If the only choice for schools in future is to be free from religion, it is no choice at all
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.