There is plenty of hot air blowing around about Chaplaincy and SRI.
Online Opinion published one of my blog posts yesterday- a post that I wrote in about 20 minutes, so not meant to be an extensive or intellectual analyisis of all the issues. It had around 85 comments (also 109 “likes” but to be fair, people should be allowed to “dislike” too), and the next highest commented piece for the day had around 33. What that says to me is that there is much interest in this issue.
Some are claiming the current system is unfair. And The Age newspaper, which I have been an avid reader of for the 18 years I have lived in Melbourne, has foregone objective investigative journalism and has now moved into the domain of political advocacy and lobbying on behalf of Humanist groups and opponents of Chaplaincy and SRI. It is an alliance that should concern all for the reason that we look to such organisations to provide fair, factual, and balanced reporting of issues. But in recent times, The Age has published a 7-1 ratio of articles and opinion pieces concerning anti and pro arguments for SRI and chaplains. They have ignored the fact that both Labor and Liberal federal governments have supported the program, and they have failed to report that the vast majority of school principals are supportive and affirming of chaplains in their schools. This disturbing alliance of a credible media outlet and a lobby group must stop.
Here are some facts of SRI classes and chaplaincy (not readily reported over at The Age):
- -Re Classes total around 1.5% of the school curriculum (30 mins per week). This hardly seems like a likely springboard for a religious take-over of society.
- -No student is forced to attend RE classes and can readily withdraw.
- -All faith groups have access to provide classes or chaplains- so Christians have no ‘advantage’.
- -The class teacher is present in the RE class the whole time to oversee proceedings (are we saying we don’t trust our teachers to look after the welfare of students?).
- -Schools have to voluntarily apply to have chaplains and are not forced to do so. The vast majority of schools who have them want to keep them. (see report by by Edith Cowan University and University of New England which found 98% of principals support chaplains in schools).
- -If any group has violated the government codes and regulations, they will be dealt with by those agencies.
What is unfair here?
Finally, here are some important points from The Victorian Governments Education and Training Reform Act 2006,
Section 2.2.11, concerning SRI:
Section 2.2.11, concerning SRI:
- Special religious instruction may be given in a Government school in
accordance with this section.- the persons providing the special religious instruction must be persons who
are accredited representatives of churches or other religious groups and who are
approved by the Minister for the purpose; - attendance for the special religious instruction is not to be compulsory for
any student whose parents desire that he or she be excused from attending.
- the persons providing the special religious instruction must be persons who
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
“The twin protective forces of an intact married family and religious attendance both contribute significantly to the cultivation of appropriate adolescent behavior”, from research conducted by Dr Nicholas Zill (Founding President of Child Trends).
http://www.marri.frc.org/get.cfm?i=MA08J06
“An intact two-parent family and regular church attendance are each associated with fewer problem behaviors, more positive social development, and fewer parental concerns about the child’s learning and achievement. ”
“… intact families who have regular religious participation (defined as at least weekly or monthly) are less likely to report parental stress and more likely to report a better parent-child relationship.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/dec/08121702
“98% of principals support chaplains in schools”
Why can’t any of you frauds ever provide a citation that is any more valid than hearsay in one of your own propaganda sheets? If it’s a fact, it’s a fact and you should not be shy providing the evidence of the study. You never do though. Why? Because you just make this crap up as you feel like it. SUQLD is not a reference. The actual ECU paper lists numbers not even remotely close to your 98%. You people are such liars. How do you reconcile living the life of a fraud with baby jesus who is probably crying? Liars, liars, liars – and you think you can be an example to children?
In good faith I was commenting on a report by a reputable and respected tertiary institution. That one of the researchers is a Christian does not diminish the findings of the report. To assert this is to irrationally conclude that a person’s faith disqualifies them from independent academic research. That would be akin to saying person’s gender or race impedes them from being professional and objective. Such a view would be small-mindedness and bigoted.
I note that though you repeatedly accuse those who refer to this report as “liars”, this must mean that you believe the Federal Labor government is also lying? For in the February 2011 major discussion paper on Chaplaincy in schools “National School Chaplaincy Program”, the research from Edith Cowan, commissioned and published by the Gillard government, the Edith Cowan research is referred to and footnoted 4 times. The myth of pure objectivity and value-free research is just that, a myth. However, I have faith in an institution like Edith Cowan University (ECU) to not align itself with flawed and deceptive research. The research was also conducted in conjunction with the University of New England, a well-respected tertiary institution that goes back to the 1920,s. Both universities have almost 40,000 students combined.
Karl, you assert that “Why can’t any of you frauds ever provide a citation that is any more valid than hearsay in one of your own propaganda sheets? If it’s a fact, it’s a fact and you should not be shy providing the evidence of the study. You never do though. Why? Because you just make this crap up as you feel like it. SUQLD is not a reference. The actual ECU paper lists numbers not even remotely close to your 98%”
Here are two direct quotes from the ECU paper:
“Eighty-four per cent of principals indicated that feedback from parents about chaplaincy had been strongly positive or mostly positive.”
“Ninety-eight per cent of principals said that chaplaincy is important and want government funding to continue.”
[Full report here]
Though it is understandable that some may not like the findings of the report that shows that the vast majority of schools and principals interviewed see the value of chaplaincy, it is disingenuous to hurl the rather serious, and I would add, baseless, accusation of lying and fraudulent behaviour against those who refer to this academic research.
It would help if you could post some links to academic research that has found evidence to the contrary, and shows that chaplains in schools are harmful and detrimental to students and school communities. I am not aware of any but would be glad if you are able to provide it.
I also wonder if this research had found that chaplains were of no use whatsoever, would you still condemn it?
Kind regards and thanks for taking the time to comment.
On the ABC’s Q&A program (16 May) Eric Abetz (Opposition Senate Leader) defended the school chaplaincy program against strong criticism from Felicity Hampel (Senior Counsel, Court of Victoria) who wants that school chaplaincy money taken away (from the frontline dealing with children), to be directed “straight away” to fixing up pay equity for women. Meanwhile Bill Shorten (Federal Assistant Treasurer) said he too had a negative (blind-prejudice?) opinion like that of Hampel (and his Greens coalition partners) but had actually seen the work of the school chaplains following the Victorian bushfires and he was impressed. Shorten expressed his thanks to Victorian chaplains. Interestingly, Felicity Hampel was part of the Victorian Law Reform Commission which presented the former Brumby Government with revised abortion law options and what Victorians got are the second-most extreme abortion laws in the world (after China) which paradoxically leave vulnerable women and young girls with less support.
Thanks for commenting, Maria.
I thought Senator Abetz handled the question very well. It was good to have a coherent voice defending what is a valuable, and highly valued program in schools. Opponents of chaplaincy in schools can’t seem to concede that schools are supportive of the program. They might not agree with it, and I respect their right to that opinion, but they should not claim to speak for schools on the matter.
regards,
Nicholas
{ 1 trackback }