School Chaplaincy Program: so far the wrong response – and for the wrong reasons
The “Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians” of December 2008 is founded upon the central role of education in building a democratic, equitable and just society that is both culturally-diverse and cohesive – and the responsibilities placed on schools to promote the physical, social, emotional, moral, spiritual and aesthetic development – which essentially underpin and sustain the positive intellectual development – of every young person. Thus the social and emotional learning, the well-being and resilience, the progressive values formation and ethical understanding of each child, is a vitally important responsibility of each school and each system – and its political leadership – in synergistic partnership with the parents and families of each school community.
That critical responsibility commences from well before the formal years of schooling, and continues unabated throughout primary and secondary – recognising also the importance of providing guidance and support that reinforces and builds on the positive and protective factors that develop coping skills against the increasingly well researched and publicised array of risks and negatives that can impact upon a child’s learning journey. Hence, it comes as no surprise that ACSSO’s research of Principals’ perceptions of the key elements of their responsibilities in partnership with their parents, has highlighted the predominant importance to them of their role in building identity and community – the “activities that shape students’ sense of identity and culture and contribute to that social and emotional development” and their positive sense of belonging and engagement with their community.
It will be similarly a matter of no surprise that, given the dimensions of the task, every principal and every school community identifies the need for additional professional resources to support and facilitate their work in building that social inclusion. ACSSO has consistently supported principals in seeking the resources they need, reinforced by its own research which demonstrates the enormous value added by professional guidance and counselling capacity – and of having dedicated community liaison people working and building strong complementary supportive partnerships with the parents and families of each community.
ACSSO’s abiding concern is that some five years ago this debate was diverted into the sub-optimal alternative of the School Chaplaincy Program – in ways that were more motivated by ideological spin, expediency and political gamesmanship – a diversion which still unfortunately continues.
In 2004-5 the then government at senior levels sought to ignite a debate about Values – from the contentious position that Australia’s public schools are values free zones – a position which intensified in its repetition to the point of senior ministers claiming that the ethos of public schools is actively antagonistic to and subversive of “good old Australian values” – just how was not clearly delineated. This included a push within the party for the provision of an essentially “low church” Christian chaplain in every public school – from the stated position that the relevant values and ethics envisaged essentially and exclusively derive from basic Judeo-Christian writings and traditions: a fundamental position (also reflected in some established State-systemic practice) which is significantly contestable – and has been significantly contested, then and since.
The then PM sought to steer an advantageous course through the shoals by allocating a limited amount of cash to a limited number of schools for a maximum of three year “trial” – with a national evaluation then to be conducted. Unsurprisingly, given the extent of universal need for additional counselling and guidance resources, few schools declined the funded opportunity – except in NSW where a systemic decision was made not to participate. And while this initiative was driven [both by that PM and also more recently by his successor of a different political persuasion] under the universal mantra of “choice” in terms of denomination of chaplain, inevitably this came down to the “one size” model provided by the Scripture Union or the Access Ministries under existing “preferred supplier” arrangements in the jurisdictions. There is reputedly one lone Buddhist ministering to well-being in one more adventurous school community…
What is further disturbing is the extent to which we have seen established open process overtaken by the interests of political expediency. With the promised neutral national review under way and well advanced, PM Rudd essentially pre-empted the outcome by announcing an extension of the existing arrangements beyond the determined “end date” Even more recently, during the election campaign, PM Gillard subverted the whole review process by announcing a further extension to 2014. At the same time, the Opposition basically dismissed any need for review, reverting to their original conviction that this program should continue in perpetuity.
ACSSO’s position throughout these years has consistently been that the essential need is for the provision of professionally trained, qualified and experienced counselling staff, with appropriate access to further specialised professional support and intervention resources as required – together with an appropriately resourced and dedicated Community Liaison Officer building supportive and sustainable partnership linkages with parents and families. This dual need is most critically present and of greatest potential benefit in those schools of particular need or disadvantage – including those in rural, regional and remote communities across the country.
