School Chaplaincy

[askegg]

A certificate in the Old Testament or Christian Belief does not seem to be the best qualification to assist troubled chilled with bullying, depression, suicide, trauma, sexuality, grief, or the other difficulties Australian children face. In addition, personally held religious beliefs are irrelevant in a meritocracy.

[TASIN]

Originally Posted by Loki

The iniquity is not about qualifications, it is about preferring one group of applicants above another (to the extent of locking out other groups) independent of their ability to do the job (as poorly defined as that job may be).

The way the scheme is set out, it doesn't prefer one group over another; indeed it provides alternatives which do not include religious tests. My beef is that the government was giving the impression that it was moving away from religious qualifications to more "appropriate" ones. However, an optional religious test is still there and you can bet your life that most school chaplains will take this route. Other groups are not being locked out though.

[Blue Lightning]

Originally Posted by TASIN

The way the scheme is set out, it doesn't prefer one group over another; indeed it provides alternatives which do not include religious tests. My beef is that the government was giving the impression that it was moving away from religious qualifications to more "appropriate" ones. However, an optional religious test is still there and you can bet your life that most school chaplains will take this route. Other groups are not being locked out though.

IMO, stopping the chaplains is all about building a broader social/political momentum for change. Unfortunately, I think that we're still a long way away from getting there.

We need to encourage systematic, independent study of the effectiveness of this crazy scheme. At least that would provide some data to rebut the warm fuzzies of the PM and others who say they can judge that the programme is great by "listening to principals". And the ACL

It is possible, if a mood for change develops, and if there is proper data, that some future government might move to require both religious and non-religious people to have certain minimum qualifications, with the effect that there will be fewer chaplains, and maybe those that do get in there might do a little less harm.

None of this is to say that this scheme shouldn't be opposed on every level, including in Court. Such actions may impact in their own right, and they usually help build the mood for change.

[TASIN]

BL- What if the results of an independent study proved favourable to the employment of school chaplains?

[Annie]

Originally Posted by Blue Lightning

We need to encourage systematic, independent study of the effectiveness of this crazy scheme. At least that would provide some data to rebut the warm fuzzies of the PM and others who say they can judge that the programme is great by "listening to principals". And the ACL

Agreed. The principal at my school is happy to have a new chaplain because, in his words, "we humans are all spiritual beings". FFS. The problem is in identifying the data that is needed to measure something that no one seems capable of defining. Until we can get our hands on a concrete job description of chaplains which lists real skills and understandings which highlights that the skills needed to
do what they do can be realistically found in the wider community we've got nothing. If we could get Access Ministries and Scripture Union to be more specific in their Chaplain job descriptions we may have something to work with.

[TASIN]

Originally Posted by Annie

Agreed. The principal at my school is happy to have a new chaplain because, in his words, "we humans are all spiritual beings". FFS. The problem is in identifying the data that is needed to measure something that no one seems capable of defining. Until we can get our hands on a concrete job description of chaplains which lists real skills and understandings which highlights that the skills needed to
do what they do can be realistically found in the wider community we've got nothing. If we could get Access Ministries and Scripture Union to be more specific in their Chaplain job descriptions we may have something to work with.

Sums the problem up very nicely.

[ptah]

Here's some of the things in the guidelines that I find bemusing.

Section 2.6 Apparently the provider has to be listed in the Australian Standard Classification Of Religious Groups. So that would seem to include paganism, witchcraft, and satanism. See http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/subsc...07.2011&Latest

Section 3.1 Chaplains "can become involved in ... health ... education". I presume this doesn't require appropriate qualifications in public health or medicine?

Also, chaplains must "deliver services in a way that respects the ... the stated views of parents/guardians". Since this is an opt-out system they must have carte blanche.

Section 3.1.2. Chaplains must not "put students in a position of feeling manipulated or intruded upon by intense persuasive conversation." Okay, but kids are susceptible. Note that they are explicitly allowed to run breakfast clubs (whatever they are).

