Studies of Religion Level 3 study materials
Studies of Religion Level 3 study resources

Scripture Classes and the Exemption Option

Studies of Religion Level 3 · Put your knowledge to work in context.

All case studies

Scripture Classes and the Exemption Option

A government primary school in a regional town of 6,200 people runs 'special religious education' (SRE) for 30 minutes each Wednesday. Of 410 students, 190 attend Anglican SRE, 60 attend Catholic SRE, 25 attend a combined Protestant class, and 135 are marked 'non-scripture'. The non-scripture group sits in the library with a supervising teacher but no structured activity. Parents of 18 students have lodged written objections, arguing that their children are being segregated and that the library supervision is effectively a holding pen. The local Hindu community, numbering about 40 families, has asked to run its own SRE class but has been told the school has no spare room at that time. A teacher notes that the 'non-scripture' group includes children from Hindu, Muslim and secular families, and that some have reported feeling singled out. The principal must respond before the next school council meeting.

1. Explain the legal and ethical issues raised by the current arrangement.

Read the worked answer

The legal issue is whether the school is providing SRE in a way that is authorised and whether the exemption from SRE is genuinely available. In most Australian jurisdictions, SRE is permitted in government schools on a voluntary basis, and students whose parents object must be able to opt out without penalty. The arrangement appears lawful on its face, since objecting parents have a formal route.

The ethical issues are more serious. First, the 'non-scripture' group is not a neutral default; it is a visibly distinct cohort of 135 students, disproportionately from minority religious and secular backgrounds. Segregating them in a library with no activity risks stigma and may amount to indirect pressure to opt into SRE. Second, the refusal to accommodate the Hindu community while three Christian providers operate raises a fairness question: the school is applying a neutral-sounding room rule that in practice entrenches an existing imbalance. Third, the school has a duty of care to all students during the 30 minutes, and passive supervision without meaningful activity is weak provision.

The principal should also consider that 'non-scripture' is a poor label: it defines 135 children by what they are not, and the school should reconsider how the option is presented and described.

2. Propose a response the principal could take to the school council, and assess its strengths and weaknesses.

Read the worked answer

A workable response has three parts.

First, restructure the non-scripture option into a positive alternative: a supervised 'ethics and worldviews' session or structured quiet study, staffed with a clear program rather than passive supervision. This addresses the stigma and duty-of-care concerns and gives the 135 students a purpose. Strength: it is within the school's control and does not require changing the SRE framework. Weakness: it requires staff time and may be resented by parents who see it as a competing worldview class.

Second, adopt a transparent, religion-neutral room allocation policy with published criteria, and apply it to all providers including the Hindu community. If no room is available, the school should say so in writing with reasons and offer a pathway (for example, a trial in the following term or a shared slot). Strength: it treats all groups by the same rule and reduces the perception of favouritism. Weakness: a genuinely neutral rule may still produce unequal outcomes if Christian providers already hold the slots; neutrality of process is not the same as fairness of result.

Third, survey parents anonymously on how the options are experienced, and report the findings to the council. Strength: it generates evidence rather than anecdote. Weakness: surveys can be captured by the most motivated families.

Assessment: the package is strong because it separates the legal question (already largely satisfied) from the ethical questions (not satisfied). Its main vulnerability is cost and staff capacity, so the principal should propose a phased implementation with the ethics option first.