Hence, it is of vital importance that the promised National Review that has now been superseded by political fiat, should be not only be re-instated but widened and more comprehensively constituted to examine all the needs of Australia’s schools in order to equip and enable them to achieve their full range of responsibilities – to every young person – in terms of the social, emotional and personal outcomes set out in the Melbourne Declaration. That process, and that informed community debate, is essential before we proceed further along the tangential path of chaplaincy.
That debate is already informally in process. In this edition of the “Digest” we provide an overview of recent and continuing discussion in the media. It is essential that all parents and communities have the opportunity to input to this important national conversation about the appropriate development and support needs of every young Australian. Have your say!
Rupert Macgregor is Executive Director of the Australian Council of State School Organisations (ACSSO)
Whatever happened to Free, Compulsory and Secular as the pillars of public education? There is no place for anyone in our system with a religious barrow to push. To expose vulnerable, at risk students to advice based on a quasi religious belief system works against their best interests. How does this develop clear thinking, critical, resilient and independent minds?
Unfortunately, although I agree with the sentiments expressed in the article by Mr Macgregor on behalf of ACSSO, it is clear that the state affiliates of this body have all fallen down in their responsibilities to ensure that our public schools are secular, in line with the secular public education policy each one, and ACSSO, has.
The other actor in schools is the AEU, and its affiliate unions, who also say they support ‘secular’ public education, but have largely failed to do much more than issue one or two media releases offering mild rebukes to the Commonwealth governments.
The problem with the NSCP is that it involved enormous rorts in its initial phase, so desperate were school principals to get their hands on ‘free’ money. Also, DEEWR has not taken any responsibility for what goes on in schools paid for with our ATO monies. DEEWR rely on state education departments to run this programme, and are really not interested in genuine oversight of it. State departments, particularly Ed Qld, seem to go out of their way to deny student and parent rights, while actively privileging evangelisers to convert ‘unchurched’ students, in school and out of school in special proselytising camps, run by chaplaincy employers.
Indeed, the new chaplaincy policy in Qld even denies parents the right to keep their children away from chaplains, even though the NSCP ‘rules’ require it to be a ‘voluntary’ activity in schools.
Public schools are now full of religious programmes, all purporting to ‘save’ our children, provide ‘hope’, on the basis that state schools are hopeless, and promoting chaplains as the only ‘safe’ adults in a school to talk to. Some of the chaplaincy literature even doubts the value of parents to look after their own children, which surely must be met with some sort of resistance from P&C bodies?
Why the AEU and ACSSO affiliates tolerate this snide attitude towards our professional school teachers is beyond me, but silence reigns. Presumably, ACSSO executive members, drawn from state P&C peak bodies, are happy to have schools painted as desperate places that only God and His representatives can make better.
Frankly, the silence from parent advocates, to date, has been nothing short of appalling. As with the slightly less silent mumblings from the AEU and its state affiliates.
Why does no one ask ‘why’ chaplains are needed in schools that every state government constantly claim are good solid places, all ‘in pursuit of excellence’?
And why do politicians, who really have not demonstrated any interest, at any level or from any party,in assisting schools to deliver the goods the community requires, so happily throw money at largely unqualified people to deal with such complex issues, while resisting requests to fund public schools, fund teacher training, fund technology, fund building replacement, fund professional development, and so on?
Why are politicians so happy to horse-trade our students with vicars, in return for a hand full of votes, or more likely just ‘maybe votes’?
Just how empty and vacuous do we want our politicians to be?
Just how much are we prepared to spend on what really amounts to snake-oil remedies?
Just what are ‘chaplains’ really doing in public schools, when they are not ‘allowed’ to evangelise, proselytise or counsel students? When they are not ‘allowed’ to be ‘religious’ people?
If all that is cut out, what is left?
A ‘friend in the playground’, as Howard threatened us all with?
That hardly seems to be worth $500m dollars, with ever more to come, does it?
Chaplaincy, under the NSCP, was only ever a political dogwhistle to garner votes in a tight election, and to try to wedge the ALP.
Chaplaincy run in state schools within the departments of educations there, in the programmes that pre-dated NSCP, are another matter, but they too demand to be put under a forensic style examination, since they are inconsistent with the need for, and role of, secular public schools.