Section 3.1.1. The risk management requirements for School Principals includes the risks "complaints received" and "minority opposition". This seems to be code for: be prepared for flack from those who object and who are explicitly stated to be in the minority. However, they don't list as a risk the possibility of psychological damage to kids.

Section 5.1. I don't follow the logic here:
"Participation in the Program is voluntary and school communities will have supported successful applications. School communities will have also determined the role and the choice of school chaplain/student welfare worker. Therefore general school chaplain/student welfare worker interaction within the school does not require mandatory opt-in arrangements."

Section 5.6.3 "A Funding Recipient ... is required to have...
•• public liability insurance for an amount not less than $10 million per claim
•• professional indemnity insurance"
This would seem to limit the providers to organized groups and professionals. Would such insurance would cover professional incompetence? Not sure what incompetance means for chaplains, though. Wouldn't cover a class action at some future stage?

Section 5.6.4 Apparently a "lack of continuity in supporting students" might result in "potential harm and distress to students". Golly.

Glossary. The definition of "Chaplaincy/Student welfare services" are confounded. I would have thought these should be distinguished? They give a separate definition for "counselling" but "Wellbeing services" seems to lump everything together.

I don't understand the disclaimer on page 50, unless "herein" should be "therein"?

Attachment E suggests establishing a support committee, presumably to deal with the pesky minority opposition! Even though the section deals with community consultation it doesn't actually describe this, if anything, it talks of communicating plans to the community; not the same thing as listening.

Attachment H: consent forms need "references to alternate strategies/activities for students if parents/guardians choose to opt-out". But what are the alternatives? It also seems to indicate that the consent form only needs to describe the qualification of the provider for professional services, not just for chaplaincy. That's a little odd.

[Annie]

Exactly Ptah. This type of word salad is the problem. It doesn't actually say what they do and as such can't be used to hold them accountable. They really need to be pressed for more specifics with regard to their job description.

[DanDare]

Originally Posted by Annie

Exactly Ptah. This type of word salad is the problem. It doesn't actually say what they do and as such can't be used to hold them accountable. They really need to be pressed for more specifics with regard to their job description.

Not to mention the fact that they are not generally monitored anyway, so even with more detail they would be hard to pull to account without parents willing to run the full gauntlet arrayed against them.

[bill9786]

Below is the reply from the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program complaints committee - I have anonymised the names and removed irrelevant blather. But it leaves me wondering if any complaints are upheld?



I am writing in response to your complaint submission form dated Monday 30th July 2012 . Within your correspondence you noted concerns in regards to xxxxxx Secondary School listing on the school website that the chaplains, CD and LF offered “confidential counselling with students, families and staff”.

We undertook to investigate this matter on your behalf and spoke to Access Ministries, the Funding Recipient of the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program for this school who have spoken with the Principal of xxxxx Secondary School.

Based on the information provided, we have determined that there is no evidence of counselling by the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program funded chaplain in xxxxx Secondary School. Although only one chaplain is funded under the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program, both chaplains are very clear in their understanding of the role.


The school website was outsourced to a third party for remodelling and rewording and it was unfortunate that the contents of the “wellbeing” page was not reviewed by either chaplain before the website was made public. As a result we have asked the school to alter the website so that the word “counselling” is removed and replaced with “confidential meetings”.

I would like to assure you that we take complaints such as this very seriously. Where breaches to the code of conduct or service provision requirements are proven, we take the appropriate actions as per our guidelines and signed agreements. In accordance with the NSCP Guidelines (Section 7.3), if you are dissatisfied with any aspect of the administration of the NSCP Program, including the outcome of a complaint investigated by the Department, you may raise your concerns with the Commonwealth Ombudsman (Address: GPO Box 442, CANBERRA ACT 2601, Phone: 1300 362 072, email: ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.au). Thank you for bringing your concerns to the Department’s attention.

If you wish to discuss the outcome of your complaint, please contact the NSCSWP complaints officer Sue Hall on (08) 8306 8734. Yours sincerely Kind regards,
National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program