Time for decision on Johnson Report.

Press, 31 March 1980, Page 20

Time for decision on Johnson Report.

By

OLIVER RIDDELL

———; —~—~~"—XT Comment from the Capital

. The Johnson Report on the human, social and values education of children — have the years of passionate and often bitter debate on it simply been an exercise in political cynicism? This question is being asked (privately so far) by some of those who have been closely associated with the continuing row over the last four years. The Johnson Report (entitled “Growing, Sharing, Learning”) recommended that the Education Department implement courses in human development and human relationships. This followed-the vast and detailed submissions from hundreds' of different sources to the Johnson Committee on Health and Social Education, set up in 1975. Publication of the Johnson Report in 1977 aroused strong opposition to some of its recommendations. The ' report recommended courses which would form an integrated curriculum covering drug, sex, and values education for children at both

primary and secondary schools.

The report also recommended that the Government take urgent action to allow the courses to be taught by removing from the health syllabus this statement — "There is no place in the primary school for group or class instruction in sex education.”

Widespread disquiet and outrage followed publication of the report. So deep were the emotions aroused that the Government called for public submissions’, promising that these would be considered before any steps were taken to implement the proposals within the report. Considerably more than 1000 submissions were made, ranging' from individuals to organisations covering all shades of opinion within education and morality. These were given to a private Wellington firm —- Link Consultants Ltd — to collate, analyse, and report back to the Department of Education. ■ ' ■ ■

This analysis and report

by Link has now been in the hands of the Minister cf Education (Mr Wellington) for nearly three months. He has declined to publish it on the grounds that would only stir up the debate again when it was time for action and not words. He has said, a Government decision is imminent and might even go to the next Cabinet meeting today. Mr Wellington’s actions have not been dictated by any inadequacies' in the consultants’ report. He has given an assurance that his recommendations to the Cabinet would follow the weight of the submissions. This rebuts criticism of him made by the Opposition spokesman on education (Mr C. R. Marshall) who said it was tempting to conclude that the. submissions when analysed had revealed attitudes towards the Johnson Report which differed from

those of the Minister and some of his more conservative colleagues. Further, Mr Wellington has indicated that a summary of the consultants’ report will probably be made public once the Cabinet decision on the Johnson report has been made. ? . : There has been wellfounded speculation that the Cabinet, on the advice of Mr Wellington and his senior departmental advisers, will reject many of the highly contentious Johnson Report proposals on health and social education. The . weight of comment at the time the Johnson report was published in 1977 was opposed to its proposals, and the submissions analysed by the consultants presumably reflected that weight of opinion.

But even liberal participants in the debate are starting to have second thoughts about the Johnson

Report proposals. Their argument is that even if certain courses of action in education are desirable, is it right that these should have the element of compulsion about them the Johnson Report recommendations gave? Second thoughts suggest that good ends do not justify the means the Johnson report recommended. This suggests the Minister may be wrong when he pleas a wish not to stir up the debate again as his reason for not publishing the consultants’ role in social and human education.

Does he think a powerful and vocal body of opinion in the community disagrees? If he does, then he may have misjudged shifts in opinion.

But even that does not explain why the consultants’ report will not be published. In 1977, the Johnson Report was the subject of enormous public interest. To harness this interest, the

Government gave the public <• | the chance to comment on ’ ■ the report. The Government ’ then asked . the public to wait while it had this com- * ment analysed. . - ■ All this sequence of - events suggests a Govern- '; ment acknowledgement thatthe subject and recommend-.-ations of the Johnson Report ' were matters of wide public , interest in which the public * had a right to active and, personal “ involvement. Has the situation changed? Are * the matters no longer of i wide public interest, and - does the public no longer > have a right to active and personal involvement? The public has been asked ’ to run in this race for all its « long, tortuous, distance and now that the end is in sight ’ it is being denied a chance • to finish the race. Public de- *•- bate on the moral, social . and religious education of» primary and secondary ' school children must now *. take place in a vacuum, because the contending parties do not know what the other parties have said. Publishing 7 the consultants’ report * would enable this healthy (if » passionate and bitter) debate to continue. 1