For much of the 20th century, education policy in Ireland was predominantly shaped by the Catholic Church, with the State playing a largely deferential role. A significant departure from this pattern occurred in the 1960s with the introduction of what became known as the O’Malley reforms, an initiative driven by widespread recognition of fundamental weaknesses in the system.
This action by the government of the day was the outcome of protracted and complex negotiations. However, this shift proved temporary and the status quo soon reasserted itself. A more substantive shift in policy direction emerged in the 1990s. Key milestones included the publication of an OECD Report on Irish education (1991) and a Green Paper: Education for a Changing World (1992).
An unprecedented public consultative process ensued the following year in the form of a national education convention.
A White Paper, Charting Our Education Future, summarising the government’s policy proposals, followed in 1995. The policy momentum of the 1990s culminated in the passing of the Education Act in 1998.
The national education convention represented a comprehensive mechanism for stakeholder consultation and policy dialogue in Irish education. The responsibility for organising the process was entrusted to a secretariat comprising educational experts from both Ireland and abroad.
The convention convened over an extended period in