A Perennial Controversy? Religious Instruction in New Zealand State Primary Schools Gregory Lee and Howard Lee
Regular readers of newspapers, academic education in religious instruction or not. This principle was founded on journals, and professional education magazines will recall having an older precedent – one stemming from the introduction of seen and engaged with several articles published this year on a Governor George Grey’s Education Ordinance of 1847. wide range of education and/or schooling matters. One of the Because the Education Act of 1877 had stated that school more controversial topics to have been allocated space in these buildings could be “[used] on days and at hours other than publications – alongside sustained debate over the National those used for public school purposes”, provided that permission Government’s Christchurch education renewal strategy and was granted by school committee members, activities that the Government’s advocacy of ‘modern learning environments’ were unrelated to a school’s secular curriculum could then be or ‘open learning spaces’ – concerns conducted on site. Not surprisingly, the perceived merits or otherwise The result was that opportunities for delivering religious of providing religious instruction in instruction existed without pupils religious instruction state primary schools. needing to leave a school’s premises. We maintain that these press could be provided This provision thus prevented school contributions are not at all surprising, committee members from sanctioning given the historical reality that legally, either before a state the delivery of any kind of religious the Grey Government’s decision instruction during the prescribed in 1877 (effective from January 1, primary school was declared school hours. 1878) to exclude any denominational open or after that school was A committee whose members chose C h r ist i an te a ch i ng f rom t he to ignore this clause was subject to nationally prescribed, compulsory, closed for the day. legal penalties for breaching both the primary school curriculum has been spirit and the espoused principles of discussed, debated, and interrogated regularly over the past the 1877 statute. Given that current, twenty-first century, school 140 years in many communities. A caution will be added at this legislation has not removed this requirement, it is reasonable to point, however, that opinions expressed in newspaper articles – argue that members of any primary school board of trustees (the individually and collectively – should not be taken as indicative successor to school committees from October 1, 1988), can not necessarily of a dominant or overarching perspective held by a claim reasonably any defense based on ignorance of this facet wide section of a given community or across a particular society. of contemporary legislation. These contributions historically have included consideration of Under the 1877 Education Act, therefore, legislators had ‘the McKenzie system’ (named after a nineteenth century Nelson- made it abundantly clear that the core curriculum to be based minister of religion, the Reverend James McKenzie), where delivered in the state’s primary schools must not include any a clever interpretation was applied from the late nineteenth religious component. In other words, the provision of state century to a particular section of the 1877 Education Act monies depended on the curriculum for such schools being concerning schooling hours and the content and scope of the entirely free from any denominational content and orientation. non-denominational school curriculum. The result was that Private school authorities, by comparison, were able to offer religious instruction could be provided legally, either before a religious instruction of a strictly denominational kind because state primary school was declared open or after that school was it was not intended in 1877 that they receive any state funding closed for the day. directly. As readers will appreciate, this provision satisfied these This practice was not illegal, for the reason that under authorities at one level because their ability to deliver religious McKenzie’s system religious instruction was not to be delivered instruction openly and formally had not been – and could not when a school was ‘formally in session’ – that is, during be – undermined by any agent of the state. the prescribed four hours of schooling each day when “the Dissatisfaction was evident from 1878 regarding the continuing teaching shall be entirely of a secular character.” Whenever absence of any state funding provision for these authorities denominational instruction was being imparted, moreover, it whenever they encountered financial hardship. (It was a was not mandatory for parents or guardians to have their sons controversy that lingered until at least 1976, arguably beyond, and/or daughters participate. To put the point another way a with the introduction of the 1975 Private Schools Conditional ‘conscience provision’ operated so that parents or guardians could Integration Act.) It is important to note that prior to the choose whether a primary school-age child would participate introduction of the 1877 Education Act private school authorities
had received some government monies – “grants in aid”, for practical purposes – in return for having provided schooling opportunities from the early nineteenth century in an era where no government was prepared to intervene formally in any elementary or primary schooling provision. Church authorities, therefore, were the first providers of schooling facilities and of teaching staff, notably throughout the missionary and Crown Colony eras. One issue that has provoked some discussion concerns whether or not a parent or a guardian should have to write to a primary school authority in order to request that a child not receive religious instruction. We contend that it is preferable always for a parent or guardian to have to opt a child into religious instruction as opposed to being required to inform school personnel that a son or daughter is not to participate in such instruction (i.e., to act, in order to opt a child out). The latter option has been termed ‘contracting out’ and was adopted under the Religious Instruction and Observances in Public Schools Act of 1962. That piece of legislation immediately attracted controversy, chiefly because it was at odds with the 1962 Currie Commission’s recommendation issued a few months earlier that ‘contracting in’ ought to be the only practice permissible. Nevertheless, the ‘opt in’ arrangement is now well established in our