... 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
A place to find up-to-the-minute updates on pastoral ministry developments, issues & resources - for people involved in Chaplaincy, Youth Work or supporting those who do... in Government high schools.
Showing posts with label NSW D.E.T.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NSW D.E.T.. Show all posts
Monday, December 6, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
NSW Opposition Offers Voters a Real Option: Ethics Classes can be 'Voted' away
AAP
Ethics classes will be rolled out across NSW public schools next year but their future is already in doubt after the opposition pledged to scrap the controversial program if it wins the March state election.
Cabinet approved the classes on Monday after considering the recommendations of an independent evaluation of a trial program run in 10 schools earlier this year.
NSW Premier Kristina Keneally said of the 745 community submissions received in response to the evaluation report, 730 were in favour of them continuing.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The classes - run by the St James Ethics Centre as an alternative to religious lessons - will begin from the first term next year and initially be offered to years five and six.
They will then be progressively rolled out to children in kindergarten to year four.
Individual schools will decide whether to offer an ethics program.
"This is about government responding to the wishes of parents, many of whom have been asking for greater choice for many years," Ms Keneally told parliament on Tuesday.
"Ethics classes will provide a legitimate and educational use of time for children of parents who have elected not to participate in scripture classes."
The ethics classes would run alongside existing Special Religious Education (SRE), Ms Keneally said.
"These classes have no effect whatsoever on the teaching or scripture of special religious education in our schools," she said.
"Ethics classes will be offered on the same conditions and the same manner as special religious education, and the government will make no changes to special religious education."
However, the ethics program could be shortlived, with the opposition saying it will scrap the classes at the end of 2011 if it wins the March election, as is widely expected.
"While the NSW Liberals and Nationals understand the importance of ethics, we do not believe it should be positioned as an alternative to Special Religious Education," opposition education spokesman Adrian Piccoli said.
"We don't think that students should have to choose between Special Religious Education and ethics classes."
Australian Christian Lobby NSW director David Hutt welcomed the opposition's promise to axe the program, saying it guaranteed "a bright future for SRE".
"There is now a clear choice for voters on this issue in the lead up to the March election," he said.
"No one is opposed to the idea of children being taught ethics in schools, however the St James Ethics Centre's proposal was unworkable, and put ethics classes, something all children should be able to attend, in competition with SRE."
Anglican Archbishop of Sydney Peter Jensen said the ethics rollout was "a bad decision ... which will impoverish the education of many NSW public school children".
"Philosophical ethics is not a real alternative to the study of religion and it is unfair to confront parents with the dilemma of having them both taught at the same time," he said.
The Federation of Parents and Citizens Association NSW said it was "extremely disappointed" by the opposition's support for the "status quo".
"Scripture classes as they are run in public schools are not engaging," federation president Helen Walton said.
"And those children who don't attend aren't being given any option of any meaningful learning experiences."
© 2010 AAP
Ethics classes will be rolled out across NSW public schools next year but their future is already in doubt after the opposition pledged to scrap the controversial program if it wins the March state election.
Cabinet approved the classes on Monday after considering the recommendations of an independent evaluation of a trial program run in 10 schools earlier this year.
NSW Premier Kristina Keneally said of the 745 community submissions received in response to the evaluation report, 730 were in favour of them continuing.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The classes - run by the St James Ethics Centre as an alternative to religious lessons - will begin from the first term next year and initially be offered to years five and six.
They will then be progressively rolled out to children in kindergarten to year four.
Individual schools will decide whether to offer an ethics program.
"This is about government responding to the wishes of parents, many of whom have been asking for greater choice for many years," Ms Keneally told parliament on Tuesday.
"Ethics classes will provide a legitimate and educational use of time for children of parents who have elected not to participate in scripture classes."
The ethics classes would run alongside existing Special Religious Education (SRE), Ms Keneally said.
"These classes have no effect whatsoever on the teaching or scripture of special religious education in our schools," she said.
"Ethics classes will be offered on the same conditions and the same manner as special religious education, and the government will make no changes to special religious education."
However, the ethics program could be shortlived, with the opposition saying it will scrap the classes at the end of 2011 if it wins the March election, as is widely expected.
