NZSTA refuses to answer questions on Religious Instruction

Given that it is a school’s Board of Trustees that decide whether or not to allow religious instruction classes into a school, I thought that it was a good idea to ask the NZ School Trustees Association (NZSTA) about their stance on the issue. I sent them the following email…

Note that this article has been updated to include later correspondence with Michael Wiles.

From: Dave Smyth
Date: Wed, Feb 15, 2017
To: govadvice@nzsta.org.nz

Hi there,

I have a couple of questions regarding religious instruction in state primary schools.

I have made complaints to my local school about their promotion of Christian religious instruction at the school. The last community survey carried out in 2014 showed that only 10 families (around 6% of the school community) wanted religious instruction out of 24 respondents. Ultimately, the board who mostly support the classes, makes the decisions and it was continued regardless of low support. In 2016, I complained to the board about the RI classes but most of the points I raised were ignored and quite frankly, their own religious biases prevailed.

Given that the Ministry of Education legal team have already stated in a 2001 document (see bottom of page 3 in document attached) that religious instruction classes have “no defence” against a claim of direct discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1993, I would like to know what the stance is of the NZSTA regarding these classes?
Also, the issue of opt-in or opt-out is really irrelevant given the preferential treatment of Christian religious instruction classes that is specifically there to indoctrinate children in Christian faith. Why should any religious group be given access to a captive audience of primary school children within school hours in a secular facility provided for by the tax payer?

Please get in touch if you have any questions.

regards,
Dave Smyth

---

I followed up a week later as I had heard nothing and got this email the same day…

From: Gov Advice
Date: Wed, Feb 22, 2017
To: Feedback NZSTA

Hello Dave

Thank you again for your enquiry below.

As you are asking for NZSTA’s stance, I have forwarded this on to the Office of the President for response.

Someone will respond to you as soon as possible

Thanks again

Sue Cotter
Governance Adviser
Advisory and Support Centre
New Zealand School Trustees Association

---

A couple of weeks later, I received an email from Mary Hall, who is the Policy Adviser to the President of the NZSTA. It was a bit stock-standard and they did not address the main question I asked in my email but at least it was progress.

From: Mary Hall
Date: Thu, Mar 9, 2017
To: Dave Smyth

Kia ora Dave

The decision whether or not to offer religious instruction at a New Zealand State or State Integrated school rests with the Board of Trustees. As the body representing school boards of trustees in New Zealand, NZSTA supports each board’s right to make the decision that they consider best for their school.

I attach for your information a copy of the Human Rights Commission’s 2009 publication Religion in New Zealand Schools – Questions and Concerns, which NZSTA collaborated on. It is still a very useful publication.

The following extract is from NZSTA’s feedback to the Ministry of Education about its proposed changes to the Education Act (currently before Parliament).

Religious Instruction

1. The current provisions regarding religious instruction (RI) in schools are outdated and an ongoing source of friction between boards and their local communities.

1. The Human Rights Commission’s 2009 publication Religion in New Zealand Schools: Questions and Concerns provides a useful distinction between religious education, religious observance and religious instruction and recommends that boards adopt an opt-in policy rather than an opt-out policy to avoid discriminating against students or families who do not wish to take part.

Recommendation 23

That the provisions regarding religious instruction in schools are updated to

1. Clarify the distinction between religious education, religious observance and religious instruction
2. Clarify the entitlement of different religious or ethical traditions to provide religious instruction in schools
3. Clarify the requirements about schools partial closure to accommodate religious instruction and how this is communicated to the local community
4. Specify that schools offering RI should do so on an opt-in basis

I trust this is helpful.

Mary Hall
Policy Adviser to the President
New Zealand School Trustees Association

---

I hadn’t seen the NZSTA submission (see pages 6-7 for the section about RI Classes) to Parliament on the Education Act before, so the response was helpful. However, it struck me that instead of questioning the validity of religious instruction in a supposedly secular school system, they were suggesting ways to entrench it, rather than remove it. So I asked them why…

From: Dave Smyth
Date: Thu, Mar 9, 2017
To: Mary Hall

Hi Mary,

Thanks for sending the extract from the NZSTA’s feedback to the MOE.

How would changing from opt-out to opt-in change the fact that non-Christian families and their children are discriminated against in favour of Christian families? As I said before, I think this aspect is irrelevant.

Taking time away from secular education in a secular school to allow the teaching of religious faith by unqualified volunteers, while qualified teachers watch on seems somewhat perverse.

The 2001 MOE Legal Team advice I attached with the previous email says it all. There is “no defence” against a claim of discrimination under the Human Rights Act.

