The church is a bunch of hypocrites.

First when the state gives parents the right to opt out of SRE classes, the church tries to make it compulsory as the children need SRE for ethical guidance, but say nothing if children are forced to do nothing whilst other have Scriptural education.

Then when ethics is introduced as an alternative and there is the distinct chance that children will move away from the SRE classes, then they want Ethics for all and children to continue to languish in the opt out classes.

The majority of parents do not share the author's opinion that religious education benefits the children at all.

Why not simply dispense with the odious SRE all together.

Hear! Hear! Shadow Minister: you've covered it all and very well.

School hours amount to 30 hours out of a weekly budget of 168.

If folk who wish to have their lives run by imaginary beings floating in the sky or hanging about at the bottom of the garden wish to inculcate this into either their children or those of others, this should be a voluntary activity undertaken in the 153 hours remaining after and before school.

This discussion should not be about ethics - it should be about evidence-based education.

Robert Haddad does not believe that the state school system is or should be secular. In fact he tends to be confused about the meaning of secular.
In correspondence with me he wrote, and I quote;

The ‘state education’ system is neither a state system nor a secular one. It has always been a PUBLIC system that has allowed time for volunteers to come in and support the faith education of those members of the public who desire such. If you want a secular system, petition the government to set one up at the expense of secularists.

That seems to equate secular with atheist.

He also appears to believe in creationism, contrary to the teachings of his Roman Catholic Church, as he also wrote;

Darwinism and its brutal secular ‘survival of the fitness’ philosophy has been the root cause of so much misery in communist, socialist and fascist regimes – therein lies the more serious problem.

I suspect that what Mr Haddad proposes is aimed at having church input into the curriculum for ethics classes and thus dictating to children what is right or wrong rather then have the students discuss open-ended or dilemma questions for themselves.

As trialled the the ethics classes will allow children to learn to think, their IQ will improve and bad behaviour will be substantially reduced. Those benefits will be long lasting for them and for society.

Children who do Religious Ed obtain a basis and foundaton for Ethics.

Children who simply study 'Ethics' learn "if it feels good and I can get away with it.. go for it"

Oh.. you disagree? Ok.. let me try again..

Children who study "Ethics" alone are like those who build a house without a foundation.

TEACHER "BE GOOD"!

CLASS BULLY "WHAT THE HECK IS 'GOOD'?

TEACHER "Good? thats when we don't infringe on other people rights"

BULLY "You idiot..that's not what we DO..it's what we DON'T do!"

TEACHER (red faced) "Oh...ok.. wait..hmmm do anything which causes the maximum good for the most people"

BULLY "Why? ? ? I get my kicks out of mugging weak students"

TEACHER "Why ? errrr.....*because*"

BULLY "Because...WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY you moron !"

TEACHER "Ummm.. because the universal charter on Human Rights says so"

BULLY "Who wrote that?"

TEACHER "Educated People, leaders."

BULLY "Hmm so if 'I' write a different one it will be just as valid?"

TEACHER "Listen kid.. you are an idiot..goto the principle! ! ! "

SRE, and the title changes from state to state and territories, is a hangover from the 1870s when education was ripped from the churches, with good reason.

Foolishly the states agreed to allow this bogus activity to go on on school grounds.

100 years of mumbo is enough though, and if parents really want to have SRE/RI/RE/ fed to their darlings, then they all have the wherewithall to take their own children to a church to get it.

The duplicity, lies and total dishonesty from so-called 'Christians' as a result of this odious practice being abandoned by parents is astonishing.

To Hell with the lot of them.

When the SRE has gone, the special ethics can go too.

Our schools should be capable of dealing with students and parents in an ethical manner, which most cannot at the moment, and from that our children might glean enough to keep them going.

But, as well as ditching SRE, we need a major education revolution to bring schools up to a half decent standard as far as 'teaching' is concerned too.

It will not happen.

Mr Hadad does not say in his brief biography that the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine is a creature of the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney or that he is Cardinal Pell’s special spokesperson with responsibility for opposing the introduction of ethics classes or any other educationally attractive alternative to Scripture classes in public schools. Nor does he say that this paper is an extract from his opening statement for the negative in last week’s IQ squared debate in Sydney on the topic, “Special Ethics Education should be allowed for children not attending scripture classes”, a debate that 85% of the audience awarded to the affirmative.
Lisa Forrest, leading for the affirmative, stressed that the churches bully most parents out of their rights by firstly insisting on being able to determine what happens to the children of religious parents during their one hour of Scripture per week and, secondly, insisting on the right to determine what happens to the non-scripture children as well— the huge majority of public school students, as it happens.
Mr Hadad and his colleagues tried desperately to imply that if non-scripture children do not have educationally worthwhile experiences while their scripture colleagues are being proselytised, it is the fault of the Department of Education for having a “no worthwhile experiences allowed” policy and/or the teachers for not being able to think up allowable experiences of worth for them to do. This overlooks entirely that the policy of the Department and the strictures preventing teachers from teaching the non-scripture students anything worthwhile reflect political decisions, not educational ones, and that it was the churchec which terrified the politicians into forcing the Department to develop exactly the anti-educational policies that Mr Hadad and his colleagues now have the gall to blame everyone for except themselves.

