NSW Schools Ethics Trial Evaluation - Want to EVALUATE IT YOURSELF?

... you may want to, if you have an active interest in this issue. The final evaluation, authored by the independent evaluator Sue Knight, has been published. As you now know Verity Firth (our current education minister) followed up with her announcement that after 'successful trial' the St. James run ethics course will roll out in term 1 to year 5 & 6 kids in state primary schools.
It will be included, within the much-protested time in schools for Special Religious Education as a 'complement' course, which parents may only choose for their child competitively against religious ed. classes.

I offer you two bits of reading in this post

1. The final report by Sue Knight, evaluating the ethics course - http://bit.ly/ethicstrialreport

2. A Critical Independent Evaluation of the trial, by Dr. James Athanasious
- http://bit.ly/ethicstrialerrors

The second one gets a little technical, as an critical review from the world
of statistics and experimental research methodology. By all means read it, because
James uncovers 11 METHODOLOGICAL ERRORS that the trial report reveals about this
hastily administered trial (which may in fact not be a true experimental trial,
but more statistically appropriately labelled a 'pilot program.')
James is a PhD and works for both University of Technology Sydney and
LaTrobe University.

If you want to know, the two MOST SIGNIFICANT errors I believe James has
uncovered, here is a quick run-down. The two BIG issues in whether research
can be trusted or not are Reliability and Validity. The evaluation from
Sue Knight asserts that there is valid and reliable findings that students
scores on tests "post" the course show improved ethical reasoning & orientation
compared to those students "pre" scores. Anyone can just say that in their report.

James found 11 reasons why this has been, in pure statistical & scientific jargon,
only a pilot study and not a TRUE TRIAL. The reliability and especially Validity on
the NSW trial are not unqualified successes. Validity of a research test is whether a test actually measures what it SAYS it does. There are 2 answers that James gives why the
trial is only a "pilot" (a dry run with few valid & conclusive findings):

1. The constitution of the 530 trial students has not been reflected on for
skewing effects on the conclusion; 32% of them were PRIOR SRE Students
who then joined in the trial... So their "post" scores compared with already
high "pre" scores on ethical thinking skills may not have risen due to the trial
course at all - it may have been prior religious education that boosted their scores.

2. There was NO control group surveyed concurrently with the classes of
ethics course participants. Even undergraduate psych. majors like me know
what that means: a conclusion of 'raised skills' means little in terms of knowing
what CAUSED a raise in skills. A control group comparison can determine whether
the rise is a VALID RESULT of a course, or due to "confounding variables".

For more, go to James' paper - you can download your full copy at http://bit.ly/ethicstrialerrors

Al Hewetson

An Open Letter to our Online Critics, from the SRE Teaching brotherhood

One commentator blogged this online today:
"your church leaders have set up a system...to make it difficult for people of minority/no faith, to opt-out....this system that seeks to put your religion as an official part of the school program."
And now to set the record straight...

I'm wondering if some Christians have peeved some of you with their posts on blogs or facebook. I apologise for their insensitivity if they have. But the Special Religious Education system in our NSW schools is not set up to 'position' ANY one faith group to have an official place in the school program. You have addressed your critique to a Christian who wants to teach the bible in his/her classes. EQUALLY muslim teachers, Bhuddist teachers, Hindu teachers & Bahai teachers are entering MANY primary schools, to teach out of their authoritative books. Same freedom, issuing from the exact system you are criticising.

Lest you get carried away with the Christian person who peeved you, try to remember that NSW schools need to keep the SRE system the way it is, to allow Christians to teach biblical material, and ALL those non-Christian religious groups to teach theirs. Are you, honestly, equally keen on seeing all of their teaching slots revoked, or exposed to disadvantage?

The Christians (of which I'm one) bang on a bit - and sorry again about that. There are some of us who don't want to fight back and forth with you non-faithies. All me and my minister buddies are advocating for, is an accountable arrangement for SRE, where the current "no disadvantage" principles are honoured. Those anti-disadvantage protections uphold ANY RELIGIOUS TEACHING session in a public school, so that teachers come in and teach dogmatic truths to the enrolled kids in their courses. It's OK to me, if an ethics course appears on the scene. But it's more than a little suspicious and in some trial schools, scurrilous, that some players are actively seeking HARD, for the St.James course to BELONG in the SRE slot.

I am a tad cynical, and I've been round the block with NSW school politics... It is too hard to believe that its introduction into the time-honoured SRE slot in school life, is purely about poor non-scripture kids who may be bored with what they're doing
(it's a bit hard to see how much they actually suffer under those conditions, when an engaging scripture class is available to attend, even as a dissenter... kids suffering in non_SRE group? Not likely.)

What we ARE LIKELY seeing unfold here, is a gesture made by Nathan Rees on his political death bed, to throw left-wing constituents a bone. Several highly controversial "leftie projects" were signed off by Rees, in the safe knowledge he would never be bearing the public's reaction to them. Well, we are now in debate, and we the public are working through our reactions to his deeds. You know, it doesn't matter if an Ethics Course is installed into NSW schools through all of that silliness. It's an enriching thing.

But it's the shift of powers and permissions around religious education that is so suspect... there is NO solid or robust reason that the time-honoured dogmatic teaching slot for religion is the ideal place to put an ethics course. Do some people WANT an Ethics Course to sit squarely in the time-honoured religious education session (which is time-poor as it is)?
Oh yes, some people want it EXACTLY to be that way. Look into the actions of the Baulkham Hills North School principal during their ethics course dry run (which he is TEACHING by the way! Something that would NOT happen in an SRE class, which is required to be peopled by appropriate volunteers.) People like him want things to reflect the world as THEY WANT IT. Why should they just get it, and take down a system that largely does no harm to kids, enriches many with values and builds faith? I reckon it's just a bit selfish to insist on disadvantage to that slot, when Ethics training doesn't have to run that way in a school.

A Little Q & A:

Question: Why didn't Nathan Rees launch an Ethics Class program in his FIRST WEEK as Premier?
Answer: It would have been defeated through controversy, solid discussion in public and inability to meet the needs of whole school communities.

Question: Why DID he do it in his LAST week?
Answer: Because he could.

AH