• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

Religious education in schools

A Curious philosophy

by Simon Longstaff

Every week, for an hour, a selection of New South Wales state primary school students sit idle. Some children are required to wait outside the Principal's office (innocent but occupying the place traditionally reserved for the seriously naughty). Others might be found in the school library - perhaps reading, perhaps colouring in, perhaps ... It is called 'private study' - and its value is at best variable as it may include activities that do little or nothing to advantage these children.

My attention was first drawn to the plight of these children by the Chairman of the P&C at a local government school. He was one of a number of parents who had decided that they did not want their children to attend Special Religious Education (SRE) - commonly called 'scripture'. And he was troubled by the fact that there seemed to be no worthwhile alternative available to parents who cared about the ethical formation of their children - but preferred not to see this linked to a specific religious tradition. "Surely," he asked, "isn't this something that an organisation like St James Ethics Centre should help to address?"

Those not familiar with the work of St James Ethics Centre might think it odd that we should be concerned to challenge the status quo. After all, wouldn't an organisation with a 'saint' and ‘ethics’ in its name be unambiguously in favour of SRE?

To put things in perspective, the Centre's name is an indication of its origin in the community of St James' Anglican Church in King Street, Sydney. However, the genius of the founders was to recognise that if ever it were to succeed, then the organisation would need to be genuinely independent and open to people of all faiths and no faith at all.

So the Ethics Centre is not a religious organisation, but a public benevolent institution with open membership which is committed to promoting the 'examined life'.

Somewhat naively (as it now turns out to be) I assumed that it would be a fairly simple matter to develop and then offer an introduction to ethics for primary school students that could sit alongside 'scripture' - allowing parents an alternative that would still address questions about the nature of a 'good life' - but without specific religious overtones. At least then the children need not sit idle. But why were they disengaged from meaningful activity in the first place?

The immediate explanation for why the children sit idle is that their parents have decided not to approve attendance at classes in SRE. The deeper reason is to be found in an agreement struck between the Christian churches and the State in the mid-to-late nineteenth century.

Until that time, the churches had enjoyed a monopoly in the provision of education - and they remained a potent political force. When the secular state made a bid to offer public education, agreement was reached that this be done on the condition that an hour a week be reserved exclusively for 'scripture' (SRE). The churches were given absolute discretion in terms of what should be taught during this time and in the selection of teachers for this period. The usual qualifications would not apply - placing considerable responsibility in the hands of religious authorities.

While it is almost certain that a clear majority of parents would have approved of this settlement at the time, the drift towards today's more secular society has meant that an increasing number of parents do not favour the attendance of their children at scripture - making the need to examine the alternative all the more pressing.

While the Education Act 1990 No 8 both legislates for the provision of religious education and the right of parents to opt out (a reflection of provisions on parental rights in the UN Declaration of Human Rights), the School Manual on Educational Management mandates that:

Students not attending SRE will be appropriately cared for at school. This may include private study, but not timetabled lessons or scheduled school activities.

And thus the problem arises. Successive State governments have ensured that schools not offer any useful alternative to 'scripture' - leaving an increasing number of children to while away an hour a week as best they can.

It is easy to understand why the "no useful alternative" provision has been put in place. On the one hand, it might be argued that students should not be lured away from a brief period of religious formation. It is hard enough for most religions to maintain their place in the lives of people without there being further challenges to their prerogative.

However, there are also sound ethical arguments for holding that it would be unfair if one group of students were to gain an academic advantage over their peers by undertaking mainstream studies during the hour reserved for scripture.

Yet, it is not the case that the only alternative to scripture are lessons drawn from the core curriculum. What of a non-religious introduction to ethical thinking and perspectives on what might count as a ‘good’ life? The teachers of special religious education are presumably dealing with more than principles of theology. They are almost certain to be addressing questions about how we are to live. Why should students be denied access to these important lessons simply because their parents choose not to support religious formation in state schools?

Indeed, the Rawlinson Committee established to review Religion in Education in New South Wales made a number of recommendations in its Report produced in 1980. These included improved options for students whose parents elected to opt out of 'scripture'. Recommendation 42 states that:

... pupils withdrawn from Special Religious Education be provided with opportunities for purposeful secular learning which should, however be of such a nature as to avoid conflict of choice, either for the parents or for the pupils receiving Special Religious Education

Indeed, Rawlinson went on to observe that:

... ethics, the study of morals and values, is valuable for its own sake and that people can be moral without being religious, in that they do not need to describe to religious beliefs in order to sustain carefully thought-out moral principles.

Let me be clear, in considering this matter we have no interest in diminishing the extent to which people participate in religious education. Nor would we want to set up a program that is seen to 'compete' for the interest and engagement of students. Religious and spiritual formation are important public and private goods that ought to be fostered.

But in the face of parental choice not to have their children attend 'scripture' are we to do nothing about further the opportunities for ethical development? Or could we complement the work of the churches and other religious organisations offering special religious education? Could we work to ensure that all students flourish at school and that no child is denied the opportunity to devote a focused hour each week to consider the deeper questions about how we are to live.

On this basis, St James Ethics Centre approached the Premier of New South Wales with a submission proposing the development of an 'ethics-based' program to be made available to primary students whose parents might choose that their children not attend 'scripture'.

What we proposed is a program with the following aims, being to:

• Provide a secular complement for the discussion of the ethical dimension of students' lives
• Offer a secure, non-judgemental space to explore the question, "What ought one to do?"
• Introduce the language of ethics and in doing so, to provide the tools to survey the values and principles we live by
• Incorporate an ethical dimension to the students' decision-making
• Inspire an appreciation of virtues and ideals
• Develop the intellectual capacity and the personal attitudes needed for participating in ethical reflection and action
• Encourage an openness towards important personal and public issues
• Introduce dialogue as a means of resolving ethical issues
• Develop students' ability to identify the relevant stakeholders and thoroughly explore, among other things, the consequences of proposed resolutions to the ethical dilemmas which they are considering
• In short, to deepen the ethical sense of the future generation

The NSW Premier, Bob Carr, passed our letter and submission on to the Minister for Education, Andrew Refshauge, who responded by claiming (incorrectly in our view) that there was no scope to implement what we had proposed. Amongst other things, he claimed that, "there has been no community wide call" for such a course. Having addressed this issue with the NSW Parents and Citizens, we are sure that Mr Refshauge has underestimated parental interest in this matter.

There is, of course, an underlying question to be answered in relation to the Ethics Centre's response to the challenge posed by the Chair of the local P&C committee.

Some claim that an ethical life cannot be lived (or even properly understood) outside the framework of a belief in God more generally, or the teachings of a particular religion more specifically. If this is so, then any attempt to offer an introduction to ethics (free from theology) would seem to be futile.

However, informed opinion on this question is divided with some thinking that the engagement in an 'examined life' is a precondition for authentic, religious commitment rather than its consequence. This is a deep question better left open for another time.

What matters at the moment is the plight of the children who sit idle for an hour a week - waiting at the Government's pleasure.

Learn more about the Ethics Centre's proposal for an ethics-based complement to special religious education.

discuss this article

---