Apologies to Mr Haddad for misspelling his name and to ALGOREisRICH for assuming that he had failed to specify the relevant principle before I realised that he was having the Bully sent off for punishment, not enlightenment.

Thank you GlenC for clarifying the status of the author.

In my post I did mention the total lack of honesty that prevails from the so-called Christian supporters of this rubbish.

I rest my case.

AGIR... "TEACHER "Listen kid.. you are an idiot..goto the principle! ! ! ".

Errr... if 'the principle' is that shown by the church, that telling lies and being dishonest is the way ahead, that is one angle, but perhaps you were actually thinking of the school 'principal', which is quite different?

The ‘state education’ system is neither a state system nor a secular one. It has always been a PUBLIC system that has allowed time for volunteers to come in and support the faith education of those members of the public who desire such. If you want a secular system, petition the government to set one up at the expense of secularists.
..
Darwinism and its brutal secular ‘survival of the fitness’ philosophy has been the root cause of so much misery in communist, socialist and fascist regimes – therein lies the more serious problem.

@ Robert Haddad to Foyle [posted above Monday, 22 Nov 10:56:25 AM]

Robert, secular generally means worldy, 'of an age' or ages, yet has become use to be used to imply "outside of religion", particularly by the religious. It can be a positive term, meaning faiths have equal space to each other (hopefully not Scientology, tho), or it can mean exclusion.

It can mean inclusion of all by excluding special status to one faith e.g. at national governmental level.

Darwinism is just about changes in populations in biology. The term has been hijacked by various social and economic groups ever since. "Survival of the fittest" was not Charles Darwin's term originally, although he used it later editions of "On the Origin of Species" as a metaphor for natural selection. Both mean the way a group fits into ints environment, not some competition to the death.

"" This overlooks entirely that the policy of the Department and the strictures preventing teachers from teaching the non-scripture students anything worthwhile reflect political decisions, not educational ones, and that it was the churches which terrified the politicians into forcing the Department to develop exactly the anti-educational policies that Mr Hadad and his colleagues now have the gall to blame everyone for except themselves.""
Posted by GlenC, Monday, 22 November 2010 12:24:21 PM

Exactly.

"A solution needs to be found and found immediately. But is special ethics education the only or appropriate solution to the problem? Is it possible to address the legitimate concerns of non-SRE parents without raising the ire of SRE providers?"

Yes.

Education is the duty and privilege of parents. Teachers and schools are mere helpers, should the parents need them. Certainly what the parents wish to teach their children is none of the business of the state, the church, or anyone else.

The proper way to give parents the choice over what they want their children to learn, is to provide them with education vouchers, which they can then use with any school and/or private teacher(s), religious or otherwise. Parents can then vote with their money whether to send their children to a school with or without SRE, with or without ethics-classes, as well as direct what kind of ethics are taught in such classes.

Disclosure: the voucher system idea is not mine, you can find it here: http://ldp.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1162:school-education&catid=101:policies&Itemid=290

1. If SRE is a required part of the school curriculum, WHY is it always the Christian one that is taught in PUBLIC schools?

Leading to the question:

What makes Christian RE superior to Buddhism or Judaism or Hindu?

2. Why can't non-Christian children at public schools attend classes in critical thinking and ethics? Why does this upset so many Christians?

Leading to the question:

Does the Christian Church fear children will learn to question, critique and think for themselves, thereby rejecting religion altogether?

3. Why, if parents want their children to do RE, is it not the responsibility of the church they attend?

Leading to the question:

Why does the Public school system discriminate against non-Christian children?

The above question circles back to why Christianity? - there is no evidence in the past 2000 years that it delivers any ethical qualities any better than say Judaism, which has been around longer.

My then partner and I let my daughter attend RE when she was at Primary School , because she was initially interested. Her interest swiftly waned, so she wound up colouring in pictures in the library, when she could've been learning something worthy like critical thinking. She liked some of the bible stories, but at no stage was she taught how to think or question, she was expected to believe stories that were to her way of thinking just like fairy stories.

Teaching supernatural stories as if they are facts is unethical and immoral and an abuse of a child's abilities to learn.

I can't believe that in a so-called modern western country like Australia this is even a problem - it is something I'd expect to be a problem in certain Middle Eastern countries.

I have no idea if Hindu or Buddhism is taught at public schools in other countries where those religions predominate, would appreciate knowing if that is the case or if childhood indoctrination is more a characteristic of the Christian/Muslim cultures.

Yuyutsu, What garbage!

So, I take my children's 'vouchers' and can send my children to any school I want to can I?

Or just those within my close region?

Those within my close region that I can afford to pay for?

Which is probably the school I send them to anyway.

I know, I'll send them from Brisbane to Kings in Sydney, on the voucher.

Why, that is an improvement!

