”I don’t see anything wrong with a special religious instruction that operates precisely on [the current] grounds. If we deny any place to religion in public education and wish to make it entirely [secular], we are actually basing it on a particular world view.”
Sound familiar? It should. It probably just looks unusual unaccompanied by any extended frothing about fundamentalist atheists, militant secularists, christophobes (or similar epithets) bent on destroying christianity itself. But other than that, it is the same tired, casuist misrepresentation that is framing the debate as one of absolute anti-theism vs. the decent christian world and not one of a protest against SRI and the NSCP being hijacked by incorrigible liars from various non-representative christian cults of the crusading, charismatic, snake-handling variety. This is the only real card the Access apologists have to play because the less that the average, census ticking Australian christian family knows about what folks like Access Ministries get up to in our schools, or what their “education” consists of, the better.
The problem with the above quote though is that it’s not from an actual (known) Access apologist/shill, but from Professor Barry McGaw who heads up the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) – who are ultimately responsible for the curricula in Australian schools from Kindergarten to Year 12.
For Professor McGaw to blurt out such a piece of disingenuous nonsense there are only two real possibilities –
- He is genuinely ignorant of the issues arising in the current debates that are raging in the public arena, or –
- Worse, he is aware of the issues and is knowingly adding his voice of authority to the Access FUD campaign and has an undisclosed vested interest in the matter
However, this is something that is impossible to gauge as McGaw has a squeaky clean public resume and web presence.
The above sentiment was expressed in an article in the SMH and Age newspapers about a week ago which I only got a chance to read with care a few days ago –
Curriculum head warns against axing religion
THE man in charge of Australia’s national curriculum insists there is no problem with the way religious instruction is taught in Victoria, and warns that any moves to axe religion classes could drive parents out of the public system and into private schools.
Professor McGaw, however, said there were no plans to develop a separate subject on religion.
Instead, he said, he was comfortable with the current model, known as SRI, or Special Religious Instruction.
Thus the irony, of course, is that it is McGaw himself, and not the wicked secularists, that is creating this unwanted dichotomy for religious studies to be either conducted the Access way or, the only other alternative, which he himself dismissed, of no religion at all. There’s really nothing positive to take away from the man at all, unless you are an active Access acolyte.
McGaw has made previous utterances that are even less comforting –
Australian Education Digest 4/3/2010 [165kb .pdf]
Professor McGaw [Chairman of the Australian Curriculum, Assessment & Reporting Authority] said it was not necessary to prohibit the teaching of creationism as science in the national curriculum.
“Our curriculum will not justify teaching creationism. It is not our intention that intelligent design or other [metaphysical] explanations of origins be taught as part of science.”
This was part of the same discussion reported in the SMH and Age –
Creationism could slip into science classes
Professor McGaw said it was not necessary to prohibit the teaching of creationism as science in the national curriculum.
”We are not writing prohibitions,” he said. ”Our curriculum will not justify teaching creationism.
”We are saying what is science. It is not our intention that intelligent design or other [metaphysical] explanations of origins be taught as part of science. Schools can teach them if they want, but not as part of science.”
June 7, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Professor McGaw sounds like a brainwashed fundi of the most alarming proportions. He should not be in such a position. How do you handle dissent? At least the church can’t burn heretics at the moment, though I heard the pope has reopened the machine of the inquisition which was only closed in 1965.
June 7, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Is he? This is the interesting question. If he is, he has concealed it remarkably well. If he isn’t, the only alternative is that he is an imbecile. I am dubious about that. There is also a 3rd alternative – he just simply doesn’t care and is charting a course of least resistance, watching the clock to get his tax subsidised pension. None of the above are even remotely acceptable for someone occupying his position.
The other question is – how has he avoided scrutiny thus far?
June 7, 2011 at 10:32 pm
McGaw “warns that any moves to axe religion classes could drive parents out of the public system and into private schools”.
His priority is to run the program from a business perspective. I think he may have referred to that with the word “sustainable” in a later excerpt.
Other than that, I think he does sound like a bit of an imbecile, certainly lacks any grounding in the basic elements of learning, teaching and indoctrination.
Franc, your link to the Stuchbery blog is very useful.
June 7, 2011 at 10:43 pm
J – that whole comment is FUD. No one is talking about axing religion altogether at the moment. The only priority is to make Access accountable for their deception and for the money that have drained from the public purse. Statements like these can only be a) ignorant entirely, or b) to deliberately made to distract and obfuscate. All McGaw has done is parrot precisely the kind of false propaganda sound bite Access apologists want everyone to assume as true. It is not – it is a blatant falsehood.
June 20, 2011 at 4:11 pm
[…] in other areas. Next it will be intelligent design in our science classes, already a possibility ACARA explicitly refuses to block. This is all on the same trail that leads to criminalising homosexuals and stripping women of their […]
August 14, 2011 at 10:57 pm
” if religious groups were allowed to establish schools, “it is appropriate to establish a school that will give them an expression of their faith” and to “commend the faith in those schools”.”
For sure. BUT NOT ON THE PUBLIC DIME.
Failing the basics, there, professor. Back to school with you.