“We may not be able to prepare the future for our children, but we can at least prepare our children for the future,” Franklin D Roosevelt once said. As parents, that is what we strive to do every day – prepare our children for the future while endowing them with Christian values to be able to seek justice and promote the common good.
We are all called upon to ensure the recognition of personal dignity, without distinction of race, sex, nation, religion, or social circumstances. As Catholic parents, this is a central tenet of our faith and mission. For these reasons we support laws which promote equality and prevent discrimination, such as bill number 96, otherwise known as the Equality Bill.
However, it is very much feared that as presently formulated, the bill discriminates against Church schools and denies the rights of parents to choose a Catholic education for their children.
The bill is intended to promote diversity – but unfortunately, its present draft negates the right of freedom of expression, freedom of belief and the right of parental choice in educational matters. There are draft provisions of law which are of grave concern to us parents and Catholic educators.
In the first place, bill 96 restricts the freedom of schools to engage teachers who identify with the Catholic school ethos. The only exception to this rule is the engagement of a teacher of religion. All other teachers need not necessarily espouse Catholic values and beliefs. This is an unduly restrictive clause. There are many reasons why we parents opt for our children to receive a Catholic education.
Bill 96 restricts the freedom of schools to engage teachers who identify with the Catholic school ethos
One of them is the wish to see them to receive a holistic education by persons who espouse our values. Catholic values are not only taught and transmitted during religion lessons, but in the course of all lessons and activities.
Religious values and the school ethos should not be compartmentalised and relegated to a daily 45-minute religion lesson slot. Our children should be given holistic exposure to the tenets of faith through all their educators. For Catholic schools to be able to retain their ethos, Church schools seek to employ educators and educational leaders who support this ethos and who will not work against it.
Another worrying provision of bill 96 is that which restricts the rights of Church schools to formulate and implement their curriculum. While the curriculum in all schools must naturally follow the National Curriculum Framework, we believe that there should not be any unduly restrictive provisions in this regard. Church schools should not be denied to promote Christian values in all areas of study and activity at school. This is in line with the cross-thematic approach to education which is considered best practice today.
Whether it is the Christian value of human dignity, the safeguarding of the environment, the value of human life or social justice, these should be allowed to be taught in all areas of study. As parents we send our children to Church schools so they can be exposed to a multiplicity of views but not to have the promotion of anti-Catholic values forced upon them.
Church school educators should not be sanctioned for promoting these values. Nor should they be forced to disseminate or encourage positions which are not in line with those values. As it is, bill 96 does not contain a clause allowing for the right of conscientious objection to protect educators from having to teach things which go against their conscience. While the state has the responsibility to ensure that all children have equal access to education, it is the right of parents to decide what form that education should take, according to what they believe is best for their children.
If such schools remain Church schools only in name, and all schools become more and more similar, then our rights as parents to choose the education of our children according to our beliefs, becomes fictitious in nature.
We are calling upon MPs to listen to our concerns. We ask them to take into consideration the legislative amendments we have forwarded to the parliamentary committee presently discussing the bill.
In particular, we ask for the safeguarding of parents’ right of choice of education for their children and the inclusion of a conscientious objector clause. We ask MPs to safeguard diversity, dignity and parental choice in a meaningful way.
Karen Buttigieg, Emvin Mifsud, Joseph Zammit (Archbishop’s Sem. JR/SR); Angela Scerri Cassar (Bishop’s Cons. SR Gozo); Mariella Vella, Marika Muscat (De La Salle Coll. JR); Clara Azzopardi, Dorianne Farrugia, Chris Zammit, Stephania Zammit, Erica Marmara’ (St Joan Antide JR, SR); Giselle Gatt, Christine Zammit, Edward Mazzacano D’Amato, Malcolm Micallef, Pierre Cuschieri (St Jos. Sch. Paola, Blata l-Bajda, Sliema); Ian Scerri (Our Lady Imm. Sch. Ħamrun, St Aug. Coll.); Desmond Sant, Agnetha Agius, Sandra Attard (St Paul’s Miss. Coll.); Amanda Meli, Josephine Sammut, Mark Mifsud, Charlene Dimech, Rudolf Muscat, Wallace Camilleri, Samantha Pace (St Francis Sch. Birkirkara, Cospicua, Msida, Sliema); Jean Calleja Agius, Melanie Attard Mangion, Stephanie Farrugia, Jesmond Saliba, Duncan John Grech (St Monica Sch. Birkirkara, Gżira); Michelle Pace Micallef, Annabella Fsadni, Maria Carey, Ruth Calleja (St Dorothy’s Sch. Sliema, JR/SR Żebbuġ); Nadia Schembri, Andrew Aquilina, Marylou Schembri, Denise Tabone Trapani, Fiona Aquilina (Savio Coll.) Marguerite Francalanza Miceli, Ian Dye (St Albert the Great Coll.); Kevin Cassar, Daniella Zerafa, Maria Fenech Galea, Christine Galea, Mario Axisa (St Aloysius Coll. JR, SR, 6th Form); Maria Portelli, Samantha Mizzi (St Theresa Sch. Gozo) Sabrina Abela (Theresa Nuzzo Sch.).