*Children who do Religious Ed obtain a basis and foundaton for Ethics.*

Hardly so, Boaz. Threatening them with hellfire if they misbehave
and promising them a ticket to heaven if they comply, is just
brainwashing them into the church doctrine of hope and fear.
Even you tried it, with your post on another thread.

There is no way that the churches will give up what they claim
as their little patch, without a fight.

For if the secular system started teaching kids conflict resolution
skills, that it's in our self interest to all get along and various
aspects of ethics, the threats of hope and fear would vanish and
churches would no longer have a captive market. So better to
brainwash those kiddies whilst they are young. The nuns tried
it with me, as an innocent 5 year old, luckily they failed.

Dear Blue Cross,

"So, I take my children's 'vouchers' and can send my children to any school I want to can I?"

Very true.

"Or just those within my close region?"

No, anywhere you like in Australia, at least, then hopefully arrangements can be made with other governments so it could be overseas as well.

"Those within my close region that I can afford to pay for?"

You will receive the same vouchers per child as anyone else. This is tax-payers' money: if you are still unhappy about having less money than others, then either earn more, spend less, or join the communist party.

"Which is probably the school I send them to anyway."

That is up to you, but even then you can always tell them: "improve - or my child goes elsewhere". In fact, you don't even need to send your children to school - you can teach them mostly yourself with the help of private tutors, whom you pay with vouchers; or you can join with a group of other parents to create your own school.

"I know, I'll send them from Brisbane to Kings in Sydney, on the voucher."

If you wish - perhaps they have an uncle or auntie in Sydney, or perhaps you may want to relocate, or perhaps use your vouchers to improve schooling in Brisbane.

Secular ethics are superior to religious ethics in all ways but one - religious ethics are simplistic.

Secular ethics require consideration and effort, while religious ethics are for thoughtless and lazy people who assume that something becomes right or wrong for them simply because of an edict attributed to some imagined being.

Luckily, the religious realise this and interpret and cherry-pick their holy books using secular ethics as a basis.

There’s your ‘foundation’, Boaz.

"As trialled the the ethics classes will allow children to learn to think, their IQ will improve and bad behaviour will be substantially reduced. Those benefits will be long lasting for them and for society."

Are you still quoting Haddad or is that your idea? If so, I would be curious to see the evidence to back this up. As a teacher with more than 20 years experience, it will revolutionise how I teach if you can...

Hmmmm. That MindBodySpirit malarkey didn't do much for your temper, did it Boaz?

>>Children who simply study 'Ethics' learn "if it feels good and I can get away with it.. go for it"<<

I know that you sincerely would like to believe that. But it simply ain't so.

All you have done, in fact, with your frivolous - and somewhat lop-sided - scenario, is to demonstrate how little you understand about ethics, and even less about ethics teaching.

Ethics has nothing to do with "do as I say". Even in Confucius' time, the Golden Rule was "never impose on others what you would not choose
for yourself", which was not a bad starting point from which to discuss the consequences of various behaviours and their impact on society.

Here's a more modern example, taken from an interview with a lecturer on "ethics and international affairs"

"A large part of the exercise is to persuade students that you're not trying to teach them what they ought to think about a particular topic. What you're trying to do, rather, is to get them to address ethical issues in a systematic, scholarly way, to think through the implications of the positions they hold, and to see how those positions would work in more general terms."

In other words, it allows people to work out for themselves that ethics are a critical component of the glue that provides moral cohesion between members of societies.

As you freely admit, simply "knowing" doesn't turn people to good. There are sufficient examples from your own religion to confirm that. But awareness - particularly that which you have arrived at under your own steam, as it were - puts you well on the path.

Quite outstanding mental gymnastics there Pericles :)

I'ts not temper at work, it's lack of time. Short and to the point for the next few days.

Mental gymnastics notwithstanding, you know as well as I do that ultimately secular ethics boils down to what you think you can get away with.

We can argue this point when I've got more time, but we have covered this ground in the past..

YABBY.. pull those nippers back mate.. ur on the wrong track.

"Hardly so, Boaz. Threatening them with hellfire if they misbehave
and promising them a ticket to heaven if they comply, is just
brainwashing them into the church doctrine of hope and fear."

You are telling us more about your own upbringing or experience rather than the Christian position on ethics.

It's reallllly simple.

1/ Love God first
2/ Love your neighbour.

Trying to do '2' without 1 is like a car without brakes or an engine. Give it a push and woooooshhhhh off it goes out of control.
The statutes God has given is are all summed up by "2", but if we don't recognize that they come from someone bigger than us or deny the first outright, then logically and reasonably we are left with our own choice.

HELLFIRE...seeing as you mentioned it, I'll elaborate a bit. Jesus spoke of
a) A wide and easy road which leads to destruction.
b) A narrow hard road which leads to salvation.

