An Interesting Question.

There seems to be some genuine concern among people who are opposed to the introduction of ethics classes that children attending those classes will be taught that there is no absolutely wrong or right answer to life scenarios. For example, here is an extract from a posting on the St James Ethics Centre’s facebook page http://www.facebook.com/pages/Towards-an-Ethics-based-Complement-to-Scripture-in-NSW-Primary-Schools/153383382362
dated September 21st: “Honestly… scarey (sic) stuff! Do you people really know what you’re supporting? You’re supporting a child being able to fully think through situations on their own. They’re going to be taught that there is NO wrong and there is NO right. Where does it stop then?”

This question raises several points, not the least of which is that it is insulting to the many parents who understand what they are supporting, and are very comfortable with it. What we are supporting is the introduction of classes that allow children to think about their actions in the context of everyday scenarios. The St James Ethics Centre’s information on the course (http://www.ethics.org.au/faq/ethics-complement-scripture) indicates that facilitators should lead students to “ask questions, generate suggestions, respectfully explore disagreement, give and evaluate reasons, question assumptions” so that they take a “thoughtful approach to moral decision-making”. This does mean that the classes will help to equip children to think through situations on their own, but it does not mean that they will be taught that there is no wrong and no right answer. On the contrary, it means that children are taught to think about what is wrong and what is right. It also does not mean that children would be expected to act without guidance, but that during the SRE period, when they are currently barred from meaningful activities, they would be encouraged to think about their actions in everyday scenarios. This is surely not controversial.

The question suggests that children attending SRE classes are not taught to think through situations on their own or to think about what is right and what is wrong. This may or may not be the case. The SRE curricula are not made generally available, so it is not easy to find out. One way to get a glimpse of the content and format of SRE classes is to read testimonials from parents and students or ex-students of those classes. One example from a letter in the Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/all-views-count-in-schools-blessed-with-tolerance-20100510-uojd.html?skin=text-only) tells us: “Over the years I’ve had to explain to my daughter that my wife and I will not end up burning in hell. I patiently had to explain the cultural difference between angels and fairies. I had to explain that the leaflet she had been told to bring home, which gave ”10 reasons why we know the Bible is true”, had no foundation in fact, that at best the evidence for the ”reasons” given were dubious at best and outright lies at worst.”

One of the visitors’ stories on this site (http://parents4ethics.org/category/stories/) tells us: “Then our daughter started coming home with photocopied sheets of ‘colouring-in’ from her scripture class, including drawings of sinners being beaten out of the House of the Lord (complete with wounds and bruises), and sinners burning in hell (flames, screaming agony, the works).”

Another is equally enlightening: “One day she came home in tears because she had had her ‘work’ marked as wrong. The question was “What is the greatest problem facing the world today: poverty, the environment or sin.” [She] reasoned that the environment had to be the biggest – if the environment was fixed, then everyone would have enough to eat, poverty be alleviated and the world would be a better place, where people did not need to do wrong to get enough to live. She was only seven, so somewhat simplistic in her thinking but not nearly as simplistic as the person from the church who marked her question wrong. The ‘correct’ answer was, of course, sin.”

I could go on. There are other examples on our site and elsewhere of stories from parents whose children have attended SRE and have been given an absolute indication of what is right or wrong. The word “scary” is entirely applicable when reading these stories, so from this perspective the use of this word to describe advocates of ethics classes for children opting out of SRE seems ludicrous.

Testimonials such as those cited above do provide a clear indication of the teaching strategies adopted in at least some SRE classes, but stronger evidence is available. Cathy Byrnes is a PhD scholar at Macquarie University, conducting research on religion in public education (http://www.religioneducation.org.au/Researcher.htm). A media release summarizing some of her work tells us of a survey she conducted in 13 NSW public schools, with a sample of 121 parents, teachers, principals and scripture volunteer teachers (http://www.religioneducation.org.au/Media/MEDIA%20RELEASE%20-%20Believe%20or%20Burn%2025%20June.pdf). Her findings revealed that a large proportion (70 percent) “of scripture teachers think children should be taught the Bible as historical fact and should not be given a choice whether to believe in God. 80 percent of Christian scripture teachers think children should not be exposed to non-Christian beliefs”. She also found that some scripture teachers were providing a ‘Creation For Kids’ kit to numerous public schools in regional NSW, including DVDs and other child-friendly tools to deliver the message that the story described in Genesis is historical fact and that humans lived alongside dinosaurs. She found that in one school children were told that if they ‘didn’t believe in Jesus they would burn in hell’. These 13 schools are a small sample of course, but this is strong evidence of entirely inappropriate approaches to SRE teaching in at least some NSW public schools. More than inappropriate, it is absolutely appalling that this is happening to any of our children. That it is happening in a publicly funded education system is an outrage.

It would be reasonable to assume that SRE classes in our taxpayer-funded schools have undergone at least some vetting by the Department of Education. The same Department that prevents any alternative to these classes during their time slot. But no, they have not. Ethics classes on the other hand have been developed by a person with internationally recognized expertise in philosophy for children and the trial course curriculum has been approved by the Department of Education. Details of two of the trial ethics classes (http://www.ethics.org.au/sites/default/files/Fairness.pdf) have been made freely available, and it has been made clear that the full curriculum will be made available to SRE coordinators if the classes are introduced.

It is incredible that the advocacy of ethics classes could be deemed ‘scary’ when those classes have been carefully developed in terms of pedagogy and have been openly available for critique, while the alternative is shrouded in mystery and occasional glimpses indicate that children are in at least some cases brain washed and bullied. Those cases reported by the media or discussed on web sites may be the worst-case scenarios, but they are supported by Cathy Byrnes’ research, providing a clear indication that at least some of those classes are based on very shaky absolute morality that is not open to question. This is objectionable and “scary” to many parents (and no doubt children) in NSW. The Department of Education and the SRE providers have for many years neglected to ensure that teaching strategies and content are appropriate in these classes. They have also failed to take notice of the fact that the demographic has shifted over the years since SRE was introduced. The absolute minimum that must be done at this stage is to ensure that children not attending SRE are provided with a proper alternative. Bring on the ethics classes.