"While the NSW Liberals and Nationals understand the importance of ethics, we do not believe it should be positioned as an alternative to Special Religious Education," opposition education spokesman Adrian Piccoli said.
"We don't think that students should have to choose between Special Religious Education and ethics classes."
Australian Christian Lobby NSW director David Hutt welcomed the opposition's promise to axe the program, saying it guaranteed "a bright future for SRE".
"There is now a clear choice for voters on this issue in the lead up to the March election," he said.
"No one is opposed to the idea of children being taught ethics in schools, however the St James Ethics Centre's proposal was unworkable, and put ethics classes, something all children should be able to attend, in competition with SRE."
Anglican Archbishop of Sydney Peter Jensen said the ethics rollout was "a bad decision ... which will impoverish the education of many NSW public school children".
"Philosophical ethics is not a real alternative to the study of religion and it is unfair to confront parents with the dilemma of having them both taught at the same time," he said.
The Federation of Parents and Citizens Association NSW said it was "extremely disappointed" by the opposition's support for the "status quo".
"Scripture classes as they are run in public schools are not engaging," federation president Helen Walton said.
"And those children who don't attend aren't being given any option of any meaningful learning experiences."
© 2010 AAP
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Announced Today... Ethics Classes Begin in Schools Term 1, 2011
Ethics classes approved for next year
November 23, 2010 - 9:34AM
AAP
Ethics classes will be available in NSW public schools from next year, the state government has announced.
The NSW cabinet approved the classes on Monday after considering the recommendations of an independent evaluation of a trial program.
The St James Ethics Centre will continue to provide the course and will be responsible for all aspects it, including providing trained volunteer teachers and resources.
"The evidence has been overwhelmingly positive in support of ethics classes in NSW," Premier Kristina Keneally said in a statement on Tuesday.
"From next year, schools can opt to offer the course following consultation with their school community."
Following the release of the evaluation report for public comment last month, 745 community submissions had been received with 730 in favour of ethics continuing, Ms Keneally said.
The classes will begin from Term 1 next year and, initially, will be offered to years five and six, then progressively rolled out to kindergarten to year four as well.
The ethics course would run alongside existing Special Religious Education, NSW Education Minister Verity Firth said in the same statement.
© 2010 AAP
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Dept of Ed speak about Chaplains and Connection to SRE Teaching
G'day. Last week I got hold of the latest policy update from the NSW Dept. of Education & Training (thanks, Pete Adamson.) There has been a notable silence from the NSW Dept. of Ed. about the National Chaplaincy Programme, which is interesting given that 187 of their schools have been given grants for a 'chaplain', whatever it means to their context.
This SRE policy update has two mentions of the term 'chaplain' - meaning the persons who are
being funded to provide 'Chaplaincy Services' in their High School, whether they were already
engaged there as volunteers, or not.
[An important DISTINCTION, which I felt needed strong re-iterating at last week's Genr8 pastoral care training Day, is that an N.S.C.P. worker is NOT the same as the traditional Chaplains in other educational institutions.
Unlike a church school or Uni. chaplain, their role is not one of purely Christian ministry under a protestant church banner - with equal shares of Bible teaching, Christian Programmes, Services, some pastoral care etc. This creature that the Federal Government have set loose is really a generically defined 'qualified worker', attached to a religious body. But, not required to be ordained bytheir organisation, accredited, or even fully trained in religious-based ministry.
They don't even have to be Christians, yet will provide the same 'chaplaincy services' to their student body as a qualified Christian would. So the term Chaplain in the State High School NOW becomes more of a 'pastoral care service provider,' but with a religious grounding. This does not
tie down that person from doing other ministry activity with their time. In fact, the level of
funding being provided, if fully devoted to the worker's salary, would only fund their work
in a school for 3 days per week. No stipulation (or direction) given by Fed's to how they spend
the balance of time in the week, if they have it on school grounds - as I do.
Now that distinction's off my chest, I continue...]
This DET policy may mention the new 'model' for having chaplaincy services, but they
almost contradict themselves, on the same page.
SECTION 3: IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
end of ITEM D: School Organisation:
"If the school has a person under the Commonwealth National School Chaplaincy Programme, this person could teach SRE in addition to their work under this programme, but NOT AS PART OF IT. In relation to their SRE work, they would come under the provisions for SRE."