The 'Gospel' we proclaim is a balance between "a" and "b". It would be irresponsible to proclaim the narrow road without mentioning the wide one. "a" is a statement of 'fact' not a threat.
"b" is a statement of fact also, one with a glorious end.

rational-debate
The thoughts expressed were my own very brief summation of the report on a trial conducted in Scotland. The report could be found at;
http://www.rotherham-gt.co.uk/docs/p4c/impact2.doc
But, if you have trouble ask the editor of OLO to supply your email address and I will forward you my file copy as an attachment.
The NSW trial was based on the Clackmannanshire trial. Prof. Phil Cam who devised the content for the NSW Ethics Trial has been involved with the Clackmannan school authority.
Briefly, sixteen months of one hour per week of philosophical discussion of open ended questions led to an increase of 6.5 units in the cognitive ability of the trial classes, virtual elimination of bad in class and schoolyard behaviour such as bullying by the trial class students and a doubling of communication in both directions between students and teachers. There were no measurable improvements in the control classes.
Re-testing, two or so years after the trial, showed the two groups had further diverged with no reinforcement!In other words the benefits are likely to last a lifetime and benefit future partners and offspring, at least in MHO.
From memory 190 students were involved and divided into two groups of nearly the same size.

No, Boaz, not really.

>> you know as well as I do that ultimately secular ethics boils down to what you think you can get away with.<<

That's where you get the story wrong, every single time.

I strongly suggest that you do some proper research into what ethics education actually consists of, in real life, and at the same time how ethics relate to people's value systems.

I know you hate to do these things because i) you are indeed far too busy and ii) you already know the answers.

But you might, just possibly, learn something.

Hey, who am I kidding, right?

"the benefits are likely to last a lifetime and benefit future partners and offspring".

Personally I believe that such a dramatic change could only occur as a result of the personal touch and example of the particular teacher, rather than by the course-material. Sadly though, I was not able to download that document in order to find out more about that teacher.

But let us assume for now that it is indeed the course-material which does the magic. Let us further assume that one needs to be of a certain age (not too young nor too old) in order to receive the full benefits of this ethics-course - this raises a serious ethical dilemma:

Should a student from the ethics-study group tell students from the control-group about what they studied in ethics-class?

If s/he does, then the trial would fail, indicating no difference, thus the project will be dropped.
It s/he doesn't, then the control-group students, along with their partners and offspring, would miss on a lifetime benefit.

I agree with Foyle about the need for philosophy in school curricula. A philosophy programme -- regular, sequential and developmental -- should be a core component of the curriculum for all children to Year 10 level. After trialling the Philosophy for Children programme in Adelaide back in the 1980s I could see immediate benefits and huge potential for more. Sadly the school did not follow my recommendations.

How to find time in an already crowded curriculum? Well, the activities involve a huge amount of learning in linguistic, deductive and inter-personal operations. Therefore it would be educationally justifiable to take some of the time from lessons in each of reading, writing, speaking, listening, mathematics and social studies. One hour per week would thus easily be found in the time-table. And the wonderful thing is that the kids thoroughly enjoy the lessons!

Apart from the Scottish research that Foyle has mentioned, the experience of Australian schools where the philosophy programme is permanently run indicates great cognitive and social benefits to the children. Bullying and behaviour problems decrease significantly.

Ethics is a major component of the philosophy programme, and so all children would be learning the process of ethical decision-making as well as rational thinking in general.

""Education is the duty and privilege of parents. Teachers and schools are mere helpers, should the parents need them. Certainly what the parents wish to teach their children is none of the business of the state, the church, or anyone else.""

Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 22 November 2010 1:16:14 PM

I disagree strongly. Children have a right to be educated in contemporary ideas that do not place them on the outer of their society or the rest of the world.

Children have a right to current knowledge and understanding as peak bodies see it, and education authorities and experts conciliate to present it. They have a right to be introduced to techniques and methods of investigation, evaluation and appraisal which is age-appropriate.

It takes a community and a society to raise a child, to reduce the chances of "parent eccentricity" disadvantaging that child for life, or a long period of their early adulthood.

Well McReal,

All I can say is that such an attitude is fascistic and paternalistic. It assumes that the state and its "peak bodies" knows better what is good for me and you. It assumes that the state is leading us to a better place. It assumes that everybody ought to be part of your society and that it is advantageous for everyone to be so. It has total and violent disregard and disrespect for those who came to this world for any other purpose, other than yours.

Such differences in the outlook of life are so fundamental that they can only be resolved on the battlefield.

Yuyutsu,

The philosophy programme is not a collection of information: it comprises activities which focus on the processes of reasoning between individuals and within one's own mind. A child could not simply TELL another what was in a lesson. They would have to actually DO the lesson to learn what was involved.

Children (and even most adults) would rarely or never encounter these sorts of activities in everyday life. That's why the school has such an important role in this matter.

*You are telling us more about your own upbringing or experience rather than the Christian position on ethics.*

Oh come on Boaz, you make this up as you go along. Xtians have
been threatenting non Xtians with judgement day, since the day
dot.

Hope and fear is what the Xtian religion is based on. Check out
what the Catholics, the Baptists and all the rest have been preaching.

That is the Xtian religion, not what your small cult claims today.