So I have two questions

1. Why is the NZSTA giving advice to the MOE on how to retain religious instruction in the Education Act rather than remove it?
2. On what basis does the NZSTA believe that religious groups should be allowed access to children in tax-payer funded, secular state primary schools to instruct in their faith?

regards,
Dave Smyth

---

Then I thought that I had better clarify what I meant, as there is no debate that RI is allowed by the sections of the Education Act 1964…

From: Dave Smyth
Date: Fri, Mar 10, 2017
To: Mary Hall

By the way… with regard to that second question; I’m not referring to a legal basis for allowing RI. I’m asking what moral or ethical basis there is for allowing religious groups access to primary school children.

---

I waited a week but had received no response, so I followed it up again..

From: Dave Smyth
Date: Thu, Mar 16, 2017
To: Mary Hall

Hi Mary,

Just following up on my emails to you on 9th and 10th of March.

regards,
Dave

---

From: Mary Hall
Date: Thu, Mar 16, 2017
To: Dave Smyth

Kia ora Dave

Thanks for your further emails.

We have nothing to add to the comments in my response of 16 March. (Ed: bold emphasis is mine)

Mary Hall
Policy Adviser to the President
New Zealand School Trustees Association

---

So apparently, there’s “nothing to see here… move along”! I couldn’t resist a final attempt at communication with Mary…

From: Dave Smyth
Date: Thu, Mar 16, 2017
To: Mary Hall

Hi Mary,

Why don’t you want to answer my questions?

regards,
Dave

---

I never got a response from Mary but it was worth a try.

It occurred to me that perhaps Mary Hall was just one person not willing to answer the questions I had and that she wasn’t representative of the organisation as a whole. So I emailed the original person who responded again…

From: Dave Smyth
Date: Mar 17, 2017
To: Gov Advice

Mary Hall emailed me quoting the NZSTA proposal regarding religious instruction in the Education Act review but refused to answer any questions I had.

Given that the NZSTA is supposed to advise BOT’s on their role of communication with parents, don’t you think that it is odd that the NZSTA itself then refuses to justify or explain their stance on religious instruction?

Perhaps you could direct me to someone more helpful, who can explain why the NZSTA is advocating for religious groups having continued access to primary school children rather than recommending that religious instruction should be removed from the Education Act in the current review?

regards,
Dave Smyth

---

I got a reply from them the same day, which was copied to the NZSTA President’s office…

From: Gov Advice 
Date: Mar 17, 2017
To: Dave Smyth

Hello Office of President (cc Dave)

Please see Dave’s response to Mary’s email below.

Would you please reply to Dave

Many thanks

Sue Cotter
Governance Adviser
Advisory and Support Centre

---

A few days later, I got a reply from Michael Wiles, who is the NZSTA Manager for Business Performance and Engagement. Unfortunately, Mike wasn’t engaging or a performer! Mike’s strategy was to completely ignore all previous correspondence, claim the question had already been answered and tell me something completely irrelevant to my enquiry.

From: Michael Wiles
Date: Mar 23, 2017
To: Dave Smyth

Good afternoon Dave

I am responding to your recent messages to our Advisory and Support Centre. I have reviewed the communications between you and NZSTA, including the Office of the President and NZSTA National Office. I have noted that a reply with advice on religious instruction in schools, and the role of boards, was sent to you on 9 March.

NZSTA’s role is to support the 15,000 trustees who are represented on boards and I’m sure that you will appreciate there are many views on the matters that you raise. NZSTA supports each board’s right to make the decision that they consider best for their school.

Regards

Mike Wiles
Manager Business Performance and Engagement
National Office
New Zealand School Trustees Association

---

Mike, clearly isn’t grasping the issue here, so I give him the benefit of the doubt and explained my query to him again and that a “no comment” from Mary isn’t adequate. I also pointed out that the NZSTA had only recently been involved in a complaint about religious instruction where an independent education consultant had been called in to mediate.

From: Dave Smyth
Date: Mar 24, 2017
To: Michael Wiles

Hi Mike,

Yes, I received a copy of the NZSTA’s proposals for changes to the Education Act with respect to religious instruction.

I then asked two questions, which I’d still like answered;

Why is the NZSTA giving advice to the MOE on how to retain religious instruction in the Education Act rather than remove it?
On what basis does the NZSTA believe that religious groups should be allowed access to children in tax-payer funded, secular state primary schools to instruct in their faith? (I’m referring to a moral and ethical basis, not a legal one)

Mary Hall then responded with;

“We have nothing to add to the comments in my response of 16 March.”

This is not the sort of open communication that I would expect from an organisation that should be all about encouraging communication by school boards.

By making recommendations that implicitly endorse religious instruction in schools, the NZSTA is telling the MOE, school boards, teachers and parents that they support the continued inclusion of religious instruction in primary schools at a time when more and more parents are speaking out against it.

You only have to read the comments on the Stuff article about Fenwick School to see how people feel about it. I believe that the NZSTA has been involved in this particular case.

Regards,
Dave Smyth

---

Mike still hadn’t responded over a week later, so I emailed and asked him if this meant “no comment” again? I got a response 3 days later…

From: Michael Wiles
Date: April 6, 2017
To: Dave Smyth

Good afternoon Dave

I did receive your reply on 24 March and noted your comments.

