Madam, – As the Iona Institute’s recent contribution demonstrates (Opinion, July 7th), the debate on denominational education has been marked by a confusion between the concepts of choice and freedom.
In arguing that the State should provide education through a plurality of private third parties, Tom O’Gorman has in mind the constitutional and human right of parents to direct the religious and moral education of their children.
However, to assume that this right is best accommodated through the model he defends is clearly wrong.
No state is in a position to provide every family, in every area, with a school whose ethos is specifically attuned to its religious or philosophical preferences.
It follows that the State can guarantee religious freedom to parents only by providing schools, in all areas, which are not committed to imparting any particular religion or ideology.
Devolving public education to private interlocturs may, to an extent, reflect the “choice” of some parents, but it undermines the religious freedom of others who, in reality, may have no other option but to avail of such schools.
The provision of public education through schools in which no religion is taught does not undermine the freedom of Catholic parents to impart their religion to their children; however, the reverse is not true, as parents of other beliefs cannot enjoy this freedom when publicly-funded schools are committed to the imparting of religious doctrines which they oppose.
The Iona Institute should reflect on John Rawls’ idea that “justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others.” – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Tom O’Gorman’s recent article puts forward a number of dubious arguments to support his contention that on balance, the status quo of religious control of most public schools is still the best possible scenario; given that realistically the state cannot afford to fund multiple separate facilities in every area.
He states that parents in the UK frequently have their children baptised to gain access to Anglican controlled schools; however an article posted on the Iona Institute’s web site bemoans that only 12 per cent of newborns in the UK now receive Anglican baptisms — hardly a vote of confidence.
Sweden’s voucher system has allowed independent schools to grow to 10 per cent of the total student population since 1992, but these are not all religious.
Many are foreign/international schools, or schools with a sporting or science focus.
Religious schools in Sweden have, in fact, been subjected to significant restrictions in the last couple of years.
If the overall goal of this debate is to ensure that the governance of schools reflects the wishes of local parents it may be beneficial to explore the US system of locally-elected school boards to manage and oversee publicly-funded schools in each city and county area.
Elections are typically held concurrently with local council elections and the terms of office are similar.
The democratic aspect of this approach would provide a level of assurance that the wishes of local parents will be represented, that there would be full transparency and accountability and that the potential for abuse of the existing system whereby the patron “appoints” school board members can be minimised.
Hopefully the Irish public’s disinclination for yet more public representatives will not preclude this proposal from being seriously considered. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Tom O’Gorman’s ideas for education in Ireland demonstrate that Catholicism, which he seems by the context of the article to represent, has no time for the rights of minorities. Forcing a Catholic education on the children of those who do not want it because a 51 per cent majority “opted” – in an opinion poll if you don’t mind – for a denominational school, is an abuse of the democratic process and a negation of civil rights.
Anyone who could overcome the blinkered, insular, our-pig-sty-is-at-the-centre-of-the-universe attitude that characterises such arguments would realise immediately that the model Mr Gorman is asking for has been tried and tested, over hundreds of years, in those Republics that are actually worthy of the name: France (population 65 million) and the United States (pop 306 million).
The US constitution specifies that the state will not endow any religion. This is interpreted to mean that where public money is used to fund something, it cannot then be associated with any particular religion.
Thus all state-funded schools are used solely for the purpose of an academic education with parents free to make whatever arrangements they like outside of school hours for the religious instruction of their children. Parental choice in regard to primary schooling does not seem to be an issue in either France or the US.
In Ireland (population 4.3 million) people like Mr O’Gorman like to imagine that it is.
Interestingly, the Irish constitution also says that the state will not endow any religion. The difference in our interpretation over that of the US is striking, especially when one considers the great emphasis that people like Mr O’Gorman place on the clause in Bunracht na hÉireann that says parents shall be the primary educators of their children.
Some would argue that this particular provision has, in practice, turned out to be an empty formula. Notwithstanding what it says in the constitution, the state is still required to guarantee the right to an education for those children whose parents will not, or cannot for whatever reason, provide it. Yours, etc,