This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/26/teaching-children-that-dinosaurs-didnt-exist-how-public-schools-fail-their-brief

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Teaching children that dinosaurs didn't exist: how public schools fail their brief Teaching children that dinosaurs didn't exist: how public schools fail their brief
(6 months later)
A Victorian primary school A Victorian primary school principal last week described lessons in his school as “rubbish,” “hollow and empty rhetoric” and with “no value whatsoever.” He closed down the special religious instruction (SRI) classes and explained:
principal last week described lessons in his school as “rubbish,” “hollow and
empty rhetoric” and with “no value whatsoever.” He closed
down the special religious
instruction (SRI) classes and explained:
I was blindly accepting and approving these activities in my school until I started taking a closer look at the material and an even closer look at the actual sessions that the volunteers were conducting. I concluded that the material and the associated teachers and teaching methods simply do not reach the standard of quality educational practise that this school requires.I was blindly accepting and approving these activities in my school until I started taking a closer look at the material and an even closer look at the actual sessions that the volunteers were conducting. I concluded that the material and the associated teachers and teaching methods simply do not reach the standard of quality educational practise that this school requires.
A teacher who A teacher who found her son’s SRI class taught that dinosaurs never existed (God just planted the fossil record), called the lessons “unpalatable,” “offensive” and “unacceptable”.
found her son’s SRI class taught that dinosaurs Another primary school’s principal demanded an apology and is now hosting a departmental investigation after SRI volunteers gave year 6 children a “Biblezine,” advising girls how to avoid making their nipples a “distraction and temptation to men,” explaining that wives must “submit” to husbands and instructing children never to act on homosexual feelings. She called the material “completely inappropriate,” “against fundamental school values” and said it “smacks in the face of everything we do.”
never existed (God just planted the fossil record), called the lessons This is hardly new. “The image of religious instruction ... is at best a free period and at worst utter chaos,” complained an Anglican clergyman to the church’s Newcastle Synod, as reported in the Newcastle Herald in 1969. The major churches had already pulled out of providing SRI in South Australia, beginning with the Methodists in 1968. During the 1970s, the Tasmanian, Victorian, South Australian and Western Australian governments held inquiries into SRI, and New South Wales followed in 1980.
“unpalatable,” “offensive” and “unacceptable”. All registered familiar frustrations: SRI segregated children by religion, when public schools’ essence is inclusion; it created organisational headaches as increasing numbers of families (and churches) opted out; it relied on volunteers, whose main qualifications were faith and enthusiasm, not necessarily teaching ability or knowledge of the subject; it was unfair, since minority religions had trouble finding volunteers, leaving their children ill-served; and short, weekly visits made it hard to build up any meaningful rapport between instructor and class.
Another primary school’s principal demanded an The state inquiries advocated replacing or supplementing SRI with “general religious education” (GRE), in which professional teachers (rather than volunteers) teach about different religions (not just one) and non-religious beliefs, as part of the regular curriculum, to their regular classes (not groups segregated by religion).
apology In the 34 years since the last of the state inquiries, GRE has become standard in England, Ireland, much of western Europe and Québec; but in Australia were implemented minimally or not at all, though some states offer it to years 11 and 12. Worsening the situation, as mainline churches vacated SRI in frustration, hellfire-preachers and evolution-deniers often filled the void.
and is now hosting a departmental investigation after SRI volunteers gave year Conducting surveys and interviews in 23 public schools in NSW and Queensland between 2009 and 2012, education researcher Cathy Byrne found that SRI volunteers “preferred significantly more conservative approaches” to their subject than parents, principals or professional teachers.
6 children a “Biblezine,” advising girls how to avoid making their nipples a For example, asked whether they thought the Bible should be taught “as fact” and therefore “accepted without too much questioning”, parents and education professionals favoured questioning, whereas SRI volunteers tended toward “biblical inerrancy,” the view that the entire text of the Bible is free from error of any kind. In almost a quarter of the schools, Byrne found teaching to the effect that students or their families or friends would “burn in hell” if they did not believe the volunteer’s version.
