RUAIRÍ
QUINN is a man in a hurry.
He wishes to implement without delay a
fundamental change in the patronage of Irish primary schools.
He also
wants a new model of primary school where faith formation will not take
place during the school day, because “the curriculum is overcrowded”.
It
is not entirely clear whether he is talking about new schools that will
have been divested by Roman Catholic schools, or all primary schools.
Let
us presume that he is talking about new schools, because a Catholic
school (or Church of Ireland, or Methodist school) would not be worthy
of the name without faith formation.
Quinn has long been an
advocate of pluralism in education, a stance that was widely supported
by many sectors of Irish society.
He is now in grave danger of
undermining that support, because unless he clarifies his position, it
appears that what he has in mind is not pluralism, but uniformity.
The
State is in negotiation with the Catholic Church about transferring
patronage of some of their schools so that Irish parents can have
greater diversity.
At the same time, Quinn is suggesting something that
would radically undermine the rights of parents to have their child
educated in a way which respects their religious beliefs.
It seems that
he only understands one aspect of religious freedom, the right to
freedom from religion. Sadly, that right is indivisible from the right
to freedom for religion.
One cannot exist without the other, or both
become meaningless.
In short, if the only choice is to be free from religion, it is no choice at all.
Of
course, I am not a disinterested bystander. I have a State-recognised
degree in theology and have worked as a religious educator at second
level for most of my adult life in a State-funded school.
Do Quinn’s
comments represent a fundamental change in Government policy regarding
the value of religious education?
Contrast his approach with the
February 2011 directive from the Scottish government regarding religious
education, which is compulsory both at primary and secondary level.
“Education
about faith and belief in non-denominational schools and education in
faith in denominational schools contributes to the development of the
whole person, allowing children and young people to consider, reflect
upon, and respond to important questions about the meaning and purpose
of existence, the range and depth of human experience and what is
ultimately worthwhile and valuable in life.”
Now that is
pluralism, a recognition of both the value of education about – and
education in – religion. Quinn would like to reduce religious education
to the study of the history of religion.
However, questions of faith and
belief must be faced by any person who is remotely reflective.
The
religious educator’s role is to help young people to make thoughtful and
informed choices.
Teachers see openness and tolerance as a
central part of their educational approach. Attempted indoctrination of
any kind is an intellectual assault on an individual.
Faith formation is
not indoctrination.
It is the antithesis of indoctrination.
Where there
is no freedom, there is no faith.
Quinn seems to believe that a
non-faith based approach is neutral.
It is not.
It is a normative stand,
with its own ethos, which cannot help but influence the character of a
school.
In short, it has the same standing as a faith-based approach.
The absence of something from a curriculum cannot help but be a signal
of value, no more than the presence of something.
Quinn seems to
be unaware of the ramifications of what he is suggesting.
The right to
choose how your child is educated is affirmed in the Irish Constitution.
At European level, two rights are asserted, the individual freedom of
parents to choose the school they want for their children and the
collective right to form and run independent schools of a particular
denomination.
In fact, Quinn seems to have no idea of the kind of
minefield he is currently tap-dancing across regarding patronage.
Take
just one problem.
Irish parishes are charities.
Charities are governed
by extremely rigorous legislation.
Legally, a charity must always act in
the interests of the trust.
Could divesting a school be considered to
be not in the interests of the trust?
All it will take is one
parishioner to challenge legally the right of a parish priest to sign
over a school, and a legal nightmare will ensue.
He also seems
unaware of the situation in other countries.
Catholic schools in
Scotland were handed over to the state in 1918, and have their right to
teach the Catholic faith and appoint Catholic teachers completely
protected by law, despite receiving 100 per cent state funding.
A
friend of mine recently attended the opening of a large Scottish school,
built by the local authority, with the most beautiful Catholic oratory
at the heart of it.
State-funded Catholic schools are not an anomaly in
northwestern Europe.
Most countries have them in rough proportion to the
size of the Catholic population.
So Belgium is about 75 per cent
Catholic, and 60 per cent of the state schools are Catholic.
The
Netherlands is about 31 per cent Catholic, and 29 per cent of the
schools are Catholic.
The UK is about 14 per cent, and 11 per cent of
schools are Catholic.
The Republic of Ireland is 87 per cent Catholic
and has about 90 per cent of schools.
No one in Ireland wishes to
continue a virtual monopoly, nonetheless.
But by his dismissive remarks
about faith formation, Quinn risks alienating the very people he needs
most to facilitate the process.
A cynic might say having a ritualistic
pop at the Catholic Church serves beautifully to divert attention from
the huge problems that educational cutbacks are causing.
I can think of
many other things that might trouble a Labour minister.
For
example, of the 1,200 resource posts that are due to be cut by June of
this year, 773 are in Traveller education at primary and post primary
level.
These cuts are at least a generation too soon.
Many Traveller
kids are the first generation to go to secondary school, and without
support, they will drop out.
Likewise, many students with special needs
will no longer have special needs assistants.
They, too, will suffer.
Perhaps if Quinn spent more time on issues like these, he could really do something progressive.