Submission to the Department of Education

1. The South African Council of Churches applauds the Minister of Education's effort to consult a broad range of stakeholders concerning the Department's draft Religion and Education policy. We welcome the revisions made in the current draft. In particular, we appreciate the tone of the present document, which is much more consistent with the co-operative model of church-state relations endorsed in the policy. The new policy document also benefits from an explicit definition of its scope of application (paragraphs 15 and 16).



2. The revised policy responds to many of the concerns that we raised in our submission of 22 April 2003. We are pleased by the much clearer recognition of the vital contribution that religion can make in promoting ethical maturity, moral regeneration and responsible citizenship (see, especially, paragraphs 7 and 20-22).



3. We concur with the policy's assertion that: "Public institutions have a responsibility to teach about religion and religions in ways that reflect a profound appreciation of spirituality, but which are different from the religious education, religious instruction, or religious nurture provided by the home, family, and religious community" (paragraph 8). The new draft articulates much more sensitively the need to strike a balance between different dimensions of religious freedom: the freedom to hold and exercise one's religious beliefs and the freedom from religious coercion (even the often inintended coercion exerted by the cultural dominance of a particular religion).



4. We find especially useful the distinction made between religion education, religious instruction and religious observance. This helps to validate the relevance of religious principles and spirituality to the development and education of learners by stipulating clearly the type of material and activities that are appropriate to different aspects of school life. We agree that religious instruction (defined as "instruction in a particular faith or belief with a view to the inculcation of adherence to that faith or belief"), as distinct from religion education, should not form part of the formal curriculum in public schools. At the same time we welcome the policy's encouragement of "the provision of religious instruction by religious bodies outside the formal school curriculum on school premises" provided this is not done in a way that infringes the rights of others.



5. We are similarly pleased by the revised policy's more flexible attitude to religious observances within the school community: "Religious observances for teachers and pupils may be held at any time determined by the school, and may be part of a school assembly. However an assembly is not necessarily to be seen as the only occasion for religious observance, which may take place at other times of the day. Where a religious observance is organised, as an integral part of the school day, it should acknowledge and reflect the multi-religious nature of South African society in an appropriate manner" (paragraph 60). We believe that this provides adequate scope for acknowledgement of the importance of spirituality in learners' lives.



6. We welcome the revised policy's greater openness to the involvement of clergy and other religious workers in the teaching of Religion Education. Many religious workers are also trained educators; the revised policy recognises this and permits them to teach Religion Education. In addition, provision is made for other religious workers to have a role in Religion Education as guest lecturers.



7. We are slightly concerned however that paragraph 34 gives that impression that such co-operation should be limited to "poorly resourced schools". Whilst we agree that religious bodies should make a special effort to resource poorer or remote schools, we believe that more affluent urban schools should also have access to guest facilitators. We therefore suggest that the final sentence of paragraph 34 be revised to read: "Religious organisations are therefore encouraged to explore ways in which schools, especially those that are poorly resourced or located in remote areas, could also have access to such guest facilitators."



8. The revised document fails to address the concern we raised with regard to the didactic model that informs Religion Education. We expressed reservations about the use of a model that encourages learners to approach religion through its outward symbols and manifestations, especially in the foundational stages of learning. This is, at best, a risky way of cultivating in learners a tolerance for religious differences. More importantly, a didactic model that fails to engage the content of the moral and belief systems central to religion is likely to contribute little to learners' moral development and sense of civic responsibility.



9. We accept, however, that this is an issue that is more appropriately engaged in the context of Curriculum 2005, rather than in the context of the current policy document. We support the involvement of the Standing Advisory Committee for Religion in Education in the selection of appropriate curriculum materials (paragraph 47) and we believe that this may go some way towards addressing our concerns. However, we would also suggest that the Religion and Education policy document refrain from endorsing any particular didactic model. Consequently, we would propose the deletion of the final sentence of paragraph 50 and all of paragraphs 51 and 52. Furthermore, we would urge the Minister of Education to identify an appropriate forum in which religious institutions could work with Department officials to seek consensus on the didactic model that can enable Curriculum 2005 to realise effectively the multiple objectives set out in the Religion and Education policy.