ACSSO is to be congratulated for taking this first step. It is now up to each and every affiliate member of ACSSO to follow suit, and open an honest review of their blind and uncritical support for the religious imposition our schools are suffering from.
Thrilled to see this piece. For over a year concerned parents at our local school have been trying to open debate on this matter with the school, P & C, chaplaincy committee etc. We have been met with distrust and resentment that we are upsetting the status quo.
Our chaplain is unqualified and a missionary of an evangelical pentecostal church (Hillsong affiliated) which uses the school to conduct its services. Until recently the Pastor of the same church was head of the Chaplaincy committee. He also conducts weekly worship sessions under the guise of religious instruction. They have been unwilling to discuss a RI program which would at least present multi-faith perspectives.
Our P& C fund our chaplain to maintain a fulltime presence in the school.
This statement along with the statements from the Australian Education Union and the Australian Psychological Society will help us de personalise the debate within our community!
Thank you.
Thank you Rupert!!
You are so wrong. The Christian religion has been at the core of this country since its formation. Those who wrote the constitution were people who had a deep Christian faith, which is also the basis of our laws. That is, the Judeo Christian ethic. Parliament is opened with prayers, as is the case with councils and other public bodies.
And today, even though church attendance has fallen away, some 70% still consider themselves Christian. The atheist component is still just a very small minority. So to now start a crusade to eliminate all forms of religion in public life is ludicrous. It has already been tried in Russia. Would you like to live there now? That country is a basket case.
So it is fitting that schools have on hand chaplains available for those children who choose to discuss matters that concern them. As a teacher myself and a parent, I see the wonderful changes in some of those teenagers who come from dysfunctional families, who have no moral reference points, after they have found a friend in the school chaplain who can help them sort out their thinking. A chaplain performs a different function to a counsellor. This is something that is lost on Ron Williams, who undoubtabley is an athiest.
E Hall, the tradition of “secularism” has been at the core of this country, since it conceived of itself as one.
Secularism is a political philosophy that seeks to keep the affairs of government separate from religious beliefs – and deliberately makes room for all faiths, and none. That is Australia. A secular democracy.
By conflating morality, religion, faith and values, you do great disservice to all. Victoria was the first state in Australia to establish public schooling, and there were three pillars: Compulsory, Secular and Free. Each one bearing weight. Each one necessary.
Why sir or madam if you are an educator do you do such a disgrace to your founders and the cause of democracy.
Your mockery of our history shames us.
In NSW state schools secular education is not secularist education. Secularism is an ideology. Secular is a long established term which at the time of the education acts of the 19th century still held the long established meaning of pertaining to the present age, the everyday if you will, in distinction to religious orders that lived a cloistered life. In the Catholic Church a secular priest is a normal everyday parish priest who does not belong to a religious order, like the Franciscans or Benedictines. The NSW Education Acts have always defined secular to mean “non-sectarian, not non-religious”. That means state schools in NSW are not run by religious institutions on behalf of the state, as happens in some countries, but are run directly by the state.
The Act then defines how religious beliefs and practices are to be accommodated in the secular setting of a state school.
But secularism is an ideology set on excluding all religious expression from the public square and in public institutions.
In the NSW Act General Religious Education is mandated so that school students should get a good all round understanding of the role of religions and beliefs in society and culture in their various manifestations, including ethical issues and systems, while Special Religious Education allows the ongoing expression of the longest standing purpose of schooling in western society, the passing on and training in the faith of homes and religious communities for their children.
Respect for the diversity of belief and culture in Australian society should be an ongoing feature of NSW state schools, which is a value explicitly required and exercised by NSCP chaplains. The Christian faith has a strong ethic of loving your neighbour as yourself (not shared by all religions) which makes this respectful approach not only possible but normative for Christian chaplains. Chaplains of other faiths have the same obligation. Some Christian chaplains in schools with Muslim students have been helping muslim students by setting aside a room during lunchtime to rest and to keep away from other students who are eating during their fasting month.
In an increasingly multicultural society the principles of GRE and SRE in NSW state schools should be coming into their own, as well as the concept and practice of chaplaincy. May Sir Henry Parkes’ vision for state education in NSW continue to flourish.
