The New South Wales government has agreed to better scrutinise religious groups teaching scripture in state-run schools, after a review found isolated examples of inappropriate teaching material, including negative passages about abortion.

Special religious education has been provided in government-run primary and secondary schools since the 19th century, while the secular alternative, “special education ethics”, has been available since 2011.

The NSW government approves about 101 religious groups to conduct religious teachings in schools, 87 of which were Christian. The remainder were Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Baha’i, Vedic or Sikh.



A long-awaited review of the scripture and ethics programs was released on Wednesday, more than a year after it was handed to government. The review found participation in scripture lessons was low in secondary schools (about 30%), but much higher in primary schools (71%).

It recommended that the default position of secondary school enrolment in scripture be changed, meaning parents would opt their children in, rather than having to opt them out. That recommendation was rejected by the government.

But NSW education minister, Rob Stokes, has agreed to implement a range of measures designed to improve the transparency and accountability of the religious providers and the content of the lessons.

“The changes include ensuring information about providers and their curriculums are available to inspect online, improving complaint handling procedures and ensuring age-appropriate content,” Stokes said. He has not followed the Victorian government’s 2015 decision to remove scripture from the curriculum during school hours.

His pledge to introduce new accountability measures comes after the review identified concerning examples of inappropriate content being taught to children.

That included a teacher workbook that contained “negative passages about abortion”, described cancer as a “consequence of sin and a gift from God”, and said people should “die for their faith, if necessary”. “The text also contained messages about sex education, which is not appropriate or the role of [special religious education],” the review found.

“Some members of the community who responded to the review interpreted passages in other curricula as proselytising,” it found. “Although these particular examples may represent the world view of the faith group, some passages seem to be insensitive to the psychological welfare of students (for example, those associating cancer with sin, or discussing diverse sexuality) and broader community norms.”

The review found such examples were isolated and that complaints about the program were low.

But it recommended giving parents more information about the curriculum, and the nature of the religious education. It said the government should give “clear, consistent and easily accessible information for parents about their SRE participation choices and processes including alternative activities”.

The review recommended more be done to ensure parents were aware they could pull their children from the lessons, and that alternatives were available.

The process of approving the religious providers should also be made more transparent, the review said, and schools should regularly publish information online about the groups teaching in their schools.

The government has agreed to those recommendations. Stokes conceded there were “concerning anecdotes” raised in the review. But he said there was no “widespread or systemic evidence of problems in the present system of Special Religious Education and Special Education Ethics”.

“Diversity and respecting different beliefs are at the core of our democratic system,” he said. “There is a long standing policy and legal framework supporting freedom of religion and conscience in NSW public schools.

“The review has also acknowledged the commitment on the part of all providers to work closely and cooperatively with the department to uphold the high levels of care expected of all NSW schools.”

The review recommended that children who opt out of scripture lessons be allowed to continue with their regular classwork. But the government rejected this, saying it would be contrary to its current religious education policy, which requires “no academic instruction or formal school activities should occur” during the time set aside for special religious education.

The review also recommended collecting more information about enrolment in the programs. But the government ruled that out, saying it already collected data on religious persuasion, and that such a monitoring regime would not be “the best use of resources”.

The shadow education minister, Jihad Dib, said the delay in releasing the report was “simply not good enough”.

Dib said the special religion education and ethics classes were polarising, and very real concerns had been raised by parents, which should have been addressed earlier.

He said the the report showed closer attention was needed around provider training, accountability, and accurate data collection.

“I have concerns that sensible recommendations such as those about opting in or out have been rejected by the government,” Dib said.

“It clearly highlights that the minister is only interested in the elements of the report that are easy to deal with,” he said.



“Even though we have had to wait for 18 months, there are still many questions to be answered. These include the reasons an organisation could lose their status as an SRE provider, details of the curriculum being implemented and monitoring of delivery.



Dib said practical and meaningful alternatives should be available for students who choose to opt out of the scripture lessons.