2015 Review of Special Religious Education Order Instructions: 2015 Review of Special Religious Education and Special Education in Ethics in NSW Government Schools
Write an essay that:
• outlines the major structures and processes involved in the making of public policy in the general area of the policy of the following government inquiry:
2015 Review of Special Religious Education and Special Education in Ethics in NSW government schools (http://artd.com.au/sre-see-review).
• discusses the key issues and debates related to the distribution and exercise of power in this policy area.
2015 Review of Special Religious Education Sample Answer
2015 Review of Special Religious Education and Special Education in Ethics
in NSW Government Schools
Introduction
The process of reviewing Special Religious Education and Special Education in Ethics began in 2014 in NSW. The processed was started by NSW Department of education. The body that was responsible for the review process was independent hence did not have any interference from powerful sources. The independent reviewer was referred to as ARTD Consultants. Interestingly, the process of reviewing the SRE and SEE was initiated by Christian movements. The Ethics classes bill of 2011 focuses on education in Christianity. Studies have shown that religious education in NSW has been neglected. The review of this sector was last done during the introduction of scripture learning in 1880. According to the leaders of Anglican Education Commission, this ought to change. This is simply because with the way the system was, the department of education does not have the powers to scrutinize and evaluate what is being taught in schools. The body was not mandated to come up with standards for teachers to follow while teaching the children (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2015).
The former system therefore allowed each teacher to come up with their own standards. According to the state, unless this is observed, a teacher can teach SRE in the classroom for so long without any monitoring. However, in the current state, the parents who don’t wish to take their children to SRE classes can take them to ethics classes. The system has been made available in over 320 schools which are managed by the government but run by non governmental bodies. The ethics education is therefore responsible for educating young children who are still in baby classes (Alberts, & Wanda 2008).
Discussion
The review of the 2015 Special Religious Education and Special Education in Ethics
in NSW government schools underwent through major structures and processes. These processes were responsible for developing the public policy. The whole activity of review was recommended by the committee of review of the Education Amendment. The bill was also referred to as Ethics Classes Repeal Bill 2011. The review committee spelt out in detail the whole procedure for reviewing the bill. The Bill was therefore supposed to be reviewed by very qualified early childhood educational reviewers. The process happens from 2014 to 2015.( Cahill, Des, Gary , Hass , and Michael .20014).
The process was conducted by specialists who were qualified in matters to do early childhood education. This is simply because matters concerning SRE are managed more comfortably in primary schools as compared to secondary schools. In addition, the requirement is linked applicability of both SRE and SEE to the younger generation. The process has to appear and also seen as a fair process to both the stakeholders in the education sector and the public. Due to the need to meet the demands and expectations of the both the public and stakeholders, the process was conducted by an independent body.
So as to realize and come up with informed recommendations, the process began by carrying out a survey on the nature and extent of SRE and SEE. The education sector is so wide hence children and stakeholders come from diverse backgrounds. The system was surveyed so as to understand the critical issues affecting the whole system. The survey process was therefore conducted in both primary schools and secondary schools (Dinham, Adam and Jackson, Robert.2015).
Department of Education was mandated with the process of implementing the procedures for both SRE and SEE. The department is therefore mandated with the responsibility of guiding the parent on the choice of the enrolment process. In addition, the parents who choose to walk out of the system are guided. The body has to ensure that SRE and SEE provider thus schools are completely approved. This is to ensure that only those institutions that are valid are mandated to provide the services to the younger children. Furthermore, the body is mandated to authorize teachers who are willing to volunteer to teach about SRE and SEE and also those responsible for developing the curriculums.
The other process involved in the review of the bill entails development of complains procedure and protocols. This stage is very critical in the review process. It enables the stakeholders to have an opportunity to air out their complains. The process therefore provides very comprehensively the procedure that is supposed to be followed in case of complains and the protocol that is supposed to be adhered to (Gates, Brian 2015).
Secondly, the process involves provisions for training of the providers. Those responsible in guiding the younger ones in SRE or SEE are therefore mandated to receive training in this field. Training programs ensured that those teachers are well informed. The process also eliminates those people who are not qualified from teaching SRE and SEE (Crotty & O’Donoghue, .2015).
The key issues and debates related to the distribution and exercise of power in this policy area
The process of enrolment has been a major challenge in ensuring that children are placed in the right religious classes. Due to this fact, schools have constantly been unwilling to provide extra information concerning the operation in the schools. The teachers have therefore misused the information concerned with enrolment. Reports indicate that teachers have been making assumptions about what the parents prefer for their young ones (Dunn, Kevin 2014).
The most current issue concerning enrolment is about the changes in the enrolment card. This has put more pressure on most schools to reveal and put clear the exact SRE institutions that are supposed to be operated. The process has therefore introduced so many problems due to the fact that comprehensive information about SRE schools is not made available (Byrne, Cathy.2014).
The unwillingness of the Department of Education to solve these problems is the main reason as to why SRE is experiencing problems. It is alleged that, with adequate supply of information to the parents will minimize issue surrounding enrolment of students in SRE.
The policy provides time allocation for Secondary schools have a time allocation for SRE. However, the same provision is not availed to the staff members. Some schools have tried to solve this challenge by incorporating it into the time which is more flexible. The teachers try to accommodate SRE by withdrawal from timetables classes instead of having specific time for SRE. Some providers of SRE collaborate in this issue since they do not want to engage in problems with schools about providing SRE (Australian Social Inclusion Board, 2014).
