Multiplicadora

Parents have primary and inalienable (though not absolute) rights over their children’s education and this right is upheld by national and international law - viz.:

i) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) declares that “parents shall have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children” (Art. 26.3);

ii) the European Convention on Human Rights mandates that “...the State shall respect the right o f parents to ensure such education and teaching as is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions” (Protocol 1, Art. 2);

iii) the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) upholds “the liberty of parents ... to ensure the religious and moral education o f their children in conformity with their own convictions” (Art. 13.3);

iv) the Irish Constitution guarantees “to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education o f their children” (Art. 42.1); and

v) the Education Act (1998) promotes “the right of parents to send their children to a school of the parents’ choice” (6(e)).

Thus, the basic premise is that individual parents, rather than having a single

r

State system of schooling foisted on them, should have the right to choose what type o f school their children will attend, and, furthermore, that there should be an open market, as it were, to cater for the diversity o f these choices.

Given parents5 right to choose the education they desire for their children, three questions arise in the Irish context -

i) what actually is the preference of Irish parents in relation to the primary school education of their children?

ii) given demographic and economic realities, what institutional provisions can be made to cater for these preferences? and

iii)does the Catholic Church have a role to play in ensuring that a plurality of patronage exists in Irish society?

In relation to the first two questions, recent research in Ireland (Iona Institute, 2008; ICBC, 2008(b)) has shown that while 47% - 48% of adults would choose a Catholic school for their children, 73% consider that parents should have the right to choose from a variety of school types for their children. As noted earlier, however, given the current recessionary economic climate and cutbacks in primary education (including an increase in the pupil-teacher ratio), it is unlikely that the Irish Government will undertake a programme o f establishing large numbers o f public primary schools where denominational schools already exist14. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the State, even as “paymaster55 o f the denominational system, could insist on some Catholic schools transferring to

14 It must be noted in this regard that the two new State national schools that were due to be opened in September 2008 had “a very difficult launching” (Martin, 2008 (c)) and, in fact, only one was established at that time. Many are o f the view that this was, once again, due to poor planning by the Department o f Education and Science. It could also reflect a reluctance by parents to send their children to what are perceived as “emergency” schools primarily for pupils with no other alternative.

non-denominational status. On the one hand, practical issues such as the fact that the school buildings are owned by the Church would make such a transfer costly and, on the other, given the long history of Church/State relations in primary education in Ireland (as outlined in Chapter 2), it is unlikely that the State could legally, or would morally, force the Church to relinquish its control of primary schools under its patronage.

In this context, the third question of whether the Church itself has a role to play in ensuring that a variety o f school types is available in Irish society becomes highly pertinent and will be considered now in some detail.

In the first instance, official Church teaching concurs with international law on both the inalienable right of parents to select the type of school they desire for their children, and on the duty of the State to provide for such a variety of school types. In its first ever decree on education, the Congregation for Catholic Education (GE, 1965) pronounced that :

Parents who have the primary and inalienable right and duty to educate their children must enjoy true liberty in their choice o f schools. Consequently, the public power, which has the obligation to protect and defend the rights of citizens, must see to it, in its concern for distributive justice, that public subsidies are paid out in such a way that parents are truly free to choose according to their conscience the schools they want for their children.

Gravissimum Educationis (1965) further contends that the State:

must always keep in mind the principle of subsidiarity so that there is no kind of school monopoly, for this is opposed to the native rights of the human person, to the development and spread of culture, to the peaceful association o f citizens and to the pluralism that exists today in ever so many societies.

the Third Millennium (1997), the Church states that:

public authority... whose duty it is to protect and defend the liberty of the citizens, is bound according to the principle of distributive justice to ensure that public subsidies are so allocated that parents are truly free to select schools for their children in accordance with their conscience.

While it is clear that such statements were made primarily for situations where States do not give support to denominational schools, the Vatican pronouncements appear to have special significance for the situation in Ireland, where public subsidies are not “paid out in such a way that parents are truly free to choose according to their conscience the schools they want for their children”; where there is de facto some “kind of school monopoly”; and where parents do not “enjoy true liberty in their choice of school”.

In the second instance, in The Religious Dimension o f Education in the Catholic

School (1988), the Congregation for Catholic Education specifically states that

“Christian education must promote respect for the State and its representatives...and it should not ignore similar appeals coming from recognised international organisations such as UNESCO and the UN”. As noted in Chapter 1, both the European Union and the United Nations have criticised the control o f the primary school sector in Ireland by the Catholic Church.

Thus, the Church, by her own standards, would appear to have a role to play in supporting the development of a variety of school types in Ireland. While one could argue that the Catholic primary school system in Ireland serves the legitimate needs of Catholic families and that the Catholic Church does not

Echoing Gravissimum Educationis, in The Catholic School on the Threshold o f

impede the diversification of school types, ethically and morally, and based on its own espoused principles, the argument being advanced here is that the Church must take a proactive role in actually promoting a plurality of patronage in the primary school system in contemporary Irish society.