His vision shouldn’t be undermined by the ideologically driven leadership of ASCSSO; or by the executive of the NSW P&C Federation who are pitting one group of state school parents against another in contravention if their charter. Or by the Education Minister’s ethical failure in not consulting with stakeholders before seeking to make major changes to the way the Act is applied, for which, admittedly she has apologised, but not set up any proper consultative process.
What a baffling way to justify “confessional” religious education. The practice of SRI, is a grant from the state.
It is no different than a “sabbath law”. It is a grant that limits the rights of free citizens in respect of church demands. For instance, if reading the Sunday paper conflicts with listening to Sunday Mass, a law can be passed to jail anyone who distributes the paper on a Sunday.
If the Church can not compete with the news paper, the tavern, the library, or any other activity injurious to faith, or supposedly “unfair” to churchgoers … the might of the state can be used, to influence behavior.
In the case of NSW, the Church bitterly fought state involvement in education, a province that they had used verily to their advantage and enrichment though history.
Here we have a person arguing correctly that the “longest standing” purpose of education in western society is the transmission of “faith”. This is at once embarrassingly true as once there was no distinction between “religion” and “knowledge”. The average book was indeed once, “the Bible”.
It is also fantastically ignorant of the “the Western Tradition” – as this tradition originates “before” … well before … scripture.
It is hard to know if it is worth debating a man so willfully mendacious, so prejudiced, and foreordained in his thinking.
It is however worth condemning him for his attack on the motives of educated and dedicated men like Rupert Macgregor …
It is time to end the practice of granting the church a special right in the state schools … no harm will come to the church, which is free, as are all churches in this democracy to preach and congregate.
This is about the use of state power – the compulsory nature of education law, and the unseemly and reviled coercion between the leaders of the church, and the state.
Despicable Sir … “stakeholders”,”community” … this is all just more of the same bullying that the church has always engaged in.
It was over the protests of this institution that education was made, free, compulsory and secular.
This is a birth right of citizens, and the Church deserves no special block of time with which to divide us with its creeds. There is plenty of space outside of the school yard to practice these ancient traditions.
Simple-minded people of any faith who claim Australia is founded on judeo-christian ideals should read their bible a little more closely. The book is filled with bigotry, hate and intolerance. Genocide, fratricide, infanticide and genital mutilation are all Christian values I reject as an Australian citizen. It seems that people are unable to see the problem when government supports their flavor of religion, but I’m sure they’d be first to bleat if official policy funded the development of alternative religious indoctrination. The constitution explicitly state government will not support any particular faith. The fact that the invoke god’s name in the preamble has no more relevance than an atheist who uses the socially-accepted convention of saying “bless you” when someone sneezes.
The National Chaplaincy program is a pastoral care program aimed at meeting the emotional and spiritual needs of students, teachers and parents in Australian school communities, regardless of whether those people have any religious belief or none. It in no way discrimates against those without religious belief, nor does it in any way seek to impose such religious belief upon those who do not share such beliefs. It is not a vehicle for prosletysing or evangelising. That is specifically prohibited by the rules under which the program operates. There is a great deal of evidence that the chaplaincy program has contributed greatly to meeting the emotional and spiritual needs of school communities across the country.
The constitional challenge will be rejected out of hand by the High Court.It is based on a far-fetched proposition which has no basis in law. In no way could it be said that the program provides “for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance”, as is alleged under this challenge.
Michael Bachelard’s “The Age” article of 5th September is unbalanced and uses emotive language to stir up resentment against a program which is working well for the benefit of school communities.For example, he speaks of “opposition grow[ing] to having government funding paying for God’s representatives in state schools”. In no way would the chaplain providers, such as Scripture Union, purport to represent the school chaplains as “God’s representatives” in schools. That assertion is base don a total misunderstanding of the pastoral care nature of the program. Michael also speaks in inflammatory terms of “some of the country’s richest private schools have taken $60,000 of taxpayers’ money to subsidise their existing chaplains”. Michael conveniently fails to recognise that the parents in those school are taxpayers just as much as the parents in State schools. Further, it is every taxpayer’s right to choose to which school, government or private, to send their child. Finally, he also fails to mention that all school communities can put the funding to existing chaplaincy or other youth programs.
