The Word is Out

The release of the assessor’s report on the trial ethics classes has brought this issue back to the very forefront of media, policy-maker and public attention. Of course, interpretations of the report findings will vary depending on who you talk to, but an objective summary is given in the report itself, under Recommendations https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/detresources/NSW_Ethics_course_trial_BYucPDfMew.pdf. Here, it is stated that the trial course provides a model that can be applied for the wider roll-out of classes of this kind, that it could be improved by delivering each topic over more than one week (to allow enough time to consider the topic) and with extended training for facilitators. So, this tells us that the trial course is a good model for wider application of ethics classes, and points to areas for further improvement. This is very positive. Any course coordinator reviews courses regularly, noting and implementing improvements to course structure and content, and it would have been most surprising if the assessor had not commented on potential for improvement.

How have the Churches responded to this positive report? Well, the response from the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) stated, as they have done so many times before, that ethics classes should not be offered at the same time as SRE, because children in SRE classes will be “forced to forgo ethics teaching” (http://australianchristianlobby.org.au/2010/10/acl-calls-for-consultation-on-ethics-classes/).

They understand very well that children in SRE already have the opportunity to receive ethics-based lessons in the context of a religion, that ethics is already threaded through the general curriculum, and of course that ethics must be offered at the same time as SRE, because the point is that it is an option for children who opt out of SRE. They also know that the St James Ethics Centre has made it very clear that, if the ethics classes are introduced, they will make their course curriculum available to SRE coordinators for their use within the context of their religion. They know all of this. They choose to pretend not to understand, in the hope that if they repeat it often enough people might start to believe it.

Incredibly, they make the statement that “The Government should not be discriminating against children of faith who will not be able to attend both SRE and ethics but instead should ensure that the classes are run at separate times.” This really takes the biscuit, and again they know very well that ethics classes do not discriminate against children from religious families, because once again, the SRE classes should be teaching values and ethics in the context of a religion. Ethics classes simply allow a comparable option for children of families without religion, and for children from families whose faith is not catered for at their school. In fact, the system has been discriminating against those children for years, and the introduction of ethics classes addresses that discrimination.

You might think it can’t get more outrageous than this, but you would be wrong because the next thing they do in their response is to criticize the ethics course curriculum. At this point, glass houses and stones, pots and kettles immediately spring to mind. As they would surely be aware, the ethics course curriculum has been developed by an internationally recognised expert in teaching philosophy to children, has been vetted by the Department of Education and has now undergone a formal process of evaluation. None of this has applied to the content of SRE classes. As mentioned above, the St James Ethics Centre has offered to provide the ethics course curriculum to the SRE course coordinators for their use if the ethics classes are introduced, yet the ACL responds in this ungracious way.

These arguments against the introduction of ethics classes are extremely weak, and seem to be a very thin veneer to hide the fact that there is, in fact, no argument.

Perhaps surprisingly, in view of the very loud campaigns they have been running against the ethics classes, the Anglican and Catholic Churches have not yet issued official responses to the evaluation. The Uniting Church, on the other hand, has always stated very clearly its support for the introduction of ethics classes for children not attending SRE, and has welcomed the report and its recommendations (http://www.insights.uca.org.au/news/2010/ethics-trial-report_20-10-2010.htm). Other Church groups have also indicated support for the trial (see blog on this site “What’s that Noise?”).

So, the trial evaluation is extremely positive, some Church groups have expressed support for the introduction of ethics classes and of course, the strong support in the community (evidenced in part by comments and stories on this web site) continues unabated. The Premier Kristina Keneally has said that the ethics classes would be introduced if the report is positive, so it seems likely that this will happen, though the Minister Verity Firth is calling for “the views of the community” (https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/about-us/news-at-det/news/ethics-report) before making an official decision or announcement “before Christmas”. Of course, public support for ethics classes is loud and clear and comes from all sections of the community including parents and non-parents, with and without religion, from Churches, and from the children themselves. This tide of support from individuals and organizations has even out-weighed the loud and angry opposition from the Anglican and Catholic churches, which is quite something. However, it is important that comments to the Minister truly reflect public opinion, so if you have an opinion on this issue, write to the Minister now https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/about-us/news-at-det/news/ethics-report and tell her what you think.