusion practices in five different primary school contexts, and to explore the interplay and possible tensions between culture and religion in primary schools. Our main research questions were as follows: How do Slovenian primary schools perceive cultural and religious diversity? Which challenges do they face? And how do they respond to those challenges?

Primary education in Slovenia is mostly public, compulsory, and secular. Religion is not taught as a separate subject in public schools, although topics related to cultural and religious diversity may appear in subjects such as ethics or social studies. Slovenian public schools can be described as complex environments because they bring together children from diverse socio-economic, ethnic, and religious or worldview backgrounds. This diversity often requires schools to navigate subtle tensions between inclusion, cultural expression, and the secular character of education. The challenges faced by elementary schools depend on the population structure of the school districts. In Slovenia, elementary schools are part of school districts. Each public elementary school is assigned a catchment area defined by the local community. This area is the primary mechanism that links a student’s residence to a specific school. All children residing within a school’s designated catchment area are legally guaranteed a place at that school. While this ensures widespread and accessible basic education across the country, parents also have the right to request enrolment for their child at a public school outside their home catchment area (Eurydice Slovenia n.d.). Consequently, the diversity of the student population differs between elementary schools, with some districts having very few migrant students and others having many. The state secretary at the Ministry of Education presented the numbers as follows: “There are no immigrants in 35 schools, and in over 300 schools—representing 71% of all Slovenian primary schools—there are fewer than 10% immigrants. Meanwhile, 6% of schools—or 32 schools—have more than 20% immigrants.” (Tomadouz 2024). In addition, the migrant population differs from district to district.

The study involved five school counsellors from different Slovenian primary schools. The schools were chosen from districts that have a high proportion of migrant students. In the Slovenian context, a school counsellor (svetovalni delavec) is a trained professional—usually in psychology, pedagogy, or social work—who supports pupils, teachers, and parents in matters of learning, well-being, and school climate. Counsellors are not classroom teachers but work closely with them, and can offer insights into how schools respond to diversity at the institutional level. The counsellors were chosen strategically as they are a bridge among the teachers, students, student families, local community and school management. Although the schools included pupils from various religious backgrounds, only certain minority groups, particularly Muslim pupils, emerged as particularly visible in the interviews. This visibility reflects the combination of cultural and religious differences from the majority population and the more explicit demands raised by these pupils and their families, rather than a prior selection by the researchers. Consequently, the findings of this pilot study cannot be generalised to all minority pupils in Slovenia, and the study serves primarily to illustrate challenges arising from the most visible minority groups in the participating schools. The differential visibility of minority pupils underscores the importance of considering how schools perceive and respond to cultural and religious diversity, beyond formal policies of plurality and neutrality. This observation highlights that certain minority groups may remain institutionally ‘invisible’ despite the existence of formal inclusion policies, suggesting that schools’ responses are shaped not only by regulations but also by the perceived salience of cultural and religious differences in everyday practice.

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and analysed thematically. Given the small number of participants, the findings are not representative of all Slovenian schools but provide exploratory insights into the dilemmas schools face and the approaches they adopt when dealing with cultural and religious diversity. Despite its limited scope, the study contributes to understanding the terms of debate and differences in thinking that shape inclusion practices in Slovenian primary education.

4.1. Participants, Data Collection and Analyses

The pilot study comprised five interviews with school counsellors working at public primary schools in different regions of Slovenia. The schools were selected due to their high complexity in terms of religious, cultural and socio-economic diversity as well as their location in urban and non-urban areas. The anonymity of the schools and school counsellors was guaranteed.

Three of the interviews were conducted orally—two in person and one via Zoom—while the other two were prepared in writing as answers to questions sent in advance. When comparing the two formats, we found that the written responses were often more structured and stylistically polished. In contrast, the oral interviews were more spontaneous, enriched with anecdotes, personal reflections and doubts, which gave the study a more lively and direct insight into everyday school life and the perspectives of the staff. This combination of written and oral sources thus contributed to a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges that schools face and strategies they use to deal with religious diversity.

Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, guided by an interview protocol covering key themes such as:

-

Challenges arising from pupils’ cultural and religious backgrounds in everyday school life, including wearing religious symbols, discussions about religion, and any conflicts or misunderstandings.

-

Practices related to religious holidays, rituals, and dietary requirements, and how these are received by pupils and staff.

-

Collaboration with parents from different religious backgrounds and any associated challenges.

-

Adjustments requested in school activities (e.g., sports, excursions, outdoor learning, health checks, or physical contact) due to cultural or religious considerations.

-

Teachers’ responses to the requirement for a secular and pluralistic school environment.

-

Observed differences between boys and girls in expressing religious beliefs or participating in school activities.

-

Evaluation of the school’s multicultural approach and effective practices in promoting tolerance and intercultural dialogue.

-

Perceived tensions or challenges related to religion or worldview within the school context.

Each oral interview lasted between 45 and 60 min, was audio-recorded, and subsequently transcribed.

The texts were analysed using qualitative content analysis, which focuses on the examination of manifest content (Kleinheksel et al. 2020). The application of manifest content analysis makes it possible to extract explicit and visible content from the empirical material, thereby enabling subjective interpretations that capture the essence of the text and emphasize prevailing themes and patterns. This method of analysis, which focuses on the recognizable elements of the text, formed the basis for our approach. The first stage involved delineating the units of analysis within the texts and identifying codes or concepts that best represent certain components of the responses. Patterns and similarities between these codes were then identified and aggregated. These codes were then synthesized into broader categories, allowing for a deeper understanding of the data (Flick 2020).

During the process, each interviewee was assigned a unique identification number (code) to maintain anonymity. In preparing the findings that follow, we conducted thematic coding of the five interviews. This process enabled us to gather answers to the previously outlined research question. Although such a limited number of interviews does not allow for generalization to all schools in Slovenia, the results nonetheless offer valuable and in-depth insights into how religious and cultural diversity is practised and understood within the school setting.

4.2. Findings

The analysis of the interviews revealed that neutrality and pluralism are relatively self-evident in Slovenian primary schools, but that practices vary from school to school. For the schools that participated in the pilot study, these differences can be explained by contextual variables that influence how neutrality and pluralism are realized in practice. Based on the pilot study we detected that practices could vary depending on the size of the school and the percentage of the population that the school perceives as part of a minority. The larger the school, the more practices are adapted autonomously by schools to ensure equal opportunities and cultural diversity in accordance with the law. However, the interviews indicate that these practices could also vary in their scope and strategic direction, depending primarily on the school leadership and the school district. Although due to the small scale of the pilot research the findings presented require further analysis, we will attempt to outline some of the issues raised that require further consideration and could explain the complexity of the topic and the possible axes of further investigation.

At the same time, the categories and codes proved to be highly overlapping and difficult to clearly distinguish in the small sample of the pilot study, which points to the complexity of the issues of understanding equality and justice in the Slovenian school space, the autonomy of teachers and schools, and the overlapping of religious and cultural elements in the context of multiculturalism of the school space.

Table 1 presents the results of the thematic coding of the interview data. Codes represent smaller units of meaning identified in the transcripts, while categories reflect broader themes that group related codes together. This hierarchical structure clarifies how individual observations and practices (codes) relate to overarching aspects of school life and diversity management (categories), enhancing the transparency and interpretability of the analysis.

Table 1. Thematic coding.

Category	Codes
Legal and Institutional Framework	Legislation School autonomy Professional autonomy
Curriculum and Teaching	Religious content in curricula Cultural elements and learning about religions in curricular and non-curricular activities
School Environment and Practices	Practised neutrality and religious inclusion Religious symbols Religious holidays Diet Cultural traditions in the school environment Language
Relations and Diversity	Family and school relations Gender

4.3. Practiced Neutrality and Religious Inclusion

The interviews revealed two main strategies that schools adopt in implementing neutrality and religious inclusion: avoidance of religious issues and active recognition of diversity. Both strategies were observed across the five participating schools, often adapted pragmatically depending on context, staff attitudes, and school culture.

