Re the comment piece “Schools must be upfront on subject of ethics” (Opinion, March 15).
Michael Kirby is right to say that removing the option for ethics classes from the school enrolment form in 2015 was a serious backward step.
Kirby is an international jurist and educator and was a judge of the High Court from 1996 to 2009.
He is accustomed to seeking a resolution of competing interests, and now makes a contribution to the continuing debate about religious education in public schools.
There was opposition to the trial of ethics classes in 2010, with erroneous claims that ethics is not a synonym for morals.
The Baird government removed the ethics option from school enrolment forms in 2015, while denying the move was designed to gain Rev Fred Nile’s vote for power privatisation.
As Michael Kirby wrote, if a child is to attend a religious class it should be a product of well informed choice, not by default.
Separation of church and state is appropriate for our multi-faith secular society, and some churches are concerned that religious instruction may be removed from public schools.
Their cause is not helped by school enrolment forms failing to provide parents with a clear choice of options. We live in a democratic society and parents have the primary responsibility for the upbringing of their children.
Parents should have readily available information on all options, and any attempt to withhold details of the full range of choices would be unethical.
James Moore, Kingsgrove
Former High Court justice Michael Kirby is clearly targeting the wrong issue.
The focus of his attack is on Christian scripture lessons in public schools but makes no reference to the radicalising impact that Islam is having within those same schools. It is apparent from recent media reports that adherence to Islam within schools is often garnered by coercion and bullying.
The lessons of Punchbowl High and Punchbowl Public, amongst other schools, must be learnt.
Mr Kirby specifically refers to both churches and temples but deliberately does not mention mosques.
Perhaps, like other social commentators his is afraid to voice his real concerns due to the possibility of reprisal.
Graeme Watson, Sandringham
Former Justice Michael Kirby appears to be misinformed on Special Religious Education and Special Education in Ethics. Here are the facts.
SEE is not available in at least 1600 of the state’s 2100 public schools. It’s not available in any high schools. That’s just one key reason why it is not offered on the K-12 enrolment form as a choice to parents. Offering something that is probably not available is not good policy. As such, it is always well publicised and offered when available at a local school.
To suggest that SRE is compulsory is nonsense and disingenuous. Parent choice is the number 1 priority and families are presented continuously, with all of the SRE and SEE options at a local level, something that cannot be achieved on a state-wide K-12 enrolment form. Moving in and out of classes is a simple and quick process.
SRE providers do not regard SEE as the enemy or a threat. SEE teachers are good people offering a valid and valuable alternative to Scripture in a small but, hopefully, growing number of schools. SRE is not compulsory, nor is SEE.
SRE should be celebrated, not denigrated by a self-appointed media or academic elite, who are orchestrating a narrow, mischievous narrative.
It may have been alright to impose your opinion in the High Court, but, in the court of public ‘opinion’ His Honour’s voice is not the law!
Greg Briscoe-Hough, Mortdale