As I mentioned NZSTA’s role is to support the 15,000 trustees who are represented on boards and I’m sure that you will appreciate there are many views on the matters that you raise. NZSTA supports each board’s right to make the decision that they consider best for their school. NZSTA’s view on religious instruction is outlined in the response that you have received below:

The following extract is from NZSTA’s feedback to the Ministry of Education about its proposed changes to the Education Act (currently before Parliament).

Religious Instruction

133. The current provisions regarding religious instruction (RI) in schools are outdated and an ongoing source of friction between boards and their local communities.

134. The Human Rights Commission’s 2009 publication Religion in New Zealand Schools: Questions and Concerns provides a useful distinction between religious education, religious observance and religious instruction and recommends that boards adopt an opt-in policy rather than an opt-out policy to avoid discriminating against students or families who do not wish to take part.

Recommendation 23

That the provisions regarding religious instruction in schools are updated to

a. Clarify the distinction between religious education, religious observance and religious instruction
b. Clarify the entitlement of different religious or ethical traditions to provide religious instruction in schools
c. Clarify the requirements about schools partial closure to accommodate religious instruction and how this is communicated to the local community
d. Specify that schools offering RI should do so on an opt-in basis.

Regards
Mike Wiles
Manager Business Performance and Engagement
National Office
New Zealand School Trustees Association

---

It seems that Mike has decided to stick with the “playing dumb” approach to communication, so I decided to dumb it down for him.

From: Dave Smyth
Date: April 7, 2017
To: Michael Wiles

As you know, I’ve already been seen that submission. You’ve completely ignored the questions I asked. The NZSTA acknowledges that religious instruction is an ongoing source of friction, so…

1. Why is the NZSTA giving advice to the MOE on how to retain religious instruction in the Education Act rather than remove it?
2. On what basis does the NZSTA believe that religious groups should be allowed access to children in tax-payer funded, secular state primary schools to instruct in their faith? (I’m referring to a moral and ethical basis, not a legal one)

It is not a credible position to on the one hand suggest that the NZSTA is supporting boards in making their own decisions but on the other hand be advising the MOE how best to retain the religious instruction classes. Advising changes to existing legislation that entrench religious instruction is to all intents and purposes, supporting religious instruction.

regards,
Dave Smyth

---

Mike responds and assures me that he has noted my comments, while trying not to say “no comment”. I’d rather he just answered the questions.

From: Michael Wiles
Date: April 7, 2017
To: Dave Smyth

As you will appreciate we are well aware of your questions and we have informed you of our position on these matters. I have noted your comments below.

Regards
Mike Wiles
Manager Business Performance and Engagement
National Office
New Zealand School Trustees Association

---

Mike is clearly a waste of space when it comes to communication or “engagement”. He aptly demonstrates the kind of incompetence and wilful ignorance that I’ve found so common with people working in the education sector who either seek to protect the status of religious instruction or just want to avoid the issue and are willing to compromise their professional integrity in the process.

This time, I responded and copied in all the Principal Officers of the NZSTA. These were;

• Lorraine Kerr (President)
• Nick Inskip (CEO)
• Steve Williams (Manager Business Services)
• Elaine Hines (Operations Manager)

From: Dave Smyth
Date: April 7, 2017
To: Michael Wiles
CC: Lorraine Kerr, Nick Inskip, Steve Williams, Elaine Hines

Hi Mike,

No, you haven’t answered my questions at all. I was not asking you what your proposals to the MOE were.

I’m asking you why the NZSTA continue to support the inclusion of religious instruction in the Education Act instead of asking for it to be removed? I was asking why the NZSTA believes that giving religious groups access to teach their faith to children in a secular state school is acceptable?

You have failed to provide any explanation.

regards,
Dave

---

What can we take from this uninspiring contact with the association that is supposed to be providing support to the boards of trustees that are making decisions regarding religious instruction?

Firstly, it should be noted that it took them a full month to finally tell me their stance on religious instruction and that they were not prepared to explain it. This is appalling for an organisation that should be open to communication with parents and encouraging the same open communication from boards of trustees that they support.

Secondly, they weren’t prepared to answer my follow up questions of why they were supporting the continuance of religious instruction in the Education Act rather than recommending that it should be removed. Without saying so, this actually answers my first question of the NZSTA stance on religious instruction – they support religious instruction.

Finally, not one of the Principal Officers of the NZSTA responded to me. So it’s not a case of one or two staff members avoiding an issue, it’s a clear case of institutional bias at the highest levels of the NZSTA.

I’d still like to know why are the NZSTA supporting the inclusion of religious instruction in secular state schools? Who made that decision and why do they believe that religious groups should be given access to kids to promote their religion? I’d like to know… wouldn’t you? Please share this article and comment below!

Save

Save

Save