4.3.1. Avoidance of Religious Issues

Some schools interpret neutrality primarily as avoiding explicit engagement with religion. Teachers tend not to comment on pupils’ religious practices, viewing religion as a private family matter that does not affect academic performance. As one counsellor explained: “Teachers usually avoid commenting on religion… It has no bearing on how someone performs at school. The children mostly accept that: some celebrate differently, some have a slightly different God, and there are also many atheist families.” (Interview 3).

Other interviewees made similar observations. A counsellor from an urban school noted that legislation on neutrality is “quite loose… which allows different schools to interpret these things in their own way.” (Interview 1). Avoidance was seen as a pragmatic way to maintain classroom harmony and prevent open conflicts. While this strategy often successfully avoids overt conflicts, it may unintentionally reduce the visibility and legitimacy of pupils’ religious identities. Pupils for whom faith is an important part of daily life may feel compelled to “hide” their differences to be accepted, which can undermine their sense of belonging.

4.3.2. Active Recognition of Diversity

Other schools adopt a more inclusive approach, actively recognizing and accommodating religious and cultural diversity. This strategy includes: adapting meals to meet dietary restrictions (e.g., avoiding pork or providing vegetarian options), acknowledging and explaining different religious holidays and rituals, encouraging discussion and reflection on diverse practices and lifestyles. For example, a counsellor from an urban school reported the following: “We try to recognize differences actively… This helps pupils feel included and normalises pluralism as part of the school culture.” (Interview 2).

Another participant highlighted the importance of being sensitive to pupils’ needs while balancing professional responsibilities: “In practice, we must find the balance between neutrality and supporting pupils’ identities… this often requires individual agreements and ongoing adjustments.” (Interview 4).

Counsellors observe that the success of this strategy depends on staff attitudes, diversity training, and institutional support. When applied effectively, it strengthens pupils’ sense of inclusion and contributes to a school culture that values pluralism.

Schools frequently mix elements of both strategies, adapting their approach according to context. A recurring pattern described as culturalization was observed, where staff are more sensitive to “other” cultures than to their own local or majority culture: “We tend to overlook our own culture and religion… while ‘others’ are seen through the lens of difference.” (Interview 5).

This implies that neutrality is not a fixed practice but negotiated daily by staff in response to pupil needs and school environment. Overall, these practices influence both pupils’ sense of belonging and teachers’ professional decision-making, reflecting the tension between legal requirements for neutrality and the pedagogical responsibility to recognize pupils’ identities.

4.4. Religion in the School Environment

4.4.1. Religious Symbols

Although the Slovenian constitution and legislation guarantee freedom of religion and stipulate that teaching should be pluralistic, critical and objective (Kodelja 1995), and that it should take place without visible institutional signs of affiliation to a particular faith, practice in schools shows a more differentiated picture. Interviews with school counsellors show that the use of religious symbols as part of pupils’ personal identity is generally not perceived as problematic or disruptive. As one of the interviewees explained: “For example, Muslim girls wear a headscarf. These symbols are accepted at our school with understanding and respect, both by the teachers and by fellow pupils.” (Interview 2). This openness reflects a conscious endeavour to create an inclusive environment in which personal expressions of faith are respected as long as they do not disrupt lessons or infringe on the rights of others.

Another interviewee pointed to a contrary view: “But nobody actually wears a headscarf. I assume that wearing a headscarf would cause a stir. I can’t imagine what a fuss it would make if a teacher of the Muslim faith wore a headscarf. Personally, it wouldn’t bother me. In a way, a headscarf is similar to wearing a small cross around your neck—but one becomes a ‘conspicuous sign of religion or otherness’, while the other passes us by ‘unnoticed’.” (Interview 5).

