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

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.