Religion in New Zealand's State Primary Schools

Abstract

Around 42 per cent of state primary schools provide ‘Bible in Schools’ (BiS) classes in New Zealand under the ‘Nelson system’ of voluntary religious instruction. Parents may opt their children out, but in practice most do not. By contrast, the New Zealand Curriculum 2007 recognises cultural diversity but makes little provision for education about diverse religions and worldviews at the primary or secondary level, and educationalists advocate the development of tolerance in preference to conceptual understanding of religion. This paper draws on interviews with school principals, teachers, parents, BiS volunteers and other key stakeholders. Adopting a Foucaultian discourse analysis and critical realist epistemology I identify material and discursive constraints embedded in current religious instruction practices that undermine government and state school accountability regarding BiS programmes, along with changes that would better serve New Zealand’s commitment to respecting diversity. Against the promotion of Christian religious instruction and uninformed tolerance within the curriculum, I assert the need for a review of BiS programmes and for the introduction of education about diverse religions and worldviews in New Zealand schools.

Keywords:

• Religious Education
• Religious Instruction
• Discourse Analysis
• New Zealand Education
• Secularism
• Critical Realism

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Anna Halafoff for her editorial assistance in preparing this paper for publication.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

[1] The HRC make this distinction (see, HRC and Morris 2009: 4). I also use the word confessional in this paper to refer to teaching that endorses and promotes a particular worldview.

[2] This figure is down from 61 per cent recorded in the Biblos report (Baker et al. 2006) and continues to fall.

[3] Unspecified beliefs are mentioned in the Health and Physical Education Achievement Objectives at levels 3 and 6 and in Objectives for Social Sciences at levels 7 and 8. Integrated church schools teach religious instruction according to the schools’ special character and many include teaching about other religions in Year 12.

[4] Based on census data from 2006 and Ministry of Education data on school ethnicity. The Ministry does not collect data on religious affiliation in schools.

[5] The wording is changed in 1983 to allow up to an hour a week but no more than 20 hours a year, and again in 1989 to read ‘Principals’ and ‘school boards’ rather than ‘Head Teacher’ and ‘School Committee’.

[6] Later guidelines add ‘after consultation with the principal and after acquainting itself with the view of parents and the community’ (Gilchrist 1987: 1).

[7] The Johnson Report of 1977 recommended the introduction of a non-sectarian spiritual dimension and comparative religion within the curriculum but this did not obtain ministerial approval: (DOE 1977: 35–37). A 1987 curriculum review saw no reason to change the status quo (DOE 1987: 13). In an interview Paul Morris described his attempt to persuade the Ministry of the need to include religion in the curriculum, in 2006, as ‘a most fruitless meeting’. The same year an attempt was made, from within the Ministry, to change the current opt-out mechanism to opting-in to religious instruction (Connelly 2006). Lobbying from both the churches and school principals prevented this amendment (ACNS 2006, NZPA 2006).

[8] Jocelyn Armstrong (2009), an educationalist from the private sector, recently published New Zealand’s first teaching resource on this subject, for lower secondary pupils.

[9] Some volunteers are retired or serving teachers. Lessons observed were confessional in approach and included Bible stories, prayers and Christian choruses such as ‘Jesus loves me, this I know’. Christian Religious Education (CRE) resources used by the majority of schools running BiS classes in New Zealand are published in Melbourne, Australia by Access Ministries (Epworth 2014).

[10] A group founded by the NZARH in 2012 to ‘Keep Religion out of Schools’ (SEN 2013). Group members are positioned within a range of discourses and some support religions education in principle.

[11] Connect resources are published in Sydney, Australia (CEP 2014). Connect resources are no longer listed as approved materials by CEC, however, Wanganui Council for Christian Education continues to use the resources (Stowell 2013). A review of religious instruction materials used in New Zealand schools was undertaken in 2012 by David Hines (2014), a member of the SEN.

[12] CEC (2014b) publications state that the purpose of these lessons is to educate and not to evangelise. However, the resources in use do not support this intention. For a comprehensive review of the CRE programme, known as Religion in Life in Australia, see Maddox 2013. See also Maddox 2014, Chapter 5.

[13] The CEC (2014a, 2014b) has recently produced guidelines on parental consultation, but these reproduce an assumption that the materials used are appropriate for all children in state schools, and no criteria for assessing CEC materials are supplied with guidelines for Boards.

[14] The CEC website and promotional literature state that the curriculum is ‘educationally sound’ and that ‘The Principal and the Board approve the teachers and the teaching material’ (CEC 2013).

[15] Research undertaken by Alison Mawhinney et al. (2010) on religious instruction in Ireland indicates that the opt-out provision does not protect children from religious coercion or discrimination.

[16] The discourses have been identified both deductively and inductively. Rex Ahdar’s (2003) discussion of attitudes towards Maori spirituality offered a foundational typology. However, my own data analysis necessitated a redefinition and expansion of Ahdar’s original types into a broader range of discourses at work. A summary of these discourses is supplied in the Appendix. Following James Gee (2012: 165–166), I distinguish between two levels of discourse. Primary discourses – the broad worldviews within which positions on religion in school are commonly framed – are outlined in Table A1. A range of secondary, educational discourses are described in Table A2.

[17] See for example educationalists and defenders of secular education Colin McGeorge and Snook (1981: 36–40). This perspective does not represent the views of NZRH or the SEN (see Note 10).

[18] Legislation has never precluded teaching about religion within the curriculum. This distinction was made very clear by the Currie Commission (1962: 687). It is a discursive rather than a material constraint that is in operation.

[19] This trend is seen in England and Wales (QCA 2004), Scotland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Germany, Canada (MELS 2008) and South Africa. Since 9/11 the USA (AAR and Moore 2010) and France (Williame 2007) have also sought to include religions within the curriculum. The adoption of such guidelines is by no means unproblematic or uncontested (see Loobuyck and Franken 2011).

[20] Changes in immigration policy from 1987 have opened up New Zealand to immigrants from Asia, the Middle East, Africa and the Pacific islands. The 2013 census indicates that almost one quarter (24 per cent) of the general population was born overseas. In Auckland the figure is 36 per cent and in Southland just fewer than 10 per cent. While the combined number of those born in Asia, Middle East or Africa represents almost 10 per cent of the general population, in Auckland the figure is just under 18 per cent and in Southland, just over 3 per cent. 33 per cent of the entire New Zealand population lives in the Auckland region (SNZ 2013).

[21] Te reo and tikanga Maori translate loosely as the language and the culture, respectively. Kapa haka groups teach children songs, chants warrior dances and rituals. Karakia are prayers conducted in the Maori language. They may be Christian or draw on more traditional Maori theology, and practice varies in state schools.