Fact is the fundamentals of ethics are grounded in genetics. A number of
primate species have been shown to feel empathy for instance.
Ethical ways of societies living in harmony, were around a long
time before Xtianity came along.

*secular ethics boils down to what you think you can get away with.*

All that tells us is that is your perspective, which reflects on
your thinking, the way your particular mind works. Speak for yourself.

You have clearly never given the question of ethics, beyond your
narrow religious perspective, a great deal of thought

Yuyutsu
Not teaching children to think clearly, and indoctrination, is child abuse. I do not mind what a child or adult thinks except that I won't value their opinion if they are unable to supply arguments to support their view. If their view is based solely on unverifiable authority I will discount it.
In the Clackmannanshire trial the control group classes and the trial classes were probably in different schools although the report does not provide that information. The people running the trial were professionals connected to a university, not amateurs. The trial and control classes were matched with each group having CAT scores of 99 before the trial commenced.
Unfortunately the site address provided in my earlier post does not seem to be available. I have a temporary email address at elyof145@gmail.com and will make the report available to anyone who supplies a reply email address.

Instead of a second layer of MORAL BRAINWASHING (at the discretion of contemporary PR policy) classes, how about instead, we have classes that instruct children how they are meant to BEHAVE in society manners and ettiquite- how to give way on the roads and footpaths, how to treat other people they meet in their day-to-day lives.

Wouldn't that be more productive and less contentious than having another pseudo-religious-but-technically-secular indoctrination of values?

It really disappoints me how short-sighted some of my fellow atheists are that they would fail to see the immediate similarities in the alternative class they endorse to the one they KNOW is wrong.

My mistake- in this case Haddad is actually part of a Christian group- otherwise I really must insist that the "ethics classes" and the scripture classes BOTH need to be aborted in the public system; surely we could actually use that time to teach something useful?

In fact, we could actually teach politics and civics in those timeframes- although I can't imagine many higher-ups would be too happy scrapping a brainwashing program for one that instead informs future voters exactly what their rights and voting capabilities are.

For rational-debate and yuyutsu
And for anyone wishing to know something about the full potential benefits of discussion between young students of open ended questions as raised in ethics classes you can now read the report of the Scottish trial of this concept at;
http://onlineopinion.com.au/documents/articles/Clackmannan.doc
The editor of OLO has kindly made the article available and I thank him.

not happy with more violence, more immorality, more teen pregancies, more abortio0ns, more suicides, more child abuse, more pornography the usual secular fundamentalist want more of their rotten fruit producing dogmas placed on our kids. No wonder the private sector is growing at a very fast rate. Even thinking secularist can't help but send their kids away from these zoos. Next they will be wanting to preach their failed dogma in private schools. Just wait for it.

If we are to introduce an hour a week of philosophy, where does that hour come from? I suggest that the philosophy program should replace RE altogether in state schools (or public schools, depending on where you are [as the wording is apparently all-important]). If parents want RE for their kids, there are plenty of religious high schools in almost every mid- to large-sized towns, and there seems to be a Catholic primary school (usually called St. Joseph's, from observation) in pretty much every small- to mid-sized town as well.

Imposing that hour on the Civics and Citizenship curriculum won't work. The Australian Curriculum - due to be released in its final form on the 8th of December - has already given priority to History in the SOSE area. Schools like mine, which devote about 3 hours a week to the entire SOSE learning area, will have to give most of that time over to History in order to meet the curriculum requirements. Take 2 hours off for History, 1 hour off for Philosophy and you are left with nothing for Civics and Citizenship, Geography, Environmental Studies, etc. Re-jig the timetable to give more time to the Humanities, and the time has to come from somewhere. English? Not likely, given our maniacal obsession with literacy. Maths? Also not likely, given our concern with numeracy. Science? Given that the sciences are where all the grant money goes, it seems unlikely that they will lose their priority status anytime soon. The Arts, LOTE and other 'soft' subjects already have precious little time. And HPE, well, despite being a priority area in our nutritionally-challenged and obese nation, there isn't much time for that either.

I like the idea - don't get me wrong. But it's not like we're sitting around, twiddling our thumbs and asking 'what shall we do today?' as it is. As our curriculum becomes more jam-packed with 'special projects', the basics slide further and further into obscurity.

Otonoko, your description of the practical problem of time-tabling for Philosophy is realistic. But I've spent the last 41 years teaching in schools (with a finger even now still partly in the pie) and the problem was always the same: everyone always said we can't take time from the "basics" (whether the proposal was to form a choir or introduce a vegetable garden or try media studies or anything else). Yet there were many projects that did become permanent components of the time-table because a couple of dedicated people managed to demonstrate the value to the right people in the right place, and then the idea spread to other schools. And there are some schools in Australia already doing Philosophy.

Of course, I'm thinking mainly of primary schools where things are more flexible. In secondary schools like yours the system has always been much more rigid and teachers have always tended to not see outside of their respective disciplines. But using projects like the Scottish one and others in Australia as examples it should be possible to get community and authorities to consider the idea seriously. If it can significantly benefit learning in all other areas surely it's worth taking a few minutes a week from each of English, Maths and Science to create the Philosophy session?