As this quote shows, it is notable that certain symbols—especially Christian crosses—are more present but are often overlooked as something self-evident or culturally “invisible” due to historical and majority traditions. “Of course, I would characterize our entire teaching staff in this way, because we grew up in the Christian faith. We don’t really realize it,” remarked one interviewee (Interview 2), adding that pupils sometimes wear necklaces with crosses or bring religious pictures to school, but this is rarely seen as anything special. Another interviewee makes a similar comment: “Some children have small crosses and the like, but it has never been raised as a problem in any way.” (Interview 3).

This normalization of Christian symbols is in line with Kodelja’s (1995) observation that complete neutrality in the school environment is impossible, as schools inevitably convey certain socially and culturally anchored values. The question is therefore not whether symbols are present, but how they are reflected, whether symbols of other faiths are also permitted and how the school as a community creates conditions for pluralism. In practice, all school counsellors report that most teachers follow an approach based on respect, acceptance and pragmatic action: They allow personal expressions of faith through symbols but ensure that this does not become an institutional endorsement of one faith over another.

This dialectic between formal neutrality and the actual cultural environment could point to a special feature of the Slovenian school context: on the one hand, the predominant presence of the Christian heritage as an unspoken “normality” and, on the other hand, the growing visibility of other faiths, especially through personal symbols. This combination raises important questions about where neutrality ends and pluralism begins, and how schools can encourage critical reflection to remain spaces that not only allow but actively promote an understanding of diversity.

4.4.2. Holidays

An analysis of the significance of religious holidays in Slovenian primary schools based on interviews shows a fairly clear hierarchy: Catholic holidays, which are part of the official calendar—and Easter is a holiday, but not an official state holiday—occupy a special, almost self-evident place in the school environment, while the holidays of other religions are marginalized and usually treated only as a personal matter for individual pupils and their families. The fact that Catholic holidays are “national” holidays gives them legitimacy and space in school activities, events and symbolic practices. Interestingly, however, these too often lose their religious significance and become primarily cultural or even consumer-oriented events. One of the interviewees explained this quite vividly: “Even with the holidays, this is not really emphasized … Christmas is mainly about the capitalist side, isn’t it? So, Father Christmas and what makes the children happy, little presents, but not really as a religious festival.” (Interview 3). Another participant expressed a similar view: “Apart from that, the children who I assume celebrate Christmas tend to think about where they’re going on holiday and what presents they want.” (Interview 5).

This shift towards a “secularized” celebration raises another important question: Does this really represent the neutrality of the school, or could it be a form of cultural dominance of the majority religion that has been “softened” and adapted to modern consumer logic? Religion remains visible and present, but in a form that does not disrupt the cultural framework of the majority and does not require reflection on pluralism.

Holidays of minority religions, on the other hand, are generally not included in the school calendar or in official events; they only find a place if an individual teacher or a group of pupils is sufficiently motivated to present them. A good example of this is an interviewee who described how he once organized a performance and culinary corner with some pupils: “Once I persuaded some girls to sing a Macedonian folk song on a holiday… another time, some mums came, and we did a culinary tasting. But then it just stopped.” (Interview 1). This implies that such initiatives remain exceptions and often depend on the personal commitment of teachers rather than being part of a systematic, school-wide multicultural approach. While this “project-based” or “folkloric” approach to minority holidays may contribute to greater visibility, it could also reinforce power relations where the majority tradition is taken for granted, while others appear only as an “add-on” or cultural curiosity.

Some more inclusive practices were also highlighted. One interviewee from an urban setting described how they try to use public holidays as an opportunity for intercultural learning: “In Slovenia, when we celebrate holidays like Christmas or Easter, we always offer pupils the opportunity to introduce the holidays of their own faith… We talk about different ways of celebrating, traditional food, customs, symbols…” (Interview 2). She believed that this approach creates space for respect and dialogue while highlighting shared values (compassion, family, gratitude) that can serve as a bridge between different traditions. However, even this approach does not change the basic structure: the national calendar still determines which holidays are “officially” significant, while others remain private. In practice, schools included in the analyses usually allow pupils to be absent on these days but rarely celebrate them actively or recognize them equally.

