What are your thoughts on the federal governments schools chaplaincy program? It is set to cost us all more that 700-million dollars – yes 700-million dollars! Is it a good use of scarce education dollars?
Recently the former High Court judge and devout Anglican, Michael Kirby, came out against the chaplains program.
Michael was characteristically direct in his criticism, he said that having government funded chaplains in schools was, quote: “offensive to the historical Australian principles of education”.
And he wasn’t happy with the rapid grown in the religious education sector either. Of that he said it was, and again I quote: ”most inimical to the development of Australia as a harmonious society”.
As I said, all this from a devout Anglican. And I’ve got to say, I whole heartedly agree with him. I believe education should be free and secular. Religion has no business sitting alongside English and maths in the class room.
As for the school chaplains program – well the truth of it is that it’s simply a shameless vote buying exercise. And both Labor and Liberals are to blame for it.
Under the Liberals the chaplains program was heading toward a 400-million dollar budget, and now under Julia Gillard the program will be increased by more than 200-million dollars. All that money spent on pastors in schools, yet there are still countless thousands of kids who can’t read in schools.
It’s simply shameless vote buying at the expense of our kids. And what makes it worse is that many of the so-called ‘chaplains’ are often not ministers or priests at all, but rather young people who’ve received rudimentary training by organisations like Scripture Union Queensland, one of the largest providers of chaplains.
I’d like to get your views on this, and on the influence of religion in our schools. Do you think the balance has swung too far away from secular education?
Should the $700M school chaplaincy program be axed?
No real reason why the school chaplaincy should be scrapped. They provide a beneficial service to students.
I also do not understand the swipe against private religious schools. I went to a religious school and I cannot see how I am a wedge breaking up a harmonious society – in fact, such a comment is offensive.
I believe Kirby was often wrong in his legal arguments on the High Court as anyone in the field could tell you, so should we really be surprised that a “devout Anglican” living a very alternative non-devout Anglican life is against religious influences in society?
Kirby is old
The problem with having chaplains in schools as opposed to trained psychologists is that they’re often unhelpful at best and damaging at worst.
Yes, fine, have a chaplain if it’s a religious school. But have a trained counselor or better yet a psychologist too. Chaplains don’t know how to spot signs of depression, abuse, anxiety, stress or suicidal behavior. Psychologists and counselors know what to look out for, and who to turn to. Not to mention that the help offered by a counselor or psychologist is impartial and without bias – which is often what is really needed – and they don’t just know when to help, they also know how.
There’s not nearly enough trained professionals working in schools. If there were, a lot of problems could be nipped in the bud before they became problems. I don’t just mean deviant behavior and abuse, I mean bullying too. A lot of tragedies could be prevented by people who have the training and knowledge to be helpful.
I agree. I’m a qualified teacher and psychotherapist. I taught in high schools before studying psychotherapy. It was very different teaching after I’d completed my psychotherapy studies. I had a completely different, deeper understanding of why kids would disrupt class, why they’d behave as they do, from their family of origin.
One day I was teaching war poetry in a boys high school. One boy’s whole family had always been in the army and he will be too. I talked about PTSD and how domestic violence has the same symptoms as war, it’s a war-zone in the house. He said, “That’s my father.” He changed from being the most disruptive boy in the class, to the most engaged, standing up the front reading out the poems.
We must respect knowledge, it is powerful.
I believe they should teach religion – that is, a topic covering the different religions, why people have beliefs and also those that don’t have beliefs. Present all the information, so children can learn to consider things and make their own choices when the time comes. That’s a lesson that will hold them in good stead in many areas.
Both Tim Mander of Scripture Union Queensland and Peter Garrett claim
that the program is ‘popular’.
Perhaps, but this is not synonymous with ‘effective’ or ‘appropriate’
and surely, in this time of evidenced-based reforms, is no justification for the program to continue nor be extended.
Chaplains are not allowed ‘counsel’ students. If they are talking or
as they say ‘dealing’ with vulnerable students then what constitutes
counselling? As they are mostly unqualified, how would they know what
constitutes counselling?
I am concerned that minimum qualifications would be minimal qualifications. The Diploma in Youth Wrk is dismally inadequate.
School Counsellors have a teaching degree and a full psychology degree and are
bound by the Psychologists code of ethics, and face deregistration if
they break it. What sanctions exist for Chaplains? And should our children be put at risk by this scheme?
Religion in schools and chaplaincy in schools has definately moved us as a nation away from secular governance. To employ chaplains over fully qualified counselors, youth workers or even child psychologists is reprehensible! It is a medieval approach to mental health, and deserves all of its bad press. The fact that this program, along with narrow minded single faith religious education is being opposed all over this country by religious and non religious folk alike means that something has to change. Religion has no place in any government school, and chaplains have no place in delivering modern mental health care!
Do you think the balance has swung too far away from secular education?
Yes
It has most definitely swung too far away from secularism. The funds allocated to the NSCP should be spent on secular counsellors.
1) Religion should not be in secular schools.
2) The chaplaincy program should not be funded by our tax dollars.
3) Children who are ‘at risk’ should not be in the hands of un-qualified chaplains.
4) Religion should be a ‘church’ only affair.
5) Pyschologist should be the mainstream provider of ‘real’ help, when it comes to our children.
(Hasn’t religion done enough damage?)