There are many ill-informed, inflammatory and bitter comments on your website, showing greta bigotry against those who profess Christian or other religious beleifs. For example, Braydan Wilson’s very recent comment that the Bible is “filled with bigotry, hate and intolerance. Genocide, fratricide, infanticide and genital mutilation are all Christian values I reject as an Australian citizen”. That is an utter distortion of the Christian ethos. Jesus said that all of the Bible could be summed up in the expression “Love the lord your God with all of your heart and all your soul and all of your might, and love your neighbour as yourself. Jesus challenged people to not only love their neighbour as themselves, but even to love their enemies! Hardly an ethos of hatred and bigotry! Wilson’s comments are based on a distorted and uninformed reading of the Old Testament without taking into account the New Covenant established in the New Testament (Gospels, Letters of St Paul etc. Bigotry, hatred and intolerance are the antithesis of Christian values. Genocide, fratricide, infanticide and genital mutilation are equally abhorrent to Christian Australians as they are to their secular friends.
It is time to take the vitriol and bigotry, distortion and lack of balance out of this debate!
Garry Bourke, pre-empting a High Court decision is hardly “balanced”. This website is available for all points of view, including yours, as you can see. There seems to be evidence that some school chaplains do evangelise. There also seems to be evidence that some don’t. Your own bitterness and lack of balance does you no credit.
Garry: Jesus’s reported comment was specifically in response to the lawyer’s question as to which is the “greatest commandment” in the Mosaic/Judaic Law – Mat 23: 34-40. The Bible would not be assembled for another millennium or more. And he clearly separated doctrine and ethics in his two-part response – Mat 23:17-21.
More generally, the array of cumulative concerns about young people’s mental health and well-being makes it increasingly self-evident that our schools should be attended by properly trained, qualified and experienced professional counsellors. Currently, chaplains do not fit that definition.
admin: Garry Bourke was merely apologetic on the balance of the Biblical teaching, it appeared your comment made upon him resembling a strand of partiality underpinning.
“Diogenes”: I questioned your definition that chaplains are any less “qualified and experienced professional” than those “properly trained councillors”? In what context?
Lets get back to basics here. The Chaplaincy Program was a cynical ploy by John Howard playing wedge politics (again).
I was just reading over this for a school assignment and then i read Braydan Wilson’s comment and decided to comment as what he said is possible the most twisted view i have ever heard. Dude if you know anything you would know that all that stuff you just described happened in the Old Testament and when Jesus came he actually changed everything and told everyone to live a different way. just thought you might want to know that as you currently have no idea what your talking about.
Chaplaincy in schools is about providing a different kind of support to the whole school community. Complimentary, but different. Chaplains are not social workers or school psychologists. They provide a different and unique service to a school community.
I don’t know about you, but when I was a child I would never have voluntarily gone to a social worker or school psychologist or even a teacher to talk about an issue I was having. I may however have gone to someone who was not a teacher, who I trusted, who I knew cared about me and would take the time to listen. I wouldn’t even feel bad about it because it was his/her job. I know we need more professional help in schools and I am sorry if chaplaincy was used in it’s place. However, shouldn’t we be asking for both, not either/or? A social worker is not going to work with a group of boys and their fathers building billy carts. A school psychologist is not going to organise and coach basketball teams in a weekend tournament. A social worker won’t spend hours refurbishing computers to give to families (for free) who don’t have one to help them reduce the digital divide. A school psychologist wouldn’t work closely with community organisations to provide financial literacy seminars for parents. A social worker is unlikely to look around the play ground and go and talk to a student who is obviously struggling. Every Chaplain is different but these are actual examples of what one Chaplain does in his school. Chaplains look after people. They help build community. They encourage spirituality. Not necessarily to do with God, but in terms of how we relate to ourselves, others and the world around us in a positive and loving way. How is this a bad thing?