The schools experience the challenge of aligning the timetable to agree with what the act prescribes. the school administration are always engaged in arguments about maintaining the school timetable or including the act provisions in the timetable. Due to the fact that the act requires that the teachings of this religious education be negotiated with the school administration, the management of DEC always tries to convince the school management to allocate some time for these classes. The main challenge therefore is that, providers always compromise so as to maintain peace with the school management. Since the school is the main stakeholders, the providers are forced to remain united with the schools (Council of Europe 2014).
The providers experience so many challenges in the provision process too. DEC always argues that teachers are insufficient hence cannot accommodate all students who are willing to undertake this classes. This results into organizational problems with the school management and the providers (Aitkin & Ors, 2014).
2015 Review of Special Religious Education Conclusion
In order to ensure successful implementation of both SRE and SEE reviews, DEC ought to direct the institutions responsible to respect provisions of this bill. This should be done by ensuring that the sentence which is highlighting special education in ethics is deleted since there is no equivalent for SRE. Information about the schools should be distributed by the schools themselves.
In addition, SRE questions should be put depending on the information availed by the school. This is to reduce pressure on schools which are providing religious education. Furthermore, the question relating to religion should be put as the first question to indicate that this information is needed in classification of students in terms of religion classes.
To realize and come up with informed recommendations, the process should begin by carrying out a survey on the nature and extent of SRE and SEE. The education sector is so wide hence children and stakeholders come from diverse backgrounds. The system is surveyed to understand the critical issues affecting the whole system. The survey process is therefore conducted in both primary schools and secondary schools.
2015 Review of Special Religious Education References
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2015 .Cultural Diversity in Australia. Catalogue 2071.0.
Aitkin & Ors.2014. Aitkin & Ors v The State of Victoria’s Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (Anti-Discrimination) Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal VCAT 1547 (18 October 2012), Ref A123/2011 and No A296/2011.
Alberts, Wanda 2008. Didactics of the Study of Religions. Numen, 55 (2/3), 300–334.
ASIB.
Australian Social Inclusion Board 2014 Annual Report. Canberra: Department of the Prime MinisterandCabinet.http://www.socialinclusion.gov.au/sites/www.socialinclusion.gov.au/files/publications/pdf/asib-board-annual-repor-2010.pdf.
Atkinson, S. 2014. Clueless at Easter – Kids fail basic test of religious festival. Sunday Mail, March 27.
Bachelard, Michael2011. Curriculum head warns against axing religion. The Age, 29 May. http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/curriculum-head-warns-against-axing-religion-20110528-1f9py.html#ixzz2Aqz82SF4. 2010 Thou shalt not teach humanism: ALP. The Age, 7 November. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/thou-shall-not-teach-humanism-alp-20101106-17i8t.html.
Braaten, Oddrun.2009. A comparative study of religious education in state schools in England and Norway. Unpublished thesis, Warwick University Faculty of Education, with permission. http://go.warwick.ac.uk/wrap/3122.
Byrne, Cathy.2014 Religion in Secular Education: what, in heaven’s name are we teaching our children? Leiden: Brill.2012a ‘Mummy Jeesis is Alive! He is the King of Australia’: segregated religious instruction, child identity and exclusion. British Journal of Religious Education, 34(3): 317–331.2012b Ideologies of religion pedagogy and attitudes to religious diversity in Australian government schools. Multicultural Perspectives, 14(4): 201–207.2009 Public School Religion Education and the ‘hot potato’ of religious diversity. Journal of Religious Education, 57 (3): 26–37.
Cahill, Des, Gary Bouma, Hass Delal, and Michael Leahy.20014. Religion, Cultural Diversity and Safeguarding Australia. Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. http://religionsforpeaceaustralia.org.au/upload/Religion_Cultural_Diversity_Main_Report.pdf.
Council of Europe 2009. Policies and practices for teaching socio-cultural diversity. Concepts, principles and challenges in teacher education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.2008 Committee of Ministers on Intercultural Education. Recommendation CM/Rec (2008)12, adopted by the Committee of Ministers, 10 December. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1386911&Site=CM.
–– 2008a White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue. Living together as equals in dignity. CoE Ministers of Foreign Affairs, 118th Ministerial Session, 7 May. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/intercultural/source/white%20paper_final_revised_en.pdf.
Crotty, R., and O’Donoghue, M.2003 A strategy for teaching about the religious worlds of today. Journal of Religious Education, 51 (3), 19–23.
de Souza, M., Engebretson, K., Durka, G., Jackson, R., and McGrady, A. (eds)
2006 International Handbook of the Religious, Spiritual and Moral Dimensions in Education. Vols 1 & 2. Dordrecht: Springer.
Dinham, Adam and Jackson, Robert.2015. Religion, Welfare and Education, in L. Woodhead and R. Catto (Eds.) Religion and Change in Modern Britain. London: Routledge, 272–294.
Dunn, Kevin 2014. Quoted in Coslovich, Gabriella. In a tolerant society, racists hear this: your race is run. The Age, February 26. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/in-a-tolerant-society-racists-hear-this-your-race-is-run-20110225-1b8hz.html#ixzz1YM7ZsMlg.2014 Quoted in Johnston, Megan. Australia tolerant of cultural differences: study. Sydney Morning Herald, February 23. http://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-tolerant-of-cultural-differences-study-20110223-1b4ib.html#ixzz1YNfe1wMq.
Gates, Brian 2015. Editorial. British Journal of Religious Education, 27(2): 99–102.Gray, John
2000 Inclusion: A Radical Critique. In Social Inclusion. Possibilities and Tensions. Ed. Peter Askonas and Angus Stewart. London: Macmillan, 19–36.
