Several months prior, the Archdiocese of Dublin saw fit to reiterate the ethical code of Catholic primary schools located within Dublin and its surrounding regions. The boards of these schools were reminded to maintain religious elements such as a crucifix, an image of Our Lady or patron saint, and spiritual area in all classrooms. Similarly, affirming that all faculty members possess religious certification, a prerequisite for instructing religion based on the principles of Catholicism, was stressed. Prospective employees also needed to be briefed about the school’s operational framework, which is synonymous with the mission statement reflecting the roles of the institution in instilling a deep-rooted set of theological doctrines in children. The amount of time allocated for religious education was advised to be adhered to, a prescribed weekly period of 2.5 hours. Ironically, this duration exceeds time allocation for PE. In a global context, Ireland’s emphasis on religious content in its primary curriculum is surpassed only by Israel.
The religiously-inclined content of this advisory was not unexpected to those cognizant with Catholic schooling norms. It typically made an appearance either at the beginning or clousure of an academic year.
This, however, was a stark reminder for those on the fringes of Catholicism that despite the absence of religious members from classrooms, the Church continues its firm control over a lion’s share of the primary education sector.
Ireland’s demographic diversity continues to rise while churches are increasingly vacant, yet 88 per cent of the primary schools remain under Catholic dominion. Approximately half of these schools are located in regions lacking any alternatives. Parental disillusionment is further fueled by revelations of historical maltreatment at schools operated by religious factions, as exposed by a Government inquiry. Many argue against the Church having any role in the education of their offspring due to its poor record in child safeguarding.
Consequently, the Department of Education’s timely decision to conduct a nationwide poll regards school preference seems appropriate. Parents will be solicited to vote towards the ethical stance of local educational institution they prefer for their children. The Department has indicated that the outcome will be a crucial factor in an initiative to transfer the patronage of schools to reflect a more diverse ethos in correlation with the broader populace.
The ecclesiastical establishment recognises the need to decrease the number of schools under their control for the sake of future sustainability. However, when it comes to pinpointing which specific schools to divest at the local level, the procedure is often hindered by misunderstanding, false information, distrust and contention. Worries about the uncertainty of the future have led to alarmist tales about secular schools having to abandon Christmas carols, Easter celebrations or even St Patrick’s Day activities.
Church authorities, in many instances, could have done a better job advocating for divestment or at least providing parents with impartial information. The overall significant factor is the interaction between schools and parents. Parents who have their children enrolled in local schools generally resist change. They are apprehensive about interruptions to their children’s learning, staff turmoil and the uncertainty of what might come next. It’s no surprise, therefore, that only a meagre 15 Catholic schools have transitioned from a religious ethos to a multi-denominational school in recent years. To give a perspective, there are over 3,000 primary schools in the country, with around 2,700 of them being Catholic. Here’s a mathematical exercise: given the slow rate of progress, when will our primary education system accurately mirror our society?
The truth of the matter is that divestment hasn’t been successful – and there’s no evidence to suggest it will improve. The State must own up to this failure, rather than the Church. For far too long, the government has been willing to surrender educational power and oversight to others. Yet, as we’re discovering anew during the school abuse investigation, it still carries responsibility for affairs within publicly-funded schools.
The State finances the educational system, it pays the educators, it oversees the quality of education and it covers the costs of school enhancements and repairs. The question is, why does its authority appear to stop at the school gates?
The educational system in Quebec, Canada, was extremely akin to ours until recently, with the principal churches overseeing it yet financed by the State. However, following a public discourse, it was concluded in a 1995 educational convention that there was no longer a valid justification, other than an unessential historical compulsion, to limit a public education system to denominational privileges. This led to the subsequent introduction of a novel “ethics and religious culture” subject, supplanting denominational religious education. This shift allowed the Church to provide religious education outside the public education infrastructure.
Transitioning religious instruction away from the regular school day should not be seen as a radical change. Rather, it is merely a return to the old national school system – a time before churches assumed control, where religious tuition was carried out either at the beginning or conclusion of the school day. The power to determine what transpires within primary schools ought to be vested in us, the people. The State has proven to be quite sluggish in grasping this. Yet, if there is a political impetus to affect change, it might not be too late to master this understanding.