Board of the News: When "Education" Becomes "Instruction"

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/instruction-confused-with-education-with-religion-in-qld-state-schools-20160303-gna0qf.html

Given all the hubbub in recent weeks around the Safe Schools Coalition, I figured this was actually somewhat fitting to discuss.

A bit of background first: in several states, there is a requirement (set by the state) for some form of religious education for one hour a week. Key word here is education. This can be as simple as the Easter and Christmas performances for schools in SA all the way through to Special Religious Education/Instruction (NSW/VIC/QLD). (This article by the ABC explains it a little better) In particular, there only needs to be time set aside for it, the kids do not need to be taught it.

In theory, how the latter programs work is that for one hour a week, the kids would be taught about various world religions by either their teacher or someone who was actually qualified to teach in the subject. Unfortunately, this is far from the case.

Some of the problems the article notes (and some other issues that have been circulating among various sources) with these programs though include (I'll be calling them RE from here on out):

- Teachers not understanding that the program is optional and that they should not be questioning why a kid is not participating.

- Parents getting misled or incorrectly assuming that the program is teaching kids about a religion, rather than being basically a condensed Sunday School/Yeshiva/Madrasa*. On a similar vein, parents not checking up on what's actually being taught in those classes (with the article quoting that parents were surprised to discover the classes were all about "Sin and salvation" rather than history)

- A huge lack of classes in other religions, with some schools not even offering anything other than Christianity at all. (The schools that do offer other religions tend to have an extremely diverse population) I'll cover this one a little more in a bit.

- The issue of "opt-out" vs. "opt-in." Most states are "opt-out" instead of "opt-in" meaning that if you do not indicate an option on the form or specifically indicate your kid is NOT to be in a class, your kid will be automatically enrolled into a particular class. In the article listed at the top, the program evidently runs off of whatever religion is put down on the child's enrolment form, although it gives no indication of what happens if that section is blank. (The article describes that for example, a Jewish person would not be shoved into a Christian class) There are calls for an "opt-in" approach, meaning that parents NEED to indicate if they want their kid to have religious instruction or not at enrolment time. NSW takes a slightly different approach, where the options of ethics classes are provided, but due to the actions of the Senate, parents really need to dig to find this option.

- A lack of real teaching qualifications to run these classes. This is something that also applies to the ethics classes. There are three main groups that run the SRI/Ethics classes: ACCESS Ministries (Christianity), Religions for Peace (everything else) and Primary Ethics (secular). All three are run by volunteers, who are required to undergo all of the necessary checks, but just because someone passes a Working With Children Check does not necesssarily mean they are suited for a classroom, let alone teaching. Primary Ethics, from the looks of things, appears to be the most rigorous of the three, in that they require an interview first and extensive training before someone sets foot in a school, along with ongoing training afterwards that helps to fill in the gaps a bit.

- Not in the article, but another valid issue that is making the rounds at the moment, is the idea of basically making those kids who don't participate feel bad about their choice (or their parents). Some stories have included bribing kids who do attend those classes with treats and other goodies (it's also very common for those kids to receive Bibles) and barring children who don't participate from doing anything during that time that could constitute "learning." (In other words, parents who pull their kids from SRI because they need extra literacy support won't get it during that time)

The last issue that bears more discussion is that the majority of schools will only hold Christian classes and nothing else. These will occasionally be divided up into Catholic, Non-Denominational and any other very specific sect (i.e. Jehovahs Witness or Mormon). NSW does provide ethics classes as an alternative, but because these are volunteer-run, there is no guarantee that the program will be offered in all schools. The group that's responsible for running the Christian programs is ACCESS Ministries, who also assist with chaplains. They, for the most part (after checking their website), appear to be a law unto themselves. That is, they are deemed to be self-accrediting in relation to what's taught in classrooms, do not have any other rules for teachers except they need to pass all the checks and get endorsed by their church and seem to be the ones who receive the bulk of funding. What's particularly telling is that ACCESS do not appear to have provided copies of their curriculum (or even samples) for parents to see and even if they do, it is not necessarily easy to obtain.

