Parents of primary school children have been invited to respond to proposals by Expert Group of the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism aimed at making denominational schools more ‘inclusive’. Following is a slightly abridged version of a response to this invitation by parents Kate and Alan Whelan.

The deadline for submissions to this consultation is November 22.

The Submission in full:

This submission is in response to Minister Ruairi Quinn’s leaflet request to parents for advice on how best to make sure that “the rights and beliefs of children and families from various cultural and religious background are respected in our primary schools”.

In this joint submission of Kate and Alan Whelan and where the personal pronoun is used it refers to Alan only.

The focus of those who produced The Forum for Patronage Report was far too narrow in our opinion and centred much more around the Religious Education (RE) curriculum rather than any meaningful understanding of whole school ethos.

The Forum Report’s philosophy is echoed in the present consultation leaflet. As RC parents we totally reject the recommendations insofar as they seek to impose restrictions on RC schools in respect of (1) how RE is taught in RC schools, (2) on how religious artefacts are displayed, (3) on how prayer-life is conducted and (4) on how Christian ethos is lived.

As passionate advocates of the Principle of Subsidiarity, we believe that many of the issues raised would much better be determined at local level by school patrons rather than the over-centralised Irish Department of Education.

We read that “The Minister has also asked for a new primary school subject to be developed” to “teach children about ethics and give them knowledge about various religions and beliefs.” The name suggested for this new subject is Education about Religion and Beliefs (ERB). As parents we know from experience that much of this work is already happening in RC schools in both the RE and personal, social and health education curricula. We would not want any additions that might be deemed to undermine the existing mission of these schools. We do not want a secularised morally neutral curriculum foisted upon our children. In fact one possible interpretation of what is being proposed in the biased consultation leaflet is a nationalisation of rural RC schools.

We support the suggestion that any schools that do not already have clear policies in respect of the rights of all children in their schools should do so. We are happy that such policies should reflect the policies of local patrons and boards of management (BOM).

We support the publication of clear admission policies which reflect the aspirations of local communities. In the case of church schools we would expect any admission criteria to be in conformity with the school’s trust deed and the school’s Mission Statement and we reject any proposal to the contrary.

We support the call for more diversity in the composition of BOMs providing always that the patron appoint (rather than the leaflet word “nominate”) half of the membership. In the interests of diversity we see no reason to limit BOM to eight people. We would also welcome the appointment of non-voting associate board members.

In respect of the leaflet section on Complaints and Appeals we cannot understand why local patrons are ignored in favour of an unknown centralised Department of Education official. Here again we would want the Principle of Subsidiarity to apply.

We fully concur with parents being able to make provision for their children to opt out of RE and if a new ethics curriculum is devised and imposed we would expect the same rights to apply. The precise timetable and practical arrangements for such opt outs should be decided at individual BOM level. We do not like the suggestion that RE lessons should be strategically timetabled at the start or end of the day and we feel that such a suggestion portrays an unwillingness to accept that the curriculum of a Catholic school cannot be compartmentalised. If the new ERB curriculum comes into existence then perhaps it should be timetabled for start or end of the school day to facilitate those wanting an opt out facility.

Amazingly the expert group did not examine the reality of RC education in Northern Ireland (or in Britain) where, in research studies, RC schools are shown to provide better results than socially and economically comparable secular schools and this despite the fact that RC schools devote a similar amount of curriculum time to sacramental preparation as happens in Irish RC schools.

Interestingly although Minister Quinn continues to imply a relationship between Irish national school learners’ under-performance in Maths and English and amount of time spent on sacramental preparation, he provides no evidence to support his claim. The Minister by repeatedly ignoring our letters asking that national schools no longer be closed for election purposes (two in the year 2013/14) displays little concern for loss of school time. Indeed his department has admitted that it keeps no records of school closure days. These are hardly indicators of an education administration concerned about loss of curriculum time.

The Irish Constitution and RC education philosophy are at one in proclaiming parents to be the primary educators of their children. Parents have a right to have their children taught within their faith environment or belief system. The Forum Recommendations are a clear attack on our rights as parents and the rights of the majority of Irish parents who wish their children to have RC schooling for their children.

I fully supported the demographic and societal changes that led to the recent move which will lead to my own former Dublin national school (St. James’s CBC) becoming an Educate Together school.

In conclusion, we are not opposed to new forms and greater diversity of school patronage and I stand by my earlier Forum submission statement that “Conscious and accepting of present financial restraints, we would like to see Irish schools funded more directly on the basis of pupil numbers with parents given greater control and voice by means of a financially defined voucher system. In addition to this leading to greater accountability and innovation it would also facilitate greater diversity of provision. Under such a system self-managing national schools could be clustered, or vote to be clustered, under a single school executive principal and a joint board of management.”

Such a voucher system would allow Irish parents experience something of the freedom enjoyed by the parents of all of the politicians mentioned above in their privileged fee-paying schools.