Then of course I say the same about Music, which is now my specialist area...

Lets not forget the bureaucracy and politics in schools that would affect what gets taught, what may offend, and of course, that for students, so-called open debate is actually guided by fear of saying the wrong thing in what they would assume be in the eyes of the teacher marking them, and of course their fellow students to whom they must try to get along with and fit in with as much as possible to make their next however many years or months of highschool up to exams.

Absent of political issues there are not many philosophical topics worth setting aside lessons for, and WITH politics, the politics of school and P&C input takes over and skews the lesson.

The sad part is I would actually strongly endorse philosophical classes in schools- unfortunately I just don't trust any of the people or institutions that would set the curriculum properly.

Runner
Your views ignore evidence. Religiosity has been examined to determine how it effects many aspects of community life such as crime and disease. You should have a look at the chart at http://i.imgur.com/kpb5A.png
The chart shows clearly that the higher the religiosity in each USA state the more likely that crime and other societal disadvantages will also be higher and general well being lower.
In 2005 the New York Times commented on George W’s attitude to sexual education. The item stated, “George W. had a sex scandal. His sex scandal is not personal like Bill Clinton’s. George’s is his government funded “abstinence only” sex education campaign”. The NY Times comment was, “There’s good deal of evidence that the result will not be more rosy-cheeked young virgins- it will be more pregnancies, abortions, STDs and deaths from aids.”
Due largely to George’s funding and the fundamentalist’s push 25% of sex education teachers (in USA of course) now take an abstinence only approach compared to only 2% in 1988. While it is believed that teenage sexual activity is comparable in the USA, Europe and Canada inadequate sex education in the USA results in girls in the USA to be seven times more likely to have an abortion than Dutch girls. Young Americans are five times more likely to have H.I.V. than young Germans and the teenager’s gonorrhea rate is 70 times higher in the U.S. than in the Netherlands or France.
“Abstinence only” seems a sure recipe for more misery.
Please read and try to absorb the lessons from the Clackmannanshire trial kindly made available by the OLO editor at http://onlineopinion.com.au/documents/articles/Clackmannan.doc
King Hazza
The Ethic and philosophical discussion concepts have no pre-decided curriculum. In the Scottish trial the students themselves decided what questions they wish to discuss after they listing the questions they saw as being raised by a story or play.

Foyle, you are very patient with some of the commentators here who suffer from synaptic gaps problems. Well done.

The NSW ethics trial is touted as something new and wonderful, but in Brisbane, the Buranda State School principal Lyn Hynton worked with Prof Camm to produce a philosophy program that looks very much the same as the St. James effort.

The difference is that this state school ran entirely on this philosophy model.

The results were impressive, so impressive in fact that Ed Qld has wound it back because it exposed all the rest of their/our schools as being the pits-of-despair most parents seem to prefer, and all politicians love.

Let's be honest about NSW. The ALP are so desperate for every vote they can gather up they have clearly decided there are more votes with ethics than Pell and his farm-animal-like supporters can muster against them.

We do not need any form of SRE in any state school, in any state, and we probably do not need separate 'ethics' classes either.

What we do need are schools like Buranda SS, which may well be similar to the one in Clackwhatsit that you nominate, that offer an 'educational' basis, with far more emphasis on 'the peripherals', such as music, art, dance even, and also the two main underpinnings of our society, maths and English.

Our schools are there to squeeze children into a work-ready model of citizen at the moment, which is why they get all sorts of programmes dumped on them. It's time to dump that single motivator, and start to think of 'education' as an opportunity to broaden horizons, not limit them as Gillard and whoever thinks they represent 'education' in the Coalition, is it that jumped up prig Pyne?, and all our failed state/territory premiers and their rather feeble education ministers all favour.

Thank-you Foyle for the document, which I enjoyed and appreciated.

As Blue-Cross mentioned, the current government will not allow such school-programs because it is afraid of students that are capable of critical thinking. All it wants is for youngsters to be work-ready, part of their work-force, perhaps technocrats, but nothing beyond, nothing that can threaten their hold on power.

If anyone should be accused of that fashionable slogan "child abuse", including indoctrination and the denial of skills to think clearly, it is the government, not parents.

"Not teaching children to think clearly" is a very dangerous phrase: does a child who fails to understand that it is good to die in battle for one's country a case of "not thinking clearly", or maybe a child who fails to see that there is no higher happiness than worshipping the leader/fuhrer, has their thinking-process clouded? In some fallen countries this is just the case!

Parents love their children. You may point out rare exceptions, but as a rule, nobody will ever love a child more than their parents, certainly not the government. Parents therefore ought to represent their children's wishes until they are able to express them themselves. While governments decide what's best for a child based on their general interests (in the case of Australia, economic interests, other countries may want cannon-fodder), parents are attentive to the child's particular true wishes, which could be different than material or social success for example.