In comparison, Religions for Peace (who are responsible for everything else) actually do require religious instructors to be accredited by an independent body, also require the curriculum taught to be approved by them and also publishes the curricula for four of the main classes taught on their website (they show Baha'i, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism). It's unknown if the Jewish and Islam programs are shown there or who runs them, but one could assume that there are similar requirements. The religious instructors are also endorsed by their religious figure, but are also required to undergo more training and are required to stick to the curriculum being taught.

So why the comparison with Safe Schools?

The comparison has come about due to the accusations in recent weeks that the Safe Schools Coalition is pushing a "gay agenda" onto children (but they never elaborate on what that agenda is-the supposed assumption is that they plan on turning everyone gay, but methinks they've watched too much South Park). The irony is apparently lost on those who complain because they are still of the belief that a) the program is optional (and thus, if you don't want it, then don't sign up for it) and b) that the program is educating children about religions and not "indoctrinating" them because they aren't going to church, aren't being baptised and aren't being told to go blow something up in the name of their religion.

What about ethics classes?
I've mentioned these a few times, unfortunately the perceived controversy with these is that they push particular political or social ideologies or particular philosophies onto children. The curriculum (available here) really just looks more at different issues that are appropriate to the child's age, which start with things like "Is it OK to tell a friend's secret" in Kindergarten all the way up to "Who can judge a countries moral code?" in years 5 and 6. A common theme in all the classes as well is just looking more at "how to think" rather than "what to think" and that unlike the religious classes, there is no right or wrong answer.

What's my view on this?

Personally, I feel that if religion is to be taught in schools, it needs to follow some very strict criteria. The Steiner curriculum actually covers religion fairly well and is a good model to follow for a starting point. Schools like John Colet are also another example of how one could follow this, but my requirements would be:

- It is integrated into the existing curriculum as part of the History/Civics/Geography topics. (This is how I was exposed to other religions as a child-I learnt about Islam in Years 3/4 as part of units on Malaysia (for the Commonwealth Games) and to practice taking notes (Year 4). I then learned a little more about Buddhism in Year 5 as part of the Olympics and then covered Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam in greater detail in year 7 as part of an Asian Studies unit.)

- If the class teachers do not want to teach it for some reason, qualified teachers should be pressed into service for this and it can form part of a NIT block (NIT=Non-Instruction Time, commonly used by teachers for marking, planning etc. this is typically when Music, PE etc. is taught). The qualified teachers would also need to follow a strict curriculum and be audited regularly.

- The content needs to cover ABOUT a religion, practices, beliefs and so on. This is actually easier to do than you think. I give an example below:

Teaching ABOUT Islam: One of the core festivals of Islam is Ramadan, where people fast between sunrise and sunset. Little kids are not required to fast, but they sometimes practice doing "little fasts" until their families believe they are old enough to do so.
Teaching Islam: You must fast once a month to commemorate the first revelation of the Quran to Mohammed. During fasting time you also cannot do <blah>.

- Schools stop parading students of a particular religion around as though they are "special" or somehow a spokesperson for their faith. This is more common with children who are of a distinct faith (i.e. Jainism) or after a major incident that involves a particular religion (i.e. the Bali bombings). Aside from it being extremely rude to the child and the family, it opens that kid up to abuse.

- Students who wish to set up religious groups (some Christian and Muslim students have been known to do this) can do so at recess or lunch, but the school cannot endorse, ban or do anything other than supervise and intervene should the students be going down a path that violates school policies (i.e. a Christian Bible group providing pamphlets to "Pray away the gay.") They are also barred from doing this until high school (that is, primary schools are not permitted to set up the groups)

- If parents want religious instruction to occur, they need to start taking their child to temple, Sunday School or whatever their religion offers as a children's service. Stop relying on the school to raise your child for you.