AUDIO
 |
Archbishop Peter Jensen's Christmas Message 2011 on the centrality of Jesus to human history
|
The major churches of NSW have made submissions to the State Government's review of ethics classes, objecting to the extension of the trial to SRE students.
Presentations came from the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, the interdenominational SRE committee ICCOREIS, the Catholic Church and Presbyterian Youth.
The Anglican submission concludes that problems with the trial mean it cannot be used as a sound basis for the introduction of the classes in all schools.
Despite public statements from Education Minister Verity Firth that the ethics classes were simply an effort to occupy students who did not attend SRE, the trial went ahead including students who already attended Scripture.
The submission also argues public confusion was caused by labelling the lessons as "ethics', when the classes really focused on the process of philosophical inquiry.
There was no actual ethical or moral instruction given during the lessons.
However, the submission also suggests that if the Government is determined to push through a parallel program of non-religious lessons at primary level, a very carefully prepared further trial of "humanist philosophy" should be undertaken, involving a truly representative sample of schools across the state, before any Government decision is made.
Although he has appeared to tone down his statements in today's SMH article.
Taken together it looks like the Libs may be preparing the ground to criticise the concocted nature of the trial process NSW Labor undertook.
O'Farrell's position seems to be that there should be a non-religious 'complement' to SRE but that ethics may not be that.
I still find it strange that the P&C is presenting the ethics lessons as the only possible non-religious alternative to SRE.
Seems the SydAng diocese wants the world, the flesh, and the devil to play by its own finely wrought terms of reference - a peeved plea for the right to pigeonhole. I suspect the agenda here is to invoke the bugbear secular humanism in order to scarify Christian parents who might otherwise be favourably disposed toward "ethics" classes. One wonders what the qualification "very carefully prepared" is code for...
Does a course in ethics necessarily imply explicit "ethical or moral instruction"? Why can't it be education in a process?
But, given that warm cosy "Ethics" must be stripped bare as "Secular Philosophy", it seems that it's now de rigueur in this process to call spades spades. So in the interests of parity and fairness, perhaps "Scripture" and "Special Religious Instruction" could be more properly termed "Sectarian Indoctrination".
1. Simon Longstaff, himself, accepted that some alternative name may be wise, given 'ethics' is contested.
2. ICCOREIS have gone much further than Sydney Diocese arguing that comparative religion not the philosophy/ethics lessons is a more appropriate alternative to SRE.
3. The labelling within SRE is already sectarian: Catholic, Jewish, Muslim etc.
The point is that the 'ethics lessons' are supposedly meant to 'fit within' the SRE system (according to the proponents) not be an alternative replacement to the entire SRE slot (as feared by the critics).
BTW - you realise the logic of your argument here actually proves the point the SRE providers are making. If church-going Christian parents are being at all tempted to send their kids to the ethics classes then it is clearly not a complement to SRE but providing perceived *additional* educational benefit that should be available to all as part of the mainstream curriculum.
OTT? Me?
If religious parents want their children indoctrinated in the faith, there are programs for that at church/mosque/gurdwara/synagogue etc. There are also private religious schools.
Setting aside special time within the secular school curriculum for SRE is anachronistic in the current pluralistic context. It derives from a more culturally homogeneous time when a default Christian nominalism monopolised "ethics" pretty much unchallenged. It should be scrapped.
I think it's a good idea to have ethics/philosophy/dialectic (whatever you want to call it - "negotiation principles"??) taught in state schools to all students, and comparative religion as well. The kids can compare what they are taught in these classes to what they are taught by their religious elders at home and church. It's not unlike, say, the Science curriculum teaching evolution without necessarily mentioning the Creator. Kids can learn about the latter from parents and/or their religious community.
I don't see how this is unfair to any of the parties involved. Quite simply, contending for SRE looks like an unwarranted demand for special status.
The Govt should rightly worry about this kind of argument. It can't afford to leach more students to the private sector and home-schooling.
Nor is it a smart argument if you truly support secular education as a lynchpin of a secular and inclusive society.
As I wrote, I am all for comparative religion being taught in schools. A public school should not be the place where an evangelical Anglican kid gets special time for evangelical Anglican indoctrination. It should be where she and all her classmates get to find out about Anglicanism, Catholicism, Islam, and other religious -ities and -isms. SRE per se is not the best way to provide that.
I have no problem with representatives of community religions being invited to give an account of their beliefs to classes in public schools (as part of, say, the HSIE curriculum). I'm aware that SRE virtually amounts to that in plenty of schools. But the curriculum should not set aside special time for sectarian instruction.
If that's not "on the table", it should be.
I don't think the reinforcement of SRE will significantly mitigate the drift toward private or home-schooling. Recruits (parental) to the former are often primarily attracted by the perceived disciplinary rigour and academic reputation (for which they will put up with the sectarian doctrine); the latter are often fleeing the "evolutionism" of the Science curriculum and the overall "secular" vibe of the public school - SRE or no.
It would involve legislation given the current law.
I think you have WASPS too much in mind, Grant. It would be interesting to see some real evidence one way or another - especially perceptions amongst Muslims.
1. SRE contributes to values education as it can show how the values of Christians are motivated by a system of belief.
2. SRE is an appropriate place to directly explore the spiritual nature of human beings and so can inform discussions in other areas such as discussions that arise in the study of literature and film.
3. It provides one way of helping young people to develop a framework of meaning that gives them personal identity. They are subject to so much commercial pressure which can limit their world-view to just gaining short-term satisfaction and accumulating "stuff".
4. We live in a society of religious pluralism. Religious Education benefits children as individuals and also provides better understanding and harmony in the Australian community if children gain an in-depth understanding of one particular religion. In NSW SRE is available to children whose parents follow many religions, not only Christian SRE. Also in NSW pupils learn something about other religions in GRE which is part of HSIE.
One big problem is that GRE isn't taught in primary school HSIE if you actually look at classroom practice. Kids do country-based cultural studies which is neither comprehensive nor comparative. (this year my daughter did Italy for goodness sake)
I certainly would agree with Grant that the NSW Dept of Education needs to look again at how GRE is taught in the mainstream curriculum.
That said, I'm not sure how the new national curriculum will alter this.
Another short summary of Brian Hill's points can be found on the website of Armidale Youth Focus www.ayf.org.au and click onto 'SRE and Teenager Education'.
I want to strongly commend Hill's points to John Chapell #2 and to all who are involved in their children's P&C Associations, whether those parents are Christians or not.
If I mind WASPs overmuch Jeremy, it is because I am posting in a nest of them ;^)
I don't suppose any Muslims will be posting here any time soon. Perhaps you could prevail on one of your Muslims friends to air a view...
It would be interesting to get Waleed Aly's take on this debate. I daresay he might agree with you.
Thanks for your list of points. In public schools, your numbers 1 to 4 would be more appropriately addressed through a properly conducted GRE context.
Regarding your point 5: Yes, students should be made aware of the biblical references in novels and plays. But this is the job of the English curriculum. It may be that the English curriculum addresses this inadequately, but that is no mandate for externally run SRE to "fill the gap". If it's important for students to be aware of the biblical motifs in works of literature, then that's too important to relegate to the vagaries of SRE provision. It's a matter for reform of the English curriculum.
I don't need to sacrifice to Zeus to appreciate Homer.
nice. :)