If one, lets call him Gabriel, were to come into this world with goals other than being a model-citizen, a part of society, a busily slaving-away work-force-member or an addicted consumer, if Gabriel had higher standards and aspirations than that, then where would Gabriel go? where could he be born? Obviously Gabriel would be attracted to the womb of parents with similar ideals, so they can represent his wishes. Teaching Gabriel differently than, or even against, what contemporary society expects, would therefore be an act of loving kindness, not an abuse.

Now I knew you would discard this last idea as "unproven", yet you have not proved the opposite.

Yuyutsu (Mon 22 Nov 5:35:59 PM)

One of the key points in my post was "education authorities and experts *conciliate* to present [current knowledge and understanding as peak bodies see it]. I was referring to the extragovernment democrtic processes that probably outway government (or the "state" as you blatently refer to it).

In probably all western democracies like Australia such peak bodies are made up of industry and organisations derived from the community, not government, though probably with some govt representatives.

There is no assumption "everybody ought to be part of [McReal's] society" - they are part of the wider society I referred to, including the increasing global one.

There was no expectation in my post anybody came into this world for a purpose and certainly no expectation I had a purpose for anyone (I don't). You made that up and hence it is a strawman fallacy.

As far as violent disregard and respect, that applies to your post. Particularly reference to fascitst and paternalistic in the context my post was about a democratic multi-faith (multi-belief?) society such as Australia, the UK, India, the USA, etc.

There was no reference to "difference in outlook of life", other than by you in such a fundamental way, and to conclude "they can only be resolved on the battlefield" really refers to a battle in your mind.

An abstract thinking course would be by far the best thing a school could teach. Sadly in my English classes, the countless times we micro-analyzed a newspaper, we were only shown petty features like the need to make texts different sizes, and how pictures get more attention- never, not once, was there a single moment where we were even hinted to actually dissect information integrity or detect bias.

We were probably taught how to FORMAT a paper than READ one.

However, I do not believe ethics should be included in this

I take your point there, crabsy.

I guess where I am coming from is that the hours "recommended" for the basic subjects by ACARA when the Australian Curriculum is rolled out pretty much eliminate any flexibility. The "non-basics" such as the arts are already going to feel the squeeze without mandating any new subjects and initiatives. If we can fit it in, that's all good. Like I said, I think the subject is quite a good idea, but it seems to me that the people upstairs are so busy dividing up the time for each subject that, pretty soon, there'll be no room for anything new.

This is the fellow to listen to:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lifematters/stories/2009/2598512.htm

http://sirkenrobinson.com/skr/

Watch his TED talk here:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

There is no one in Australia, in politics, that would or could understand a single word of this.

I suspect that as far as Qld is concerned at least, there is not a single person within ED Qld, in a senior management position, that would either understand this, or believe a word of it either.

Such is the poor quality of 'education' here in the 'smart state'.

The Blue Cross
Thank you for your comments and support. I was aware of Lyn Hynton and the Buranda State School story. Clackmannan is as far as I am aware the only situation where a control group was used when philosophical discussion was introduced.

I am disappointed that no effort seems to have been made to provide the control class students with the advantages later in their schooling.

But then all children not in a Buranda style school in Australia are presently disadvantaged.

As then Bishop Ratzinger said in a sermon on 31st December 1979 "The Christian believer is a simple person: bishops should protect the faith of their little people against the power of intellectuals." (from Geoffrey Robinson's "The Case of the Pope)

Haddad and his supporters want to keep up that miserable work.

Indeedy Foyle.... and now the miserable Pell and Jensen have conspired with the Liberal-National goons to declare that the ethics programme will cease when they win government, as they surely will, given the ALPs total ineptitude in all matters beyond corruption and idiocy.

I have just been sent a media release done by some goon called 'Piccoli' who says "The NSW Liberals & Nationals will not support NSW Labor’s introduction of ethics classes into NSW public schools."

Well, 'he would say that, wouldn't he?'.

But, of course, the Pell's, Jensen's and Picolli's of this world, and no doubt Senor Hadad too, have been encouraged by the strong similarity between Howard, Rudd and Gillard, in their fawning grovelling attitude towards the low rent Christians who seek to impose their views in public schools, and scream about 'tolerance', while having centuries of total, abject, intolerance from their side of the goings-on.

The NSW supporters of the St. James trial can now see the Coalition for what it is, a pawn of the xtian churches. No doubt many of these supporters are Coalition voters though, and there is no reason for them to turn to the ALP to vote the trial back in.

They should go to John Kaye, Greens, and demand that party comes up with a very clear secular public education policy designed to rid state schools of the ignorant, the proselytiser, the evangelists, that Pell, Jensen and the ACL are demanding should be in all public schools, stealing time, energy, resources and souls from innocent students and fed-up parents.

Good luck to you all too.

Well McReal, now you seem do deny what you said earlier:

"Children have a right to be educated in contemporary ideas that do not place them on the outer of their society or the rest of the world."

So what about children who do NOT want to be educated in contemporary ideas? what about children who WANT to be on the outer of their society and the rest of the world? What is your policy then if their representing parents tell you: "Our delicate child should be protected and not be exposed to the evil ways of the world, contemporary society and its false ideas"?