The Church in Ireland has made supportive statements in this regard, with Archbishop Diarmuid Martin (2008(a)) stating that he believes that “ways can be found to expand the role of other patronage models, where such demand exists, through a form of structured divestment by the Catholic patron, which recognises the rights and interests of all parties”; and the Irish Bishops’ Conference (ICBC (2007) states th at:

in some areas where historically there were large numbers o f parents who wanted a Catholic school, circumstances may have changed and an existing Catholic school may no longer be viable as a Catholic school. In such a situation an evaluation will have to be made, in consultation with parents and teachers, about the future of such schools, (p.6)

From these statements, it appears that the Catholic Church is considering divestment only if an existing Catholic school “is no longer viable as a Catholic school”. One can infer from this statement that the criteria o f “viable” being applied in this instance is based on the number o f Catholic pupils in the school. Further options must also be given due consideration:

i) in situations where there are children from non-Catholic backgrounds in a school, the Church should consider entering into a joint patronage arrangement or handing over control to an alternative patron, be it multi-denominational or State school; ii) in large urban areas, where there are parents seeking alternatives

to Catholic education, the Church needs to give serious consideration to divesting one or more of their schools, even if

these are “viable”, in order to witness by word and by deed to the Church’s commitment to plurality o f patronage;

iii) in situations where a school is “no longer viable”, the Catholic Church should give serious consideration to the socio-economic profile of the area and make a decision, based solely on the common good, as to whether their presence is life-giving or no longer necessary in the community. While clearly such a decision is focused on the Church’s perception of its role rather than on the rights of parents, as outlined in Chapter 2, the Catholic Church in America has been accused of abandoning its commitment to “a preferential option for the poor” by closing schools in some o f the most deprived inner-city areas. The Church in Ireland must be motivated by an abiding and authentic concern for the common good when making decision about the ñiture of “non-viable” schools. To paraphrase O’Keefe (1996, p. 178) - if the contemporary rationale for Catholic schools is grounded in the values of the affluent, ethnically assimilated, suburban, secularised and generally content Catholic majority, then school closings in areas of poverty and need will not be problematic. On the other hand, if the rationale is a clear and compelling vocation to provide for the needs of the poor and to foster appreciation of the human family in its rich diversity - the choice to close a Catholic school in an inner-city areas will need far more indepth consultation and consideration.

When asked in interview “under what specific criteria (financial, numerical or other) is it envisaged that the decision to divest a Catholic school would be made?” - neither the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Diarmuid Martin, nor the Chair of the Episcopal Commission on Education, Bishop Leo O’Reilly, had a clear vision of how, and if, such a step would be undertaken. It is fair to note that Bishop O’Reilly (2008) did not seem very favourably disposed to the idea of

divesting Catholic primary schools, stating that “there is no rationalisation plan - the Church is not like a Hewlett Packard” and that “it is not up to me to close Catholic schools”. Archbishop Martin (2008 (c)), on the other hand, stated that divestment “could bring about a rationalisation over time”; and he considered that divestment needed to be “a systematic thing” where Catholic schools in a given area could “evolve into a variety of schools”. The Archbishop considered that this would be extremely positive in facilitating choice “on the part of parents and on the part of teachers”.

It is clear that despite the policy statement of divesting schools, the Church does not have an immediate, formulated, or agreed plan as to how, and in what circumstances, divestment of a Catholic school might be considered. This is clearly an issue that requires deep reflection, consideration and consultation with a wide variety of stakeholders if it is not to remain at the level of empty rhetoric.

In this regard, the Church could establish a Working Party to make recommendations on the single issue of the divestment o f Catholic primary schools. While it is beyond the scope of this thesis to suggest terms o f reference for such a Committee, clearly it would have to include the compilation of a demographic profile o f all Catholic primary schools in Ireland with specific reference to the socio-economic background, nationalities, and religious denominations o f pupils. The Working Party would also have to consider among other key issues - under what specific circumstances a Catholic school would be considered for “divestment”, how the wishes of Catholic parents in

the school would be facilitated and how the religious education of Catholic children in such a “divested” schools would be facilitated. How such a process would be progressed and managed also will be of key importance for, as Dunne (2006) points out,

a school in which there has been a long continuity of commitment and service...is not something that should be expected to change its identity with ease...the very historicity and particularity of what we are always concerned with in human affairs should itself be taken as a matter of principle: it tells us something important about the fundamental constitution of the realities we are dealing with and excludes as a method of dealing with them the approach of the social engineer, (p. 221)

Notwithstanding the need for serious consideration to be given to the divestment of some Catholic schools, for the foreseeable future it is clear that the vast majority of Irish children will continue to be educated in Catholic primary schools, and so the question o f the role of the school in preparing children for life in pluralist, liberal, democratic Irish society must be explored.

