Date August 1, 2014
The ancient book of Ecclesiastes teaches that there is a time and a place for everything. A time to be silent and a time to speak. There is also a time to pray, if that is what is needed. Whether there is a time and place for students to pray during school lunchtimes, however, is a matter that clearly causes some people enormous concern.
After state Education Minister Martin Dixon issued a ministerial direction about the rules and procedures governing the provision of special religious instruction in government schools, a cry erupted among some Christian groups claiming the rules encroach on basic human rights. Opponents of the directive say it amounts to an attack on religious freedom and free speech, and that it is a step towards outright bans on prayer in schools.
Their rhetoric is inflammatory, and their concerns are misplaced. The government is not banning prayer in school. It is not forbidding students to pray at lunchtime, if that is what they want to do with their meal break. It is saying that prayer forums ''cannot be led'' by teachers or other school staff, by parents, volunteers or visitors. Put another way, if there are prayer groups or meetings of student religious clubs during school hours, then they must not take the form of ''instructed'' prayer. That is a world away from imposing draconian curbs on the rights to religious freedom and free speech.
The rationale is simple. Government schools are secular environments and their primary aim is education. It has been that way since the Education Act of 1872 formalised that public education in this state should be free, secular and compulsory. In 1958, the law was amended to provide an exception allowing non-compulsory religious instruction classes to be held within schools, but on certain conditions and only by accredited providers. It should be noted the law does not bar religious instruction classes being held on state school grounds outside school hours.
The 2006 education legislation states that schools must ''not promote any particular religious practice, denomination or sect'', but it nevertheless allows schools to provide classes of special religious instruction during school hours, only by accredited representatives. To allow non-accredited instructors to supervise religious sessions at lunchtime would be to subvert the system entirely. Mr Dixon's directive provides a framework for schools to ensure they are abiding by the law and not inadvertently providing non-accredited religious instruction classes.
The Age has consistently argued that beyond reading, writing and arithmetic, there is room in schools for the study of the various belief systems and for informed and informative discussion about ethical choices. Education about religion should provide students with sound information about belief structures and religious practices that help shape our world, as well as provide historical context to the role played by religion in our world. A byproduct of all that might be greater social awareness and enhanced tolerance of diversity.
That does not, however, justify a state-backed religious agenda in education. A secular school system should not impose proselytising nor actively sponsor it. If religious instruction is to be conducted at all within the secular school environment, then there must be clear boundaries and rules. Where state schools do provide special classes in religious instruction, who teaches it, how, and when it is provided should all be carefully managed.
Nothing bars students from organising their own religious groups at school; they are not impeded in practising their religion at school. Their fundamental rights are preserved. At the same time, the resources and facilities of the state education system must be directed primarily to education for all
Although the directive mentioned in this editorial applies only to Victorian schools, the debate concerning religion in schools is nation-wide.