At the same time, schools often struggle with the silent presence of dominant religious practices that are so taken for granted they are not even recognized as “religious”. One interviewee from an urban school highlighted precisely this implicit aspect of dominant religion: “Of course, we don’t celebrate Christmas in the school in the strict sense, but it is interesting that everyone just says: ‘Merry Christmas’ In school, we officially celebrate Independence Day and Unity Day just before Christmas, but the whole school is decorated with Christmas decorations, sleighs, snowflakes, and so on. It seems that for many this is both an unspoken celebration and anticipation of Christmas, even if no one really mentions it.” (Interview 5). She also pointed out the problem of rituals that are not “ours” being misunderstood: “During Ramadan, for example, some children fasted, and I noticed that some teachers in the canteen commented on this. The problem is that these children must be in the canteen during lunch, and the fact that they don’t eat, even though they normally do, attracts attention, and they are not allowed to be anywhere else.” (Interview 5). One school counsellor (Interview 1) mentioned that Orthodox Christian pupils are permitted to stay home to celebrate their New Year according to the Julian calendar. Parents usually exercise this right according to the 53rd Article of Elementary School Law (ZOsn). Article of the Elementary School Law (ZOsn) states that pupils may be absent from class without their parents having to provide a reason for the absence, provided they give advance notice.

These observations give rise to a possible tension between the principle of neutrality and the reality of cultural dominance: schools often believe they are acting neutrally because religious holidays are not explicitly treated as religious, but as “cultural” or “consumer-oriented”. In this way, however, they reproduce a hierarchy in which the majority religion is part of the national identity, while others may remain marginalized.

4.4.3. Dietetic Practice

The interviews show that schools generally try to cater to dietary restrictions (e.g., not eating pork or being vegetarian), especially if enough pupils request this or if the kitchen facilities allow such adaptations. In this area too, schools are endeavouring to strike a balance between the normative framework and practical feasibility. Pork is often not served because it is not considered nutritionally important by health experts, and vegetarian options are offered in some places: “We offer vegetarian dishes, veal and chicken. We don’t know exactly whether the meat is slaughtered according to religious regulations or not. But we definitely don’t serve pork.” (Interview 1). Some schools make a special effort to provide inclusive meals that consider religious and health dietary needs: “Our goal is to make every student feel accepted. By respecting religious practices, we strengthen the sense of belonging and teach tolerance.” (Interview 2).

Elsewhere, councillors report only minimal adjustments: “If pork is on the menu, these pupils simply don’t eat the meat and eat the rest of the meal. We don’t prepare special halal or kosher meals because that would be too complicated, but the children accept it.” (Interview 3). And in some cases there are no adjustments at all: “I think the diet is organized according to the Catholic framework. You don’t notice that at all.” (Interview 5).

The interviews indicate that the approach to religiously motivated nutritional needs in Slovenian public schools is not uniform, but is possibly characterized by three dominant rationalities. Some schools consciously cultivate an inclusive practice by considering food as an important part of pupils’ identity and as a means of promoting acceptance, respect for diversity and education for tolerance. In these settings, vegetarian meals, pork-free meals and other adaptations are offered, with teachers, parents and kitchen staff actively working together. Other approaches are more pragmatic and minimal: adjustments are made only to the extent that they are absolutely necessary—often pork is simply removed from the menu, or pupils eat only side dishes on days when pork is served, with no special alternatives. In these cases, religious dietary rules are often seen primarily as a logistical challenge that is difficult to manage systematically. A particularly interesting third rationality is based on professional, especially medical, arguments, as the exclusion of pork is justified on health grounds, as it is not considered a nutritionally important food. This approach attempts to legitimize religious requirements through a neutral, professional perspective.

These different approaches could reflect how schools deal in practice with the tensions among respecting cultural and religious diversity, complying with the legal framework and overcoming the practical limitations of school catering.

