‘Most reasonable people ..would see a place in the school curriculum for ‘generous religious education’.
The promise from new Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews to make Victoria the”education state” is welcome and timely.
But one aspect of education that is increasingly worrying parents is the place of special religious instruction (SRI) in Victorian government schools: 42 percent have withdrawn their children from SRI over the past 12 months, leaving fewer than one in six enrolled (The Age, 21/12/2014), after the government issued a more detailed “opt-in” form to parents that explained the distinction between “religious instruction” and “religious education” and made it clear participation was voluntary.
People have started to stand up for a genuinely secular education system, not one that allows for religious indoctrination “under the radar”. Over the past decade or so, SRI has changed. Some might remember “RE” in the old days: benign, boring and eminently forgettable. Not so any more. SRI, at least the Christian version operated by ACCESS Ministries, could fairly be described as “muscular” – a much more aggressive form of intervention that essentially seeks to turn the local government school into a local church. Religious providers of SRI cling to their legislative mandate to be in schools, while secular parents fight for their kids to have nothing to do with it and principals worry about the educational quality of what they see in SRI sessions.
Victorians have good reason to expect the new government to fix this ongoing problem. Unfortunately, Labor has form on this matter.
Many would not be aware of the legislative sleight-of-hand perpetrated by a former Labor minister when she introduced the updated Education and Training Reform Act 2006. The act sensibly reiterated the longstanding policy that “education in government schools must be secular and not promote any particular religious practice, denomination or sect”. So far, so good. But it prefaced this statement with the weasel phrase: “Except as provided in section 2.2.11.
“When we look at section 2.2.11 we find that it permits what it calls “special religious instruction”, which is defined as” instruction provided by churches and other religious groups and based on distinctive religious tenets and beliefs”.
This means the act has an absurd logical form. It is like saying:”
Section 1: Except as provided in Section 2, robbery is not permitted;
Section 2: Robbery is permitted”. It is hard to imagine how such nonsense got through our allegedly rational Parliament. The only thing that might explain such a dereliction of parliamentary duty is the fact that the act is nearly 500 pages long, but there is no excuse for such a failure to scrutinise.
This is not the worst of it. Most reasonable people, including non-religious people, would see a place in the school curriculum for “general religious education”, which is defined in the act as “education about major forms of religious thought and expression”. We would add one rider: that atheism, rationalism and humanism be included in such study, along with other “forms of religious thought and expression”. Many would argue freedom of religious belief requires such education, because freedom implies informed choice and if people are not familiar with the range of alternative religious and non-religious systems, theyare not freely choosing their beliefs.
Having paid lip service to general religious education in the act, successive education ministers have then done nothing about it. Instead, the Education Department has blundered on with SRI, ducking this way and that in response to parental outrage and principals’ concerns on one hand, and pressure from religious lobby groups defending their turf on the other.
The reasons for parental outrage and principal concern have been well documented. Consider this picture: an SRI volunteer arrive sat a school to conduct their weekly session, and the class is divided – those doing SRI stay inthe classroom and those not doing SRI, even if they are the majority, must get up and go somewhere else. By law, those who are forced to leave are not allowed to do other lessons because this might give them an advantage over those doing SRI.
Further, the main provider of SRI, ACCESS Ministries, was last year embarrassed after it was revealed its volunteers had distributed “biblezines” at a Surf Coast college that described homosexuality as a sin. As reported by The Age (17/8/14). The Education Department subsequently clarified the rules around what materials could be distributed.
And then there’s the matter of the typical materials used in SRI.
Those used by ACCESS Ministries are “cutesy” to say the least – lots of cartoons, games and references to celebrities. But far from being innocent, this format mirrors a sophisticated strategic plan, summarised in a paper called The Evangelisation of Children, published in 2004 by the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelisation.
This paper states unequivocally that: “Evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of Christian duty.” It urges that children “be discipled no matter how diverse their family or faith background”, because “children are more open and receptive to the gospel that at any other time in their lives.”
No wonder parents are concerned.
The time is right to fix this unholy nonsense once and for all. If the new Labor government genuinely wants Victoria to be the “education state”, it should abandon religious indoctrination, in the form of SRI, and instead work with religious and non-religious groups of goodwill to develop a world-class curriculum to educate Victorian children about the range of religious and non-religious world views present in Victoria’s successful multicultural society.
Author: Dr Meredith Doig is president of the Rationalist Society of Australia.
Brought To You By : Sikandar Kumar Mehta