"Children have a right to current knowledge and understanding as peak bodies see it, and education authorities and experts conciliate to present it. They have a right to be introduced to techniques and methods of investigation, evaluation and appraisal which is age-appropriate."

Again, what would your approach be should the parents representing the child tell you: "Current 'knowledge' is mere ignorance. Current understanding is mis-understanding. Peak bodies serve only the devil. Those 'authorities and experts' are no authority and no experts for us and our children. Their techniques and methods are total rubbish, harmful and absolutely inappropriate"?

"It takes a community and a society to raise a child, to reduce the chances of "parent eccentricity" disadvantaging that child for life, or a long period of their early adulthood."

Again, what would your approach be should the parents representing the child tell you: "contemporary society is corrupt. contemporary community is disfunctional and spiritually crippling. It is completely disadvantageous for our child to be part of all this, so it is better for them to not even learn the tools that might lead them into temptation."?

A fascist and/or paternalistic state would use coercion to force its idea of 'education' on unwilling parents and children: Fascists because they do not care for individuals; paternalistics because they arrogantly believe to know better and assume a 'right' to disregard others' ideas and disrespect their free choice.

If yourself would not use such coercion in this case, then my apologies.

Christianity a contemporary idea?

It hasn't changed for centuries, and is only considered seriously by a minority of the population.

old African saying says ""takes a whole vilige to raise a Chil"" very wise words

Typicl of the Socialist guvment to brainwash our kids about Ethnics and MultiCulti!!

Dear Shadow Minister,

I don't see how your last message refers to what I wrote, except for the fact that I mentioned "contemporary ideas". Since I did not even refer to Christianity, your response puzzles me.

I stand for the rights of parents to educate their children in whatever manner they want, whether or not it coincides with contemporary ideas.

Dear Muggins

There is a world of difference between 'ethnics' and 'ethics', even amongst the filthy communist socialists.

Or is that filthy socialist communists?

Mind you, you might be onto something when you moan about governments making it easier for multi-cults to have access to our children.

I quite agree, and see no reason for any cults to be given time and space in our schools.

So, when do we rid them of the cancerous cults that Pell and Jensen represent?

@ Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 23 Nov 10:59:23 PM

Y: "what about children who do NOT want to be educated in contemporary ideas? what about children who WANT to be on the outer of their society and the rest of the world?"

What about children that reject their parents desire for them to be on the outer of their society and the rest of the world ??

Y: "Our delicate child should be protected .. "

"delicate"? Emotive language like that makes many wary. What part of any public school curriculum is evil?

Societies generally do not have ideas, let alone false ones - people or groups in them do. Besides, all ideas and counter ideas should be assessed on their own merits and stand or fall by those merits.

Y: ""what would your approach be should the parents representing the child tell you: "Current 'knowledge' is mere ignorance. Current understanding is mis-understanding. Peak bodies serve only the devil. ""

The parents are eccentric nutters.

Y: "contemporary society is corrupt. contemporary community is dysfunctional and spiritually crippling."

There are many things I do not like about contemporary society, such as drug abuse, alcohol abuse, overt sexuality, etc.; yet, equally I do not like more main-stream things like really big cars, clothing, hair, and the English language ;-))

Ideas should stand on their merits and people out not be afraid of ideas when they are suitiably presented to children in an age-appropriate way.

McReal, you seem to evade my basic question: would you use coercion or not?

"What about children that reject their parents desire..."

Since you ask, I believe that they should state that fact the moment they are able to, then be allowed to choose different parents, but that's digressing: I referred only to the simpler case of a cohesive family where all are in agreement.

""delicate"? Emotive language like that makes many wary. What part of any public school curriculum is evil?"

How can I tell? it's the parents who claimed so, not me. It is also the parents who used "delicate": who am I to know better about other people's children?

"Societies generally do not have ideas, let alone false ones - people or groups in them do."

Aren't school-teachers people? aren't schools groups-of-people? so is mainstream-society, and so is the group of other-children-in-school, along with the ideas they bring from home.

"Besides, all ideas and counter ideas should be assessed on their own merits and stand or fall by those merits."

That's irrelevant. The parents tell you that according to their belief-system, their delicate-child should not be exposed to certain ideas. They also tell you that contemporary techniques and methods would harm their children, not only ideas.

(BTW, merits are relative to the goals in mind)

"The parents are eccentric nutters."

Perhaps so, at least according to yourself and contemporary-society, so what?

You are entitled to your judgements, but you are not entitled to use violence on others who have done you no harm, such as to take their children away and force your type of 'education' on an unwilling family.

"There are many things I do not like about contemporary society, such as drug abuse...."

I share some of your sentiments, but wouldn't impose my sentiments on others.

"Ideas should stand on their merits and people out not be afraid of ideas when they are suitiably presented to children in an age-appropriate way."

Who mentioned fear? The family simply stated that they don't want their children to be exposed. Who are you to force it on them?