Ethics-based Complement to scripture in NSW Primary Schools

To begin with St James Ethics Centre looked at the statutory and non statutory requirements and there application to discover whether there was a need for an ethics-based complement to Special Religious Education (SRE).

The Education Act 1990 No 8, makes two provisions. Firstly, in section 32 SRE:

(1) In every government school, time is to be allowed for the religious education of children of any religious persuasion ...

And secondly, in section 33, Objection to Religious Education:

No child at a government school is to be required to receive any general religious education or special religious education if the parent of the child objects to the child's receiving that education.

Having checked with various schools it seems that a number of parents are making use of this second piece of legislation to the extent that they are requesting that their children not attend SRE.

Currently the only alternative for these children is 'private study'. This is expressed in the School Manual on Educational Management 15.8 Procedures for SRE, A. Responsibilities of Schools:

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

Secondly, we examined the legislation, policy and policy directive to determine whether there is any objection or support for our proposal.

An initial objection may appear to come from the last part of the above quote from the School Manual on Educational Management that during the time allocated to SRE no "timetabled lessons or scheduled school activities" may be set for students.

This statement seems to be concerned with the possibility that, without this limitation, children might gain an (unfair) advantage from being taught examinable material while other children are at SRE. In response to this, the Centre's aim is not to develop an ethics course that would be part of the Six Key Learning Areas set out in the Curriculum but to fill a space outside General Education for those children who do not follow a particular religious tradition (see table below).

Alternatively looking at what could be considered as support for our proposal the Rawlinson Committee points out the contemporary demographic change to our society:

1. in recent times different ethnic groups have extended the range of religious influences on our way of life. On the other hand, there has been an increasing indifference to 'traditional' religion and a trend towards secularisation.

The NSW Department of Education and Training's Strategic Directions > Public Schools 2002-2004 demonstrates its commitment to respond to such changes within the community stating that one of its aims is to:

Cater for students from all backgrounds and draw strength from the rich cultural diversity of communities in New South Wales

In underlining the importance of education being a service to the community the Rawlinson Committee makes note of the widely accepted fundamental principle that parents are the primary stakeholders with regard to the education of their children. They quote Article 26 (3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) to exemplify this.

1. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

This finds expression in the Education Act 1990 No 8 under Principles on which this Act is based:

(b) the education of a child is primarily the responsibility of the child's parents

In this light it would seem of utmost importance to respond to the community, in particular to parents, when considering what education should be provided for children. The Education Act 1990 No 8 embraces both these tenets by stating in its Objects for Administration of this Act or of Education that it aims at:

(n) provision of an education for children that promotes family and community values

These policy directives, policy and sections of the relevant Act endeavour to provide for all students, secular and religious and recognise this diversity as a strength.

In recent times the Department has responded to the increase in the diversity of the cultural make up of our society by increasing the number of religious authorities that have access to state schools to teach SRE. However there is still a need to provide for the increase in secularisation of the community expressed in this case by parents choosing that their children abstain from SRE.

However, the Department of Education and Training may still object and claim that while the intention is to 'cater for students from all backgrounds' within the Six Key Learning Areas, the time allocated for SRE is for that purpose only and no secular alternative may be offered. Furthermore, the objection may be raised that only members of an approved religious authority may teach during this time. If these are legitimate policy objections the Centre cannot find any prohibitive legislation or comment in the Rawlinson Committee on which they are based.

There is a decree in both sources that insists the religious material being taught and the religious representative teaching must both be authorised by the relevant religious body. The Education Act 1990 section 32 SRE summarises this as:

(2) The religious education to be given to children of any religious persuasion is to be given by a member of the clergy or other religious teacher of that persuasion authorised by the religious body to which the member of the clergy or other religious teacher belongs.

(3) The religious education to be given is in every case to be the religious education authorised by the religious body to which the member of the clergy or other religious teacher belongs.

However, having provided this time for SRE and having given parents the opportunity to choose a particular religious tradition for their children, there is nothing in the Education Act 1990 or the Recommendations of the Rawlinson Committee stating that these students should not be taught anything else, nor by anyone else.

In fact in the Recommendations of the Rawlinson Committee there is specific mention that children not attending SRE at the request of their parents be provided with 'purposeful secular learning'. It states:

1. 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.

By understanding St James Ethics Centre's rationale for developing a secular complement to SRE it will be become clear that an ethics-basis program would adhere to the stipulation posed in the second part of the above paragraph. There would be no 'conflict of choice' between an ethics-based class and SRE because what we would be providing would be a component of what is already being offered by SRE.