Those are very sensible comments, Bob Williams. My experience is different to yours (I know social workers and psychologists who indeed do those things), but I agree that a spiritual approach to counselling students can be very positive. I can see a problem though, when a chaplain gives advice that is limited by the faith they follow, just as I wouldn’t want to see a psychologist give spritual advice. These are different areas of expertise. If we can offer both those resources as appropriate (and there will be some crossover), it will most likely benefit most children. That would require as much funding going into science-based personal support as into faith-based personal support. Please note I speak here not as the author of the original post, nor as the authorised voice of ACSSO – just as another opinion in the mix.
Thanks for the comments, your opinion is valued!
I think that there is one part of what you’ve written that may need to be clarified. Chaplains are not counsellors. In talking to Chaplains I find that they rarely, if at all, give advice. The approach seems to be more based around helping students look at their options, to have the students weigh up the consequences of each choice and for them (the student) to choose what they think is best. Chaplains know that they are not counsellors and know that they are limited in what they can advise. Issues that are identified as serious are referred to more qualified support staff.
I am a little confused though what you mean by limited in advice according to faith? I am also not sure how science-based personal support would look?
Yes, science-based is obviously the right answer. I am a dual citizen raised in the USA. I live in Perth and have actively supported my struggling local public school with a 5-year-old son entering the system. I am shocked and shamed to find that there is a School Chaplain. The shame comes from having promoted Australia to my American friends as an example to what government could be. Finding that my taxes are being spent on thousands of religious authorities to advise the nation’s children. This blows a big hole in that pride I felt. Australia (almost) is best democracy on the planet: excellent, well-run, peaceful, modern, New World. We have improved our culture since the white-man founding – ask any Australian with asian grandparents how diversity has improved. We must change this law: we want an in-school ethical / psychological advisor. Just make it a fully secular position and we’re done.
Philip Lamb asked me: in what context do I maintain that Chaplains are less qualified professionals than trained counsellors.
A trained and experienced Counsellor is qualified to make the diagnosis as to the probable nature of the serious condition and refer to the appropriate specialist practitioner for appropriate intervention.
A Chaplain is not qualified to make that diagnosis – but can only refer to a qualified diagnostician to diagnose and refer to the appropriate specialist. In that context, they are the “weakest link” in that unnecessarily lengthened chain…
The significant and very real risk is – as identified in the Submission of the Australian Psychological Association at http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/APS-Submission-School-Chaplains-July2010.pdf – Chaplains are quite clearly FAILING to make those references in serious cases where feel-good chats with a student requiring clinical intervention are irrelevant, useless and dangerous – read the submission.
The pillars of public education are: Inclusive, Universal – and above all Secular. Driving important elements of secular process through fundamentally religious perspectives is at best inappropriate. And at worst…
Well, well. The NT Ombudsman has suggested there are sufficient grounds for the Commonwealth Ombudsman to investigate the running of the NSCP.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman is now conducting an investigation.
Do please read her report on the NT experience here:
http://www.ombudsman.nt.gov.au/publications-reports/public-reports/
See also David Marr’s story on 1 Jan 2011 here:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/chaplains-in-schools-are-inadequately-supervised-20101231-19bzr.html
And let’s see just how popular chaplains are in Mr Williams’ home town shall we?
Do check out the poll results:
http://toowoomba.finda.com.au/features/2010/11/06/mum-backs-chaplaincy-in-schools/
An open, egalitarian, rational and liberating education must be secular. There is no place in our educational institutions for the prejudice, superstitious and irrational dogma of religion, attitudes that are the root of world problems. Chaplains posing as student welfare officers must not be allowed to peddle their delusional superstitions to our young. Get them out! They are an anathema to education and should be consigned to the dark ages of ignorance.
David Thompson comment: “An open, egalitarian, rational and liberating education must be secular. There is no place in our educational institutions for the prejudice, superstitious and irrational dogma of religion, attitudes that are the root of world problems” seems to me to be somewhat contradictory. I see no “openness, egalitarianism, rationality or liberation” in a system that condemns all spiritual endeavour as “predjudice, superstition and irrational dogma”.
[...] Macgregor, Executive Director of the Australian Council of State School Organisations (ACSSO), noted just over a year ago; What is further disturbing is the extent to which we have seen established open process overtaken [...]