4.4.4. Cultural Diversity

As society and local communities become more culturally diverse, schools are faced with opportunities and challenges arising from the different cultural traditions of pupils, which, as the analyses indicate, are difficult to separate from their religious backgrounds. Some schools have a more diverse population than others. As one interviewee noted:

“In our school, where we have pupils from 22 different countries with different mother tongues, cultures and religious affiliations, we regularly encounter different views, customs and values. This diversity brings with it an invaluable richness but also requires a thoughtful and sensitive approach in our daily teaching work. The challenges we face are mostly related to ensuring equal inclusion of all children, adapting certain activities (e.g., nutrition or the organization of nature schools) and making other children and adults aware of the importance of respecting diversity; at our school, we recognize the importance of cultural and religious diversity, so we look at holidays not only through the prism of the national calendar, but also through a broader intercultural lens. When we celebrate holidays such as Christmas or Easter in Slovenia, we always offer pupils the opportunity to present their own faith. We talk about the different ways of celebrating, traditional foods, customs, symbols and the messages that each holiday brings.”

(Interview 2)

There is also the aspect of co-operation between school and family, which involves a multicultural approach. Due to the different cultural aspects schools face, schools try to adapt to the specific needs of families, as noted by the same interviewee.

“In most cases, parents of pupils with different religious and cultural backgrounds have no special requirements. An exception to this are the rare individual cases where parents do not include their children in multi-day activities outside school, e.g., in nature schools, due to their religious or cultural beliefs. We always respect such decisions and treat them with understanding, as it is important to remain sensitive to different family values. …. In such cases, we always proceed with understanding, with the desire to find solutions together that are in the best interests of the child. We try to be sensitive to the needs of the parents as we believe that considering their cultural and religious background is crucial for the successful integration of children into a new environment.”

(Interview 2).

Another interviewee explained: “There are some pupils who do not celebrate their birthday for religious reasons. We try to respect the wishes of the families and offer the pupils various opportunities to organize some kind of celebration so that they do not feel excluded. Especially the younger pupils.” (Interview 1).

Another complex issue which emerged, is the (religious or cultural) values associated with expectations of children’s academic achievement. To ensure equal opportunities for all pupils, schools need to work with parents to create an inclusive environment in which the child can flourish. As the schools reported, this can sometimes be difficult due to language barriers and cultural and religious gender roles. One of the interviewees reported an experience where the father of a student (who comes from a strongly patriarchal culture) did not want to speak to a female counsellor (Interview 3). In order to help the student and maintain good relations with the family, the school had to call in a male counsellor. Another interviewee also stated that communication with the mothers is sometimes easier, but there were several cases where agreements made with the mothers were overruled by the fathers (Interview 4). Although patriarchy cannot be linked exclusively to a particular religion, it is more common in families with more traditional religious beliefs.

5. Discussion

The results of the pilot study reveal a potential complex interplay of elements, suggesting that further research is needed on various aspects of religious and cultural diversity in Slovenia. However, our main conclusion at this stage is that religious diversity in schools is related to the integration of pupils with a migrant background and that religious diversity among pupils coincides with minority status. While the formal curriculum is governed by the principles of neutrality and plurality in education (ZOsn n.d.; ZOFVI n.d.), the hidden curriculum is subject to different interpretations and practices, depending on the school. Our main findings highlight the overlap of some key themes that require further investigation.

The findings of this pilot study indicate two predominant types of rationality in relation to the integration of migrant populations in Slovenia. These can be interpreted through Weber’s (1978) conceptual distinction between different forms of rationality, which can also be applied to understanding practices of school plurality and neutrality.

While we recognize that religious and cultural diversity is not exclusively related to migration, it is increasingly becoming a topic of discussion due to the increased diversification of the Slovenian population because of increased migration. Although Slovenia experienced an influx of migrants after the declaration of independence, most of them came from the former Yugoslav republics due to the Balkan conflicts. They were only marginally recognized as a specific social group, and therefore overlooked in integration practice (Mlinar and Peček 2024; Vižintin 2017).

