While principals have to satisfy a diverse community, it also needs to be pointed out that in exercising this kind of administrative diplomacy, some parties claim more than is their due, and educational leaders have to be very careful not to lose sight of their duties as educators, rather than end up facilitating the interests of outside anti-educational, pro-segregation businesses like ACCESS Ministries. Take for example Greensborough Primary. With an approximately 25% SRI opt-in rate under the MD141 consent system, it would seem a prime candidate for discontinuing SRI, for the benefit of all students’ education and social inclusion. Not so. This school has instead done their utmost to keep SRI, to the extent of using the valuable time of the Principal and Assistant Principal to supervise SRI classes. This is extraordinary. Perhaps its because MD141 makes Principals personally responsible for the content and conduct of SRI classes. So on a weekly basis, while a professionally unqualified volunteer loosely representing an outside contractor delivers non-DEECD-approved material to students and stops the rest of the school from teaching its students, Greensboroughs Principal and Assistant Principal also have their normal, considerable duties interrupted by the charade. In an interesting interpretation of the “normal class organisation” rule, SRI kids in Prep will be combined with Year 1/2 to make up the numbers, and SRI will continue to disrupt Years 3/4 and 5/6. SRI classes will take place in the library and staffroom. The Prep/1/2 arrangement makes us wonder if MD141’s stipulation of “normal class organisation” for SRI is so flexible as to be meaningless. Greensborough PS’ July 31 newsletter states: “Greensborough Primary has a long history of being inclusive and respecting all members of our community and I am confident that the above arrangements will minimise disruptions to class programs and respond to the wishes of our school community.” SRI in State schools is not inclusive. It takes a razor to children’s classroom unity and sense of community, and slices them apart from Prep onwards. Schools with a long history of SRI may be inclusive in other ways, but religious segregation in what is supposed to be a secular environment goes flatly against prescribed values for schools. It is an appalling lesson for a school to not only sanction, but to repeatedly inflict on its children, week after week, year after year. You can respect *all* members of your school community by discontinuing SRI. You do not respect them by offering it. Not offering SRI does not disrespect parents who want a religious upbringing for their children, because they can do it at home, at a place of worship or anywhere else outside a Government school. They will not suffer from SRIs lack. Offering SRI directly disrespects everyone else, not only because a State institution is being used to further a particular religion, but also because children are being divided, and families are being told that their time and their children are not important. It’s illogical to write about minimising disruptions to class programs, when the regulations state that you cannot continue to offer core curriculum while SRI is in progress. Let’s restate that: what can you think of that is more disruptive than stopping the main business of a school from occurring, for the gratification of outsiders who don’t contribute educationally to the school and who suck up the school’s resources and teaching opportunities while they are there? Greensborough Primary’s newsletter also states: “Students who do not attend SRI will continue to complete activities in class that consolidate their learning.” This is boilerplate euphemism for “may not be taught core curriculum because of SRI”, in this case even though 75% of children aren’t doing SRI. Do the wishes of the school community include having their children religiously segregated and not taught core curriculum for up to 20 hours per year?
Posted on: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 02:27:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015