Whilst admiring the work of St James Ethics Centre, and acknowledging the efforts of Parents4ethics, who must be pleased that ethics classes will now be offered in public primary schools, for me, this is not the best outcome. In the spirit of critical thinking, or Socratic inquiry, there are questions to be considered about the debate as it has played out, and about the resolution.
The ethics class is enscribed in law, not as a response to an outbreak of unethical behaviour in primary schools, but to give children in non-scripture something meaningful to do. This legislation has been hastily passed, and has not been thought through.
Legislating for ethics classes is meaningless if there are not the volunteers to teach it. The course has already been subject to scrutiny no scripture has endured. Anyone who teaches it will be expected to know everything about philosophy and the history of world religions, not as part of the course itself, but as part of being qualified in the eyes of those who oppose the course; a big ask for volunteers, which does not apply to teachers of SRE. Why would anyone want to volunteer to teach ethics? Presuming the volunteers are well educated, probably professional people, will they be taking time off work to teach in public schools every week? We shouldn't have to ask volunteers to teach ethics in public schools.
So far the course has only been developed for Stage 3 children. These children are the ones in non-scripture who are capable of private study. In the meantime younger children are watching videos. For how many more years will the younger children, the ones learning to read who are not capable of private study, be watching videos? While the law states they are allowed to be taught ethics, they are not to be instructed in any other worthwhile activity (like learning to read) until their ethics course is ready. How long will that take?
The legislation is for ethics only; no other options are covered if we come up with a better solution. What if we can’t agree on course material for the rest of the school? What if we can get volunteers for something else? Whilst I'm relieved that the discrimination has been removed, the wording is restrictive and short-sighted.
Introducing the ethics classes means that SRE remains in public schools. Is this the best outcome? Perhaps for the churches, but for who else? The volunteers? The teachers? The students? Everyone has been so careful not to upset the churches, even though church leaders regularly offend many people. If the deal was being done today, would they be allowed into public schools to teach religion? Would any other public institution allow a special interest group access to the public in this way? Have the churches, during the course of this debate, proven themselves worthy of their place in public schools? Can the churches claim that squabbling over complement/supplement is their finest hour? If the churches really believe it is a matter of supervision and kids in non-scripture are fine with private study, why is it not OK for them to leave the scripture kids in a room with a bible and let them work it out for themselves? Why have the churches not offered a solution they would be happy with? People who want their children to be brought up in faith teach their children at home, take them to church, Sunday school, the Synagogue, Mosque or Ashram. It just isn't necessary to teach scripture at school.
Offering SRE in schools is divisive. It means differences are emphasised. Some scripture classes teach that our group is right and your group is wrong. For many people identifying their spiritual practice is more fluid, more complex, more personal than having to choose between one religious institution or another. Public schools are supposed to be inclusive, to respect differences, and embrace diversity. Public schools already teach children about the religions of the world, and ethics are embedded in school rules and dispute resolution. Children, as do adults, need to be respectful about other peoples' beliefs. Primary school children do not need to be indoctrinated in religion at school.
Ethics is not a religion. Having an ethics course, based on philosophical enquiry, at the same time as Scripture, based on faith or belief or doctrine, is a critique of scripture, simply by reason of being an either/or option. Yes, they can be complementary, but we should not be asking families to choose.
Nowhere in this public debate have I heard mention of what teachers want, or of what students need. If school principals and teachers were directed to stay out of the debate, why? Why did we not hear from Jane Caro, an advocate for public education, or any other body that usually speaks out about issues relating to public education? Why has the discussion been between churches and P&Cs? Why has there not been a proper working party to find a solution? Who holds the power here, and how responsibly is that power being used?
We already have qualified teachers in schools, and an approved curriculum. We have a crowded curriculum, which is increasingly busy as extra-curricula activities take up more and more time. We could have given teachers more time to teach the curriculum. Instead, we continue with amateur hour.
Can't we do better than this?
The ethics class is enscribed in law, not as a response to an outbreak of unethical behaviour in primary schools, but to give children in non-scripture something meaningful to do. This legislation has been hastily passed, and has not been thought through.
Legislating for ethics classes is meaningless if there are not the volunteers to teach it. The course has already been subject to scrutiny no scripture has endured. Anyone who teaches it will be expected to know everything about philosophy and the history of world religions, not as part of the course itself, but as part of being qualified in the eyes of those who oppose the course; a big ask for volunteers, which does not apply to teachers of SRE. Why would anyone want to volunteer to teach ethics? Presuming the volunteers are well educated, probably professional people, will they be taking time off work to teach in public schools every week? We shouldn't have to ask volunteers to teach ethics in public schools.
So far the course has only been developed for Stage 3 children. These children are the ones in non-scripture who are capable of private study. In the meantime younger children are watching videos. For how many more years will the younger children, the ones learning to read who are not capable of private study, be watching videos? While the law states they are allowed to be taught ethics, they are not to be instructed in any other worthwhile activity (like learning to read) until their ethics course is ready. How long will that take?
The legislation is for ethics only; no other options are covered if we come up with a better solution. What if we can’t agree on course material for the rest of the school? What if we can get volunteers for something else? Whilst I'm relieved that the discrimination has been removed, the wording is restrictive and short-sighted.
Introducing the ethics classes means that SRE remains in public schools. Is this the best outcome? Perhaps for the churches, but for who else? The volunteers? The teachers? The students? Everyone has been so careful not to upset the churches, even though church leaders regularly offend many people. If the deal was being done today, would they be allowed into public schools to teach religion? Would any other public institution allow a special interest group access to the public in this way? Have the churches, during the course of this debate, proven themselves worthy of their place in public schools? Can the churches claim that squabbling over complement/supplement is their finest hour? If the churches really believe it is a matter of supervision and kids in non-scripture are fine with private study, why is it not OK for them to leave the scripture kids in a room with a bible and let them work it out for themselves? Why have the churches not offered a solution they would be happy with? People who want their children to be brought up in faith teach their children at home, take them to church, Sunday school, the Synagogue, Mosque or Ashram. It just isn't necessary to teach scripture at school.
Offering SRE in schools is divisive. It means differences are emphasised. Some scripture classes teach that our group is right and your group is wrong. For many people identifying their spiritual practice is more fluid, more complex, more personal than having to choose between one religious institution or another. Public schools are supposed to be inclusive, to respect differences, and embrace diversity. Public schools already teach children about the religions of the world, and ethics are embedded in school rules and dispute resolution. Children, as do adults, need to be respectful about other peoples' beliefs. Primary school children do not need to be indoctrinated in religion at school.
Ethics is not a religion. Having an ethics course, based on philosophical enquiry, at the same time as Scripture, based on faith or belief or doctrine, is a critique of scripture, simply by reason of being an either/or option. Yes, they can be complementary, but we should not be asking families to choose.
Nowhere in this public debate have I heard mention of what teachers want, or of what students need. If school principals and teachers were directed to stay out of the debate, why? Why did we not hear from Jane Caro, an advocate for public education, or any other body that usually speaks out about issues relating to public education? Why has the discussion been between churches and P&Cs? Why has there not been a proper working party to find a solution? Who holds the power here, and how responsibly is that power being used?
We already have qualified teachers in schools, and an approved curriculum. We have a crowded curriculum, which is increasingly busy as extra-curricula activities take up more and more time. We could have given teachers more time to teach the curriculum. Instead, we continue with amateur hour.
Can't we do better than this?