Studies (e.g., Medvešek et al. 2022) also show that culture and language are an important part of Slovenian identity, and that the diversification of the Slovenian population has brought with it a range of different cultural practices, languages and ethnic diversity. Forty-four percent of the Slovenian population see this as a threat to their indigenous culture, and this figure has risen since 2013. This suggests that a relatively high proportion of people see cultural diversity as a threat to Slovenian culture, especially in light of research showing that the core understanding of diversity in Slovenia is based on knowledge of the Slovenian language (Zgaga and Kos 2017). Some of our interviewees pointed out that headmasters and school districts that perceive diversity as a threat and a nuisance are less inclined to take a structured and committed approach to integrating immigrant children into the school community. They provide only the bare essentials, do not promote adequate staff training and rarely engage in projects that address multiculturalism and integration. This further hinders the integration process, which is already exacerbated by language barriers and cooperation between family and school (Medarič et al. 2022; Pucelj and Gorenc Zoran 2024).

As the researchers also note, truly inclusive schooling would require a shift from tolerance to recognition of diversity. Ermenc (2005) argues that Slovenian public primary schools, through both their stated and hidden curricula, unintentionally cultivate an ethnocentric and Eurocentric worldview when it comes to valuing other cultures. This approach runs counter to the stated aims of promoting intercultural understanding and appreciation, and contributes to the social marginalization of ethnic minorities. Furthermore, even in subjects where pluralistic and intercultural aims are emphasized, there is a significant discrepancy between the stated content and actual teaching practice. The focus is often shifted back to “national” objectives, which in turn reinforces ethnocentric and Eurocentric views in the way pupils are taught to judge other cultures. However, some schools are already successfully pursuing this goal by introducing pupils to the cultural traditions of their peers, involving families in an inclusive school environment and adopting a multilingual approach where possible (Kos et al. 2021; Gaber et al. 2019).

The religious neutrality of Slovenian schools includes the exclusion of any religious symbolism on school grounds, but there are no rules against religious symbols that children bring to school, including dress codes (e.g., headscarves…). With regard to the prohibition of religious education in public schools, the Law on the Organization and Financing of Education (ZOFVI n.d.) explicitly prohibits religious activities in public kindergartens and schools. This includes denominational religious instruction, the presence of teaching staff or teachers appointed by religious communities and the organization of religious services.

Religious symbols in schools remain a sensitive issue in Slovenia, especially in the context of maintaining the secular nature of public education. Although the law does not explicitly prohibit the wearing of religious symbols by pupils, many Slovenian legal scholars believe that their visible display could conflict with the state’s obligation of religious neutrality. In practice, this has led to a cautious approach, with schools generally endeavouring to maintain religious neutrality. Furthermore, it is generally recognized that religious symbols—such as crosses or other religious objects—should not be present in shared school spaces such as classrooms, as their presence could be interpreted as a violation of the secular nature of public institutions.

Dietary habits are an interesting example of how schools adapt to the religious and cultural needs of their pupils, and although there are no specific regulations that oblige them to do so, 40% of schools do not include pork in pupils’ meals (NIJZ 2021). This is an increasingly discussed topic among families who want a special diet for their children for non-religious and non-medical reasons (e.g., vegetarian). The dietary aspect of diversity is highly regulated by the medical profession. Whilst pork is not considered essential to a healthy diet, vegetarian and other meat-free diets are not supported in primary schools, and only 23% of schools offer such meals. These quiet compromises are possible if sufficient staff are available and the school is open-minded.

6. Conclusions

The analysis of interviews conducted in this pilot study, carried out in five participating schools, shows that schools navigate a tension between legally prescribed neutrality and the practical inclusion of religious and cultural diversity. Schools adopt different strategies, ranging from more inclusive approaches—such as adapting meals, acknowledging diverse religious holidays, and encouraging dialogue—to those that treat religion primarily as a private matter. These differences highlight how personal convictions, experiences, and the openness of staff and school management shape strategies for managing diversity, rather than reflecting a uniform institutional policy.