One has to wonder why it is that those who claim the service is so positive and so popular are mainly christian and or believers themselves. Gillard claims to be an atheist yet she manages to pander almost hypocritically to such groups as the ACL who’s religious contempt for such groups as those wanting equality for gay & lesbians and the right to choose a dignified death or the right to have an abortion, is well known. So it is no wonder that she would continue such a waste of tax payers money. It equals votes.
Sadly, it also seems that Peter Garrett is not much better and as such also seems incapable of putting forth actual facts when refering to the program other than to constantly tell us is it popular and well receieved. Trying putting it into context Mr Garrett and tell us that in fact yes it is well receieved much like any form of payment and support in our schools would be well receieved. That in itself does not make the program right, it just provides you with a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that you are making so many people happy to have to beg and plead at your feet for the support that they deserve to get and need rather than the support that you hand out. Better than nothing I guess.
So yes, the chaplaincy program needs to be abolished, much like a few other failed programs that Mr Garrett has had the misfortune of over seeing. Just wish the alternative to vote for wasn’t Mr Abbott. He isn’t much better than what is currently on offer anywhere else.
Ollie
Copy of my email to politicions re this issue:
I object strongly to Federal Government money being spent on the Chaplaincy in Schools Program.
Religious people are not the only ones to hold strong ethical convictions. I view myself as a secular humanist with deep-seated ethical convictions by which I live to the best of my ability.
What other people believe is up to them as long as they don’t insist society as a whole lives by their tenets.
When my children attended school I allowed them to attend protestant scripture as I thought it could do no harm and believed in raising my children with tolerance for others.
I have since had the duty of sitting in on scripture to maintain discipline, as have all the teachers at my school, and find it excruciating at times, even though the volunteers are sincere, well meaning people.
In my view and that of many of my colleagues, they are often teaching, as fact, nonsense which is at best inadequate and at worst racist, intolerant and divisive.
I am careful to show respect and treat them in a friendly manner and they may even assume I agree with them.
This, however, is an opt in system of sorts; Remembering my previous opinion regarding my own children, which now, due to experience, I have changed.
Conversely, the School Chaplains policy is an official government endorsement of one, usually Christian view, regardless of whether “chappies” refrain from pushing a religious agenda and are nice, well meaning, competent people or not. THE NAME SAYS IT ALL!
Chaplains are not supposed to counsel students or proselytize. What then are they doing? (Personal accounts by chaplains to be found on Christian websites and You Tube seem to be at odds with this principle in any case.)
Why is there a bias towards religion? Why not change the job description to a less divisive designation? Why does there have to be a religious test involved? People could then be employed without surreptitiously promoting their personal beliefs.
Better still employ more teachers, teacher’s aides and other professional staff. We already perform the tasks of chaplains without the self congratulation and self promotion.
Are secular people less worthy or moral?
Humanists, agnostics and atheists are being ignored, discriminated against and marginalized.
That’s the message I personally get from this debacle. I think people’s beliefs are private and I dislike making my personal philosophy public but feel compelled to do so because of this situation.
I can’t believe this is just steam rolling through without more objection and dissent!
Perhaps I’m one of a minority when I think having charismatic religious people conducting prayers at assemblies, groups at lunch time, attending excursions, wandering through our schools, chatting and being “available” to young, impressionable children is fraught with problems.
Judging by reactions in media and in my circle of acquaintances and friends we are a sizable minority.
I wouldn’t want my children or grandchildren exposed to this divisive and confusing policy, especially at a young age.
Thankfully retirement is fast approaching and I personally will not need to put forward objections to $20,000 of government funding in my workplace on the basis that it comes with unacceptable strings attached.
I am dismayed at this divisive policy decision.
If you are going to criticise something would you please get your facts right.
The program costs 422m over SEVEN years. Where do you get 700m from? This is typical of the hysteria generated by uninformed bystanders.
Ask the school principals what they think about the work of chaplains. I was at my P&C meeting last night and everyone was raving about the UNIQUE contribution of the chaplain.
Chaplaincy has been in the community for decades – they have proven they can work with integrity. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be welcome in schools.
Stop this ridiculous campaign against people who are trying to do good in this world!
Gerry, sadly you are mistaken. Under John Howard and Kevin Rudd the cost of the program had mounted to $437M.
Julia Gillard has committed to expanding the program at an additional cost of $220M.
Total cost is therefore running close to $657M. Far too expensive in my book.
The issue is not whether they are trying to do good. Have you not heard that the road to hell is paved with good intentions? What matters is the separation of church and state and the use of public funds. Many people are also deeply concerned that chaplains are not qualified to act as councilors and are not trained and regulated to appropriately assist students in personal or educational issues. Personally I also feel that differential care offered to students that is pastoral excludes students from other faiths than Christianity from care and assistance. I think that care should be secular, bi-partisan, non-denominational and qualified. How is it debate rages for decades about letting subject specialists without education qualifications into schools to satisfy demands for teachers in math and science, yet Chaplains can practice guidance and mental health without any appropriate qualifications? If some have then let them compete for the positions (open resourced) with others without the religious testing. If chaplains are not counseling, not proselytizing and not referring students to appropriate help then what are they doing exactly? may as well get Fat Cat and Humphrey to wander around the schools if all they do is walk about smiling and giving off a general sense of well being.
“…well the truth of it is that it’s simply a shameless vote buying exercise. And both Labor and Liberals are to blame for it.”
You know, I wonder how many votes it did buy. This is one of the policies that has convinced me and several others I know to vote Greens.