contemporary state primary schools as a consequence largely of the abandonment of the 1962 statute’s often criticised contracting out requirement following the introduction of the Education Act of 1964. It should be remembered, too, that provision has to be made by a primary school board of trustees for children whose guardians or parents do not wish them to receive any religious instruction at school. For practical purposes it is highly likely that teachers will be operating in a loco parentis capacity in such a situation – exercising a duty of care for boys and/or girls during the time when religious instruction is being delivered to other children. Removal of boys and girls from this instruction has to be handled skillfully, we suggest, in order to avoid any allegation that these children may feel discriminated against on account of being separated from their peers at school. Much will depend on what is put in place at schools to cater explicitly for those children whose parents have chosen not to contract their children into formal religious instruction. Failure to treat this aspect seriously may led to the 1990 Bill of Rights Act being invoked by parents and/or guardians on a child’s behalf. (At the time of writing the Human Rights Review Tribunal is considering an application from the national Secular Education Network, to consider an allegation of “religious bias” and to examine claims that children have been bullied because their parents have objected to them receiving religious instruction.) We envisage that members of state primary school boards of trustees will be alert especially to any possible accusation that they have not given due weight to legal requirements concerning the delivery – and non delivery – of religious instruction on
MAGAZINE
visit www.nzprincipal.co.nz
premises under their governorship. The same caution extends to Ministry of Education officials, we believe. We should note also that the 1877 Education Act was introduced in an era and within a context where ‘religion’ was seen largely within a Christian framework. In twenty-first century Aotearoa/New Zealand society, however, it is difficult if not unwise to ignore the reality that many different religions are being practiced both nationally and overseas. Accordingly, we wish to ask whether or not the time has arrived for the scope of what has constituted ‘religious instruction’ to be broadened – for those primary school children whose parents request it explicitly. This instruction could be imparted through a world religions or comparative religions framework, one that should transcend but not marginalise Christian denominations. Our question does (and would) not affect the long established secular primary schooling provision in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Rather, it may be worthwhile ascertaining the level of support for non-Christian religious instruction to have some, or more, space – voluntarily – in primary schools. We anticipate that many issues will arise relating to who could (and who may not) be authorised to deliver such instruction, who should be able to determine a programme of study, and what level and type of input should representatives of different religious affiliations have. These issues, we acknowledge readily, are unlikely to be resolved easily and unproblematically, but it is possible that encouraging broad community and public discussion may be helpful in an era where a wide(r) range of religions are attracting an increasing number of adherents because of the greater level of migration of non-Christian people to this country. The content of these religions, and the philosophy and values that underpin them, will be largely unfamiliar to many New Zealanders. In wishing to see discussions concerning the merits or otherwise of broadening what constitutes ‘religious instruction’ we are not proposing that the long-held separation between churches and the state be re-litigated or abandoned. Instead, we believe that it is timely to ascertain the extent to which New Zealanders wish to adhere predominantly, or exclusively, to instruction based on Christian religions as opposed to a clear preference for other religious instruction to be delivered in the nation’s state primary schools. Such an exercise might well stimulate debate about key differences between religious education and religious instruction. In our increasingly diverse and pluralistic society there ought to be much of value educationally to be gained from encouraging these discussions. About the Author Dr Gregory Lee is an Adjunct Professor of Education History and Policy at The University of Canterbury. Dr Howard Lee is Professor of Education Policy and Leadership at Massey University’s Palmerston North campus.
You can now access the current and past issues of NZ Principal magazine online You can search by magazine issue, article name or author
OSCAR
PROGRAMME
SUBSIDIES
AVAILABLE! *Conditions apply
BEFORE-SCHOOL CARE AFTER-SCHOOL CARE HOLIDAY PROGRAMMES
Affiliated with
PROGRAMMES, OPPORTUNITIES & ACTIVITIES THAT KIDS JUST LOVE!
DOES YOUR SCHOOL NEED A CHANGE IN IT’S AFTER-SCHOOL CARE PROVIDER? Kelly Club programmes are fun, engaging and a place that children love attending.
Our School revenue-share model Our Kelly Club model involves us becoming a partner with our schools, not just a hall renter. 0800 GO KELLY Thisjoin.kellyclub.co.nz will ensure the school’s financial return increases as the programme grows.
Partnering with over 45 NZ Schools
“ Having really good, trusted beforeand after-school care is what Kelly Club provides us… Kelly Club makes the complex, simple.”
Sarah Martin, Principal, Stonefields School
GET IN TOUCH Daniel Gerrard 021 409 628 0800 GO KELLY danielgerrard@kellyclub.co.nz join.kellyclub.co.nz
At Woods, we believe that education is of the utmost importance – not just for the children of today but for our world tomorrow. This belief has driven our team, for over half a century, to study how children learn – from a behavioral, ergonomic and cognitive perspective – to develop furniture that is flexible, adaptable and stimulating. It’s this philosophy that inspired our ergo-dynamic PantoFlex chair. Designed by one of the world’s greatest furniture designers, Verner Panton, the PantoFlex chair promotes correct posture, improves blood and oxygen circulation, assists the developing musculo-skeletal system and most importantly contributes to an increased attention span. And that’s only half the story. To find out more about our innovative range of educational furniture visit woodsfurniturenz.co.nz or call 0800 196 637. We’re for flexible learning