> To me, that was always the understanding, but it seems others involved in school ministry
are getting jittery (I've heard) about the SRE teachers having anything to do with being
chaplaincy services providers, at the same school. I see no need for panic here -rather a
confirmation of the SEPARATION in NSW schools, of the very specific church-run program
of SRE, and the new commonwealth-run pastoral care services. However, someone teaching
christian religion in a high school may well be the best placed person to do additional pastoral
care, which they are probably beginning to do informally anyway.
I do see why professional SRE teachers might be unwilling to risk it though, if they have a
stable system of organised Scripture teaching running. Their primary role need not be
compromised by feeling compelled to 'cash in' on funding while it's on offer.
What I don't understand is this view that I hear frequently from some christians, that
no-one should get involved with the Chaplaincy Services, if they care about SRE.
For someone who teaches Christian SRE at their campus, and is relied upon (with volunteer
status) to also develop other services to the students that build relationships and add value
to the school's care system, wouldn't a formal pastoral care role with funding enhance the
model of ministry they develop? It certainly has in my school. I think some of these critics
are a bit stuck in "either-or" thinking to keep things neat, and maybe avoid any or all
future criticisms. What a sad reason to stop developing a model for youth ministry that
is highly relevant & tailored to a school community...just because someone might criticise it
at some unspecified time in the future. Well, of course they might! We are missionary workers
in minority numbers in this schools system - there'll be criticism at some point, but this
is nothing to be afraid of, when your model is well-founded and supported within your high
school community.
NOW ONTO THE SECOND SNIPPET in the policy update - on the same page.
SECTION 5: SRE TEACHERS AS VOLUNTEERS IN SCHOOLS
" In general, schools are not to establish chaplaincy positions. When schools
use SRE teachers in roles outside the provisions of SRE, such teachers are
deemed to be volunteers and are not covered for worker's compensation by the
Department, but have the same rights and responsibilities as all other volunteers."
> So... they default back to their early 90's ruling which allows for what are essentially
"youth workers" in schools, with no naming of someone as a chaplain. This was pretty
much a political compromise by DET at the time, to appease people within the Teacher's
Federation who insisted that naming a worker with 'Chaplain' gave a religious overtone,
and implied that churches had influence over students that was innapropriate. They got their
wish, and the term 'chaplain' was banned in DET schools, although their youth work
continued. But it seems they're really in a pickle now - because the doublespeak has begun!
In the very next paragraph...
"In relation to the Commonwealth National School Chaplaincy Programme, schools may engage this program as outlined in the Commonwealth guidelines. The programme does not require the use of the term 'chaplain' to describe the position."
> What IS that?! Schools can particpate as they choose in the program, which formalises
a worker to offer care/spiritual guidance to students & staff, and refers to their ministry work as
"chaplaincy services." But, to uphold the implementation of SRE, they can do that, but
somehow must not establish chaplaincy positions? That is doublespeak par excellence.
High school Principals are required, under NSCP guidelines, to endorse a candidate to
work with their schools' students body - signing off on a lengthy declaration. They can't
actually do both, technically. Although, 187 high school principals clearly either don't
know about this political-speaking policy, or don't care.
Ahhh, N.S.W. Education - the most politically polluted in the country. I guess this keeps
policy-makers in the comfort-zone: they haven't permitted anything they've previously
disapproved of. All with the one downfall that this aspect of SRE policy doesn't make sense
any more.
This SRE policy update has two mentions of the term 'chaplain' - meaning the persons who are
being funded to provide 'Chaplaincy Services' in their High School, whether they were already
engaged there as volunteers, or not.
[An important DISTINCTION, which I felt needed strong re-iterating at last week's Genr8 pastoral care training Day, is that an N.S.C.P. worker is NOT the same as the traditional Chaplains in other educational institutions.
Unlike a church school or Uni. chaplain, their role is not one of purely Christian ministry under a protestant church banner - with equal shares of Bible teaching, Christian Programmes, Services, some pastoral care etc. This creature that the Federal Government have set loose is really a generically defined 'qualified worker', attached to a religious body. But, not required to be ordained bytheir organisation, accredited, or even fully trained in religious-based ministry.