4.4.2 Education fo r Democratic, Pluralist Society

It is useful to explore the respective role o f Church and State in the provision of primary education as a set of mutual responsibilities and expectations. Different religious denominations have a prima facie reason to ask that citizens and the State respect and support their religious identity and their right to advance that identity in their children by sending them to denominational schools. Citizens have reason to ask that denominational education respect the fundamental requirements of democratic liberal pluralism. Hence, in Ireland, the State hilly funds Catholic education and, in turn, authentic Catholic education must promote a conception of education that is generally consistent with the larger social consensus of liberal pluralism.

schools is in itself an education for citizenship as the Christian virtues which it seeks to foster not only do not conflict with democratic values but actually enhance and, as it were, “supercharge” them. For example, the Congregation for Catholic Education (CSTTM, 1997) states that “there is no contradiction between the civic and the religious goals o f Catholic education because the promotion of the human person is the goal of both”. Furthermore, the Church considers that “as a result of the negative effects of uncontrolled economic and cultural globalisation, responsible participation in the life of the community at local, national and world levels....and [education for] active and responsible citizenship are of increasing importance in Catholic schools”. In the Irish context, the Irish Bishops’ Conference (ICBC, 2007) states that :

in the work of education Catholic schools provide an important service to society. In promoting a sense of responsibility and the right use of freedom they help to form students as good citizens. In emphasising the values o f community, justice, respect and forgiveness they help students to grow in maturity and to take their place as responsible members o f society.

It is clear, therefore, from official Church teaching that the Catholic school is called on to be outstanding with regard to preparation of young people for active and responsible participation in every area of social, economic, professional and civic life. Thus, the Church’s view of education would not appear to be in any way opposed to that of the State. However, regardless of this assertion, the aims of State-funded denominational schools in the context of liberal, pluralistic, democratic society must be explicit and transparent.

Feinberg (2006) asserts that the attitudes, skills, and dispositions required to reproduce liberal, democratic society cannot be placed on automatic and grow themselves. The skills are multifaceted, the dispositions deep, and the attitudes complex. They are expressed in the way citizens treat one another. They are embodied in a willingness to evaluate policy from the standpoint of general fairness. They are represented in attitudes towards people o f different races, religions, genders and sexual orientations. Thus, they must be nurtured and developed in all publicly funded schools. The State, therefore, has a legitimate interest in the aims of denominational schools - not an interest in altering the religious character of faith-based schools but rather of integrating their aims as well with the aims of liberalism and pluralism.

Liberalism is the political philosophy that emphasises the right of each individual to choose, within broad limits, how to live his or her own life, and pluralism is the view that holds that society must embrace, again within broad limits, many different kinds of beliefs and communities. Feinberg (2006) contends that liberal pluralism requires that schools promote the frame of mind and understandings needed to sustain and reproduce four sets of requirements, viz. - the basic requirements of all societies - reasonable security and safety; the basic requirement of liberalism - autonomy and intellectual growth; the basic requirement o f pluralism - reasonable respect for difference; and the requirement o f democracy - public accountability. Because these are the conditions for the reproduction of liberal pluralism, they must also be the conditions o f any State-approved and State-funded education that espouses such a liberal pluralism.

In relation to pluralism, most denominational schools in fact are part of the pluralist consensus. While students are quite naturally taught to be partial to their own religion, partiality toward a particular conception o f the good and a willingness to reproduce it across generations are conditions o f pluralism. They create the plurality that pluralism in the concrete requires. But in addition to partiality, pluralism also requires respect for other traditions. In this respect, Feinberg (2006) draws a distinction between plurality and pluralism. In normative pluralism, multiple communities, existing side by side, whose members have equal status regardless of their communal affiliation, are recognised as a desirable social state and promoted both politically and educationally. Mere plurality, on the other hand, may exist where one group maintains political, legal, and economic dominance while providing limited rights to other cultural or religious groups.

Such “plurality” could potentially, and may actually, exist in Catholic primary schools in Ireland where children of minority religious groups are part of the school community but do not have, for example, access to their own religious education classes, while the majority school population does. Furthermore, the Church’s pronouncement that they are in favour of plurality of patronage need not necessarily reflect a belief in the fundamental rights of minority groups but could reflect a desire on the part of the Church to maintain the isolation of Catholic children in schools for Catholics only. Thus, mere plurality could exist at the expense o f true pluralism for the purpose of maintaining control o f the education system at primary level.

Taylor’s “politics of difference”, as outlined in Chapter 2, is of key importance here where acting with authenticity requires that everyone’s unique identity is not just recognised, but acknowledged, given status and afforded differential treatment where appropriate. Thus, in contrast to education under mere