I think that it far better to have a psychologist available to schools.

Most youngsters already know what are acceptable values and what is good behaviour. Most children that turn from these behaviours on a regular basis do so because of a lack of coping skills and other psychological factors such as low self esteem.

Also there are not many rebellious youngsters who will approach a religious person (chaplain) for help no matter how hard the chaplain tries to be cool. Help is help - not conversion, religiously-biased judgements and unprofessional advice.

Parents must not settle for less than professional, accredited psychologists for their children to help them work through any problems they may have.

And a lot of parents won't want their kids exposed to religion's idea of what constitutes a good value.

Moreover, a religious person by their beliefs are going to only be able to relate to people who share those religious beliefs.

John Howard take a look at this and learn a better way.

http://www.hlth.qut.edu.au/ph/resilience/index.jsp

Non-religious programs like this are a far more productive way of keeping youngsters on track. Like the kids say: "separate church and skate".

I guess it is all a matter of what you have experienced "ronnie peters". As a high school principal (before retiring 3 years ago), I had a school psychologist, a school chaplain, a Youth Education Officer and 5 year Coordinators (each freed up from 0.4 FTE teaching commitments) all working together in a Student Services Department.

They collectively helped with discipline issues, personal matters, career guidance; virtually all matters that might fall into the basket of things that might get in the way of students' academic progress or might help them with various choices.

The chaplain was an integral part of the service. Not all students wanted or needed the chaplain's help, however, some got help from the chaplain that they couldn't get from the school psychologist, or the year coordinator or the Youth Education Officer. But in an overall sense, in combination, and with good people, it worked extremely well, chaplain included.

Sniggid

The problem you have is that you have first hand experience and common sense. It is not what many of the detractors of Chaplains want to hear.Thank you for adding some unbiased logic to the debate.

Chaplains? I would not want "The last rights" in school. I would want reality, to hear from someone who has had a proper job! Someone who has had real life experiences.

G'day fellow High School drop outs

Perhaps I've missed the entire point on this, however, I can't help but feel that the exercise is a wonderfully cunning attempt for the Federal Government to gain its much wanted toe hold into one of the State run cornerstones, education.

Presumably the school itself would engage the proposed employee under some guideline/agreement dictated by the Federal Government in order to secure the funding to get the chap/chappette. Taking this one step further, one suspects that new employee would not belong to any State education oriented union and just might pave the way for future similar reorganising of state based education workplaces with this as a possible funding template.

I hope I'm not simply being dazzled by my own cynicism, atheism and farmerly isolation yet I can't see any other possible reason why the Federal Government would waste its time beginning such a wishy-washy, unimportant sideline debate such as this.

Simon Bedak
"Lorraine"
Wagga Wagga NSW 2650

Sniggid/Runner.

I take it Runner that you are "experienced" and a principal like Sniggid. If not then, using your reasoning supporters of government-funded chaplains mustn't want to hear better more logical non-religious options.

Also, Sniggid must be biased using your logic Runner- given that Sniggid favours chaplaincy. You Runner claim to be a Christian which suggests bias also. It works both ways. You also offer mere judgement which lacks supporting proof.

I have read and thought about it and along with my experiences decided that psychology would be a better option than chaplaincy. I stand by my previous post.

Also it is clear even to the most biased Christian that the Liberal's are manipulating the system to entrench their radically-conservative ideology on our kids. Psychology is an unbiased, non-ideological or non-religious way of assisting children through their school years.

Sniggid your post suggests your school had a holistic approach (and heaps of funding). It offers the option of psychology which is great. Your insight is appreciated.

However, what kind of experience informed you? Was your school a multi-denominational school? Was there Islamic kids enrolled? Were they mostly youngsters from the flannel-shirt brigade or were they all wealthy Christian families without any real stresses or experience in struggle town? Was your school public or private? There are all sorts of experiences in life and being a Principal gives you insight from a particular perspective in relation to your a specific situation. No doubt you have also read and formed opinions from other sources and your apparent religious leanings may have also informed your position. But experiences also inform my position.

Runner don't try and discredit other opinions with charges of bias and illogical thinking based on nothing more than your biased opinion. If you want to argue with posters Runner at least try to present some sort of logical argument rather than offering up empty assertions.

Sniggid I think chaplaincy in a Christian private school is their business. But in public school, I think the better way is to leave it to the parents and have qualified psychologists on hand.