Teachers Reassured On Religion In Schools

Press, Volume CI, Issue 30005, 14 December 1962, Page 14

Teachers Reassured On Religion In Schools

(From Our Parliamentary Reporter)

WELLINGTON, December 13.

Both the Minister of Education (Mr Tennent) and a former Attorney-General, Mr H. G. R. Mason (Opposition, Waitakere) discounted the fear of the Educational Institute that teachers might be victimised on the question of whether they took part in religious instruction in schools when they spoke tonight to the second reading of the Religious Instruction and Observances in Public Schools’ Bill.

Mr Tennent said that the purpose of the bill was to make legal what had been the practice in schools for the last 50 years, and to accede to the wishes of parents at a time when the sectarianism that was rife at the time of the Education Act, 1877, had almost disappeared. The bill placed beyond doubt the responsibilities of school committees for determining whether there should be religious instruction or observance and on the fixing of times for these. The Statutes Revision Committee had altered the bill so that children would take religious instruction unless parents notified headmasters to the contrary, he said. It had decided that the former proposal for parents to notify their consent to religious instruction would be impractical. An amendment he would move in the committee stage would ensure that no pressure would be brought to bear on a teacher to induce him to take part and that his opportunities for promotion would not be adversely affected because he did not take part. Only Opposition The clause freeing teachers from school duties to take religious instruction classes at a school committee’s request had been opposed by one church and by the Educational Institute, said Mr Tennent. The institute based its objection on the grounds of possible victimisation, but neither its president nor its secretary could tell of a case in the past, said Mr Tennent. “I am sure more teachers

will take part once this has been legalised.” The institute had not objected to instruction for children in secondary schools, but had objected to instruction for those of similar age in intermediate schools, he said.

Mr Tennent said he had doubts about this argument. Mr Mason said that the Nelson system of religious instruction hs-d been devised to use the existing law but developments of it had been irregular when instruction classes were held within the minimum school hours that were required to be continuous. The original system provided for instruction when the school was legally closed. “I agree that the Educational Institute makes a great deal of teachers being subject to pressure. But I doubt that there is any real substance in that reply. I think the danger is imagainary,” said Mr Mason. Trend to Unity

Mr T. T. Murray (Government, Stratford) said the bill had the approval of all major churches and he welcomed the approval of the Catholic Church, for this

showed the trend toward church unity. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Nash) said the school syllabus on religious instruction did not go into doctrines or dogmas, but kept to simple facts which were accepted by everyone. Religious instruction would give children a good foundation on which to build their lives and make them better citizens.

Mr J. G. Edwards (Opposition, Napier) said he would rather have his children taught religion by a genuine believer than by a “timeserver." The amendment did not really do away with the possibility of “forced volunteering.” “This is an important step forward and the Nelson system should be put on a firm, legal and unassailable basis,” said Mr D. J. Riddiford (Government, Wellington Central).

Mr Riddiford said that with the proposed amendment safeguarding teachers, there were no reasonable grounds for fears by those who did not wish to give instruction “It is much better for a teacher who does not believe in religion or who does not wish to give religious instruction to say that he does not wish to give it” The bill was given a second reading.