Although limited in scope, the pilot study suggests some potential issues worth exploring in this context:

• Practicing neutrality and religious inclusion: Schools manage religious diversity through two main strategies, often applied pragmatically—avoiding religious issues or actively recognizing diversity. The avoidance strategy treats religion as a private matter. While it can prevent open conflict, it may lead pupils to hide their religious identity, undermining their sense of belonging. The active recognition strategy promotes inclusion by formally accommodating differences (e.g., dietary requirements and acknowledgement of religious holidays). Its success relies heavily on staff support and training. A pattern of “culturalisation” was observed, where staff are more sensitive to non-majority cultures but may overlook their own majority/local culture and religion. Ultimately, neutrality is a daily, negotiated practice that reflects the tension between legal requirements and the pedagogical need to recognise pupils’ identities.
• Religion in the school environment:

  2.1.

  Religious symbols: Personal symbols, such as small crosses or headscarves, are generally accepted. However, Christian symbols are often overlooked as “invisible” or “self-evident” due to historical and majority traditions, reflecting the impossibility of complete neutrality. In contrast, symbols of minority faiths may be perceived as a “conspicuous sign of otherness.” Teachers generally adopt a pragmatic approach, allowing personal expression while avoiding institutional endorsement of any single faith.

  2.2.

  Holidays: Catholic holidays are official and prominent but often celebrated in a secularised way. Minority holidays are largely marginalised and treated as private matters, gaining recognition mainly through the personal, project-based efforts of motivated teachers. Some schools use holidays for intercultural learning, yet the national calendar still determines official significance.

  2.3.

  Dietary practices: Approaches to religious dietary needs vary. Some schools actively accommodate needs (e.g., vegetarian or pork-free options), others make minimal adjustments only when necessary, and some justify dietary exclusions through neutral, health-based arguments rather than religious ones.

• Cultural diversity: Increased diversity poses challenges, particularly in ensuring inclusion and adapting activities. Schools attempt to respect family decisions, such as non-participation in nature schools. Patriarchal values, sometimes linked to traditional religious beliefs, can complicate school–family cooperation, for instance by requiring male staff to negotiate with fathers or overruling agreements made with mothers.

The pilot study underscores the need for refinement of the research instrument. Future steps could include developing and standardising the interview protocol; testing the clarity and neutrality of questions; and identifying thematic areas for deeper exploration. Expanding data collection to a larger number of respondents and additional staff profiles—such as classroom teachers, subject teachers, and school leaders—would provide a more comprehensive understanding of practices and perspectives across Slovenian schools. Systematic coding and thematic analysis will be crucial to capture both recurring patterns and individual variations. Future data collection will also need to be expanded to a larger number of schools with differing demographic compositions, in order to capture a broader range of minority experiences—including those of groups that were not present in the current sample. Such diversification would improve the instrument’s ability to reflect the multi-confessional landscape described in national statistics and allow for a more systematic analysis of how schools navigate religious and cultural diversity under varying local conditions.

Limitations

Our study is based on data collected in a limited number of primary schools, each associated with its legally defined catchment area, which shapes the composition of its pupil population. Religious and cultural minorities are unevenly distributed across Slovenian municipalities, and several minority groups identified in national statistics were not present in the participating schools at the time of data collection. Consequently, our analysis focuses on the minority groups represented in our empirical material. While pupils with Muslim backgrounds were the most consistently present across the participating catchment areas and therefore constitute the central empirical lens, the study does not exclude other minority pupils; rather, it reflects which groups emerged as most visible in the interviews.

The differential visibility of minority pupils underscores the importance of considering how schools perceive and respond to cultural and religious diversity, beyond formal policies of plurality and neutrality. This observation highlights that certain minority groups may remain institutionally ‘invisible’ despite the existence of formal inclusion policies, suggesting that schools’ responses are shaped not only by regulations but also by the perceived salience of cultural and religious differences in everyday practice. The findings of this pilot study cannot be generalised to all minority pupils in Slovenia, and the study serves primarily to illustrate challenges arising from the most visible minority groups in the participating schools. Nevertheless, they provide valuable exploratory insights into how schools interpret neutrality and inclusion in practice.