“distraction and temptation to men,” explaining that wives must “submit” to Defenders of the current system often maintain that these are aberrations. Evonne Paddison, CEO of Access Ministries, whose volunteers distributed the nipple-advice Biblezine, said that her organisation was extremely disappointed by the incident and would continue to investigate how it happened.
husbands and instructing children never to act on homosexual feelings. She But the current system makes it impossible to screen out such travesties out in advance. Instead, bewildered parents are left unsure where to go. Complaints to schools tend to get deflected to provider organisations. They often have declared intentions such as to use public schools as a “mission field” in which to “make disciples” (Paddison) or “impacting NSW government schools with the gospel” so that “many more young lives will be transformed through the Lord Jesus Christ” (GenR8 Ministries).
called the material “completely inappropriate,” “against fundamental school Answering the suggestion that “SRI has no value in a secular education system,” Paddison wrote in 2011, “I argue that all faiths play a valuable part in shaping and forming our understanding of who we are as individuals and as members of the global village.” Parents, principals and teachers agree. So did the committees of inquiry thirty and more years ago. But it’s hard to think of a less effective way to nurture such “understanding” than to segregate students by religion and teach them that all other groups are wrong.
values” and said it “smacks in the face of everything we do.” The state inquiries proposed curricula to help children learn about various religious and non-religious traditions: taught by professional teachers, tied to themes in the rest of the curriculum, and with all students learning together.
This is hardly new. “The image of religious instruction ... is at best a free South Australia’s Steinle Report, published in 1973, proposed the benchmarks that students who had completed its 12-year curriculum would achieve “a better understanding of themselves and their own beliefs”, would understand “the presence and influence of religion in life and in society,” and would gain “a greater respect for and tolerance of others and their beliefs”.
period and at worst utter chaos,” complained an
Anglican clergyman to the church’s Newcastle Synod, as reported in the Newcastle Herald in 1969. The major churches had already pulled out of
providing SRI in South Australia, beginning with the Methodists in 1968. During the 1970s, the Tasmanian, Victorian,
South Australian and Western Australian governments held inquiries into SRI, and
New South Wales followed in 1980.
All registered familiar frustrations: SRI
segregated children by religion, when public schools’ essence is inclusion; it
created organisational headaches as increasing numbers of families (and
churches) opted out; it relied on volunteers, whose main qualifications were
faith and enthusiasm, not necessarily teaching ability or knowledge of the
subject; it was unfair, since minority religions had trouble finding
volunteers, leaving their children ill-served; and short, weekly visits made it
hard to build up any meaningful rapport between instructor and class.
The state inquiries advocated replacing
or supplementing SRI with “general religious education” (GRE), in which professional
teachers (rather than volunteers) teach about different religions (not just
one) and non-religious beliefs, as part of the regular curriculum, to their
regular classes (not groups segregated by religion).
In the 34 years since the
last of the state inquiries, GRE has become standard in England, Ireland, much
of western Europe and Québec; but in Australia were implemented minimally or
not at all, though some states offer it to years 11 and 12. Worsening the situation, as
mainline churches vacated SRI in frustration, hellfire-preachers and
evolution-deniers often filled the void.
Conducting surveys and interviews in 23 public
schools in NSW and Queensland between 2009 and 2012, education researcher Cathy
Byrne found that SRI volunteers “preferred significantly more conservative
approaches” to their subject than parents, principals or professional teachers.
For example, asked whether they thought the
Bible should be taught “as fact” and therefore “accepted without too much
questioning”, parents and education professionals favoured questioning, whereas
SRI volunteers tended toward “biblical inerrancy,” the view that the entire
text of the Bible is free from error of any kind. In almost a quarter of the schools, Byrne
found teaching to the effect that students or their families or friends would
“burn in hell” if they did not believe the volunteer’s version.
Defenders of the current system often maintain
that these are aberrations. Evonne Paddison, CEO of Access Ministries,
whose volunteers distributed the nipple-advice Biblezine, said that her
organisation was extremely disappointed by the incident and would continue to
investigate how it happened.
But the current system makes it impossible to
screen out such travesties out in advance. Instead, bewildered parents are left
unsure where to go. Complaints to schools tend to get deflected to provider
organisations. They often have declared intentions such as to
use public schools as a “mission field” in which to “make disciples” (Paddison)
or “impacting NSW government schools with the gospel” so that “many more young lives will be transformed through the
Lord Jesus Christ” (GenR8 Ministries).
Answering the suggestion that “SRI has no
value in a secular education system,” Paddison wrote in 2011, “I argue that all
faiths play a valuable part in shaping and forming our understanding of who we
are as individuals and as members of the global village.” Parents, principals and teachers agree. So did
the committees of inquiry thirty and more years ago. But it’s hard to think of
a less effective way to nurture such “understanding” than to segregate students
by religion and teach them that all other groups are wrong.
The state inquiries proposed curricula to help
children learn about various religious and non-religious traditions: taught by
professional teachers, tied to themes in the rest of the curriculum, and with all
students learning together.
South Australia’s Steinle Report, published in
1973, proposed the benchmarks that students who had completed its 12-year
curriculum would achieve “a better understanding of themselves and their own beliefs”,
would understand “the presence and influence of religion in life and in
society,” and would gain “a greater respect for and tolerance of others and
their beliefs”.
Forty years on, it still sounds revolutionary.Forty years on, it still sounds revolutionary.