They don't even have to be Christians, yet will provide the same 'chaplaincy services' to their student body as a qualified Christian would. So the term Chaplain in the State High School NOW becomes more of a 'pastoral care service provider,' but with a religious grounding. This does not
tie down that person from doing other ministry activity with their time. In fact, the level of
funding being provided, if fully devoted to the worker's salary, would only fund their work
in a school for 3 days per week. No stipulation (or direction) given by Fed's to how they spend
the balance of time in the week, if they have it on school grounds - as I do.
Now that distinction's off my chest, I continue...]
This DET policy may mention the new 'model' for having chaplaincy services, but they
almost contradict themselves, on the same page.
SECTION 3: IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
end of ITEM D: School Organisation:
"If the school has a person under the Commonwealth National School Chaplaincy Programme, this person could teach SRE in addition to their work under this programme, but NOT AS PART OF IT. In relation to their SRE work, they would come under the provisions for SRE."
> To me, that was always the understanding, but it seems others involved in school ministry
are getting jittery (I've heard) about the SRE teachers having anything to do with being
chaplaincy services providers, at the same school. I see no need for panic here -rather a
confirmation of the SEPARATION in NSW schools, of the very specific church-run program
of SRE, and the new commonwealth-run pastoral care services. However, someone teaching
christian religion in a high school may well be the best placed person to do additional pastoral
care, which they are probably beginning to do informally anyway.
I do see why professional SRE teachers might be unwilling to risk it though, if they have a
stable system of organised Scripture teaching running. Their primary role need not be
compromised by feeling compelled to 'cash in' on funding while it's on offer.
What I don't understand is this view that I hear frequently from some christians, that
no-one should get involved with the Chaplaincy Services, if they care about SRE.
For someone who teaches Christian SRE at their campus, and is relied upon (with volunteer
status) to also develop other services to the students that build relationships and add value
to the school's care system, wouldn't a formal pastoral care role with funding enhance the
model of ministry they develop? It certainly has in my school. I think some of these critics
are a bit stuck in "either-or" thinking to keep things neat, and maybe avoid any or all
future criticisms. What a sad reason to stop developing a model for youth ministry that
is highly relevant & tailored to a school community...just because someone might criticise it
at some unspecified time in the future. Well, of course they might! We are missionary workers
in minority numbers in this schools system - there'll be criticism at some point, but this
is nothing to be afraid of, when your model is well-founded and supported within your high
school community.
NOW ONTO THE SECOND SNIPPET in the policy update - on the same page.
SECTION 5: SRE TEACHERS AS VOLUNTEERS IN SCHOOLS
" In general, schools are not to establish chaplaincy positions. When schools
use SRE teachers in roles outside the provisions of SRE, such teachers are
deemed to be volunteers and are not covered for worker's compensation by the
Department, but have the same rights and responsibilities as all other volunteers."
> So... they default back to their early 90's ruling which allows for what are essentially
"youth workers" in schools, with no naming of someone as a chaplain. This was pretty
much a political compromise by DET at the time, to appease people within the Teacher's
Federation who insisted that naming a worker with 'Chaplain' gave a religious overtone,
and implied that churches had influence over students that was innapropriate. They got their
wish, and the term 'chaplain' was banned in DET schools, although their youth work
continued. But it seems they're really in a pickle now - because the doublespeak has begun!
In the very next paragraph...
"In relation to the Commonwealth National School Chaplaincy Programme, schools may engage this program as outlined in the Commonwealth guidelines. The programme does not require the use of the term 'chaplain' to describe the position."
> What IS that?! Schools can particpate as they choose in the program, which formalises
a worker to offer care/spiritual guidance to students & staff, and refers to their ministry work as
"chaplaincy services." But, to uphold the implementation of SRE, they can do that, but
somehow must not establish chaplaincy positions? That is doublespeak par excellence.
High school Principals are required, under NSCP guidelines, to endorse a candidate to
work with their schools' students body - signing off on a lengthy declaration. They can't
actually do both, technically. Although, 187 high school principals clearly either don't
know about this political-speaking policy, or don't care.
Ahhh, N.S.W. Education - the most politically polluted in the country. I guess this keeps
policy-makers in the comfort-zone: they haven't permitted anything they've previously
disapproved of. All with the one downfall that this aspect of SRE policy doesn't make sense
any more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)