Public School P&Cs targeted in the Campaign Against Ethics Classes

SREonTrial (http://www.sreontrial.com.au/) is an Internet-based campaign against the introduction of ethics classes, organized by the Anglican group Youthworks. It includes several links to material and one in particular has generated interest before now, because it is a call for branch-stacking of P&Cs (http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/anglicans-take-ethics-course-battle-to-pampcs-20100608-xtra.html).

It is entitled “Whose P&C is it Again?” and subtitled “Why Christians need to be involved in the local P&C”. It dives right in on line one with “Your local P&C may be co-opted for the cause of removing scripture from schools” and goes on to claim that P&C associations lack a Christian voice. The article tells us that “When many Christians think about joining the P&C at their local school they realise that life is pretty busy. Deadlines at work, family and sporting commitments as well as the numerous meetings at church seem to drain countless hours. P&C, while we all think it is a good idea, slips into the back parts of our minds, so much so that Christian points of view have slipped from consciousness. As a result we have fallen short of being “salt and light” in our school community.”

They urge their fellow Christians to join P&Cs in order to “actively and positively engage in their community” but much more emphasis is put on a need to increase Christian voices in discussions on a range of issues such as the ethics program. They provide a list of recommendations on “What to say and do in your P&C meeting”, including: Join in order to be able to vote; congratulate the teachers on their hard work teaching ethics in the curriculum; and urge full investigation of the ethics course curriculum, its staffing and content.

Their claim that P&Cs may be ‘co-opted’ by people aiming to remove scripture from schools is a lie. No-one involved in the introduction of ethics classes has suggested the removal of SRE, but this particular lie has been peddled by the Anglican Church for some time. The idea that P&C members are co-opting the group is grossly insulting and absolutely ludicrous. They are not co-opting anything. They are just as busy as the Anglicans making this outrageous claim. They have families and jobs, they are involved in community events, they organize things, people depend upon them, they are up to their eyeballs in responsibility. Despite this, they find time to contribute to their school by designing and running fundraising activities, organizing school events, working with teachers on special programs, liaising with the Principal, teachers, students and parents. They do this work to play a part in creating and maintaining a great, inclusive and supportive environment for the school, socially and educationally. To claim that they are co-opting seems to reflect a poor understanding of the structure, function and character of the P&C movement, and certainly reveals a distorted view of the intentions of P&C members.

Interesting, isn’t it, that this article should call for scrutiny of the ethics curriculum and staffing. SRE curricula have always been shrouded in mystery. The only glimpses we get of them are from personal accounts in the media and on this web site (http://parents4ethics.org/category/stories/), as well as a few minutes here and there of film inside the SRE classroom in televised reports on the issue of SRE and ethics classes. The curriculum has never been subjected to any external scrutiny. It has never been vetted or approved by the DET. On the other hand, the ethics course curriculum has, as is well known, so to claim that it should be examined by the very people who have been happy to overlook any proper review of SRE curricula is astonishing.
The most disturbing aspect of this article, however, is its central point. Namely a call for Christians to join their local school P&C in order to ensure that the Christian perspective is represented when issues are discussed and votes are cast. Note that the main aim of this drive is to increase the Christian voice on P&Cs, with little interest shown in helping the school. If they were showing an interest in real work to benefit the school, no doubt their contributions would be very welcome. A drive to join P&Cs with the aim of increasing the Christian voice and influence in the school is highly questionable.
A P&C association is defined as a group of parents and citizens in the area served by the school with an interest in the welfare of the school. The objects and functions of P&C associations are written into the NSW 1990 Education Act (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ea1990104/; part 11). Objects are to bring together parents, local citizens, students and teachers to promote the interests of the school; to help provide facilities and equipment and promote recreation and welfare of students at the school; and to encourage parents and citizens to input to issues related to curriculum and education.

Functions of the P&C association are to report to the Minister as needed on maintenance and facilities needs of the school; to help and work with teaching staff in school public functions; to elect parent representatives to the school council; and to cooperate with the Minister if needed.

So, the primary role of the P&C is to act in the best interests of the students, with the aim of helping the school to provide an excellent environment for the education and development of its students. The question then arises, what is in the best interests of the students, and what constitutes such an environment? This particular beauty is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. The Anglican P&C member who shares the views expressed by SREonTrial would want to block the introduction of ethics classes. However, Christians who share the view of the Uniting Church or the Baptist Church would support the introduction of those classes. Non-Christians may or may not support the classes, and it is important that the wide range of perspectives are represented on P&C associations so that the view on the student’s best interests is not distorted one way or another.

Anglican Christians are encouraging their followers to join P&Cs so that they become a significant voice on those associations, and thus their view influences decisions on curriculum, facilities and other aspects of education in the public school system. Let us not forget that this is a school system that is funded by the general community. It is not funded by Christians, and certainly not by Anglican Christians. So why on earth would Anglican Christians expect to have a major influence in their administration and in important decisions on education in those schools?

Aside from the issue of ethics and SRE classes, many aspects of education in public schools could be influenced one way or the other as a result of a minority group having significant representation on P&Cs. One example is of course the system of school chaplaincy. Introduced by John Howard in 2006, this system allows public schools to claim funding for a chaplain who can act as a guide to students having problems in their lives. The system stipulates that the religious affiliation of a school chaplain must be decided by the school and community, and it is important that decisions on issues such as whether to have a chaplain and if so which flavour, are not heavily influenced by a particular religious group.

A related issue was raised at a meeting of my own children’s P&C recently. Another parent raised concerns about a year 6 camp run by the Anglican group Youthworks, on the basis that the camp may in reality be a recruitment opportunity (suggested by some of the wording on their materials) rather than something to benefit the children. The discussion on this was unbiased and reasoned, with the outcome that the Principal agreed to seek assurances from Youthworks that their camp staff would not proselytise. If a significant proportion of our P&C members were Anglican, the discussion would certainly have been biased and the outcome would have been consistent perhaps with the view of Anglican families but not with the view of other families including those of no faith.

It is not hard to think of many potential issues on which the views of Anglican P&C members would be entirely at odds with those of the rest of the community (the majority). So, it is not ok for SREonTrial to urge their followers to join P&C associations so that they can contribute to discussions and votes, for at least two reasons. Firstly, they are urged to join with the aim of increasing the Christian (in particular, Anglican) “voice”, and not with the intention of making a real contribution to the school community. Secondly, such a drive encourages a skewed distribution of P&C membership toward views that are not held by the majority in the community. It would be reasonable, of course, for Anglicans to be strongly represented on such a group in an Anglican school, because in that case their views would be consistent with those of the community. But no, it is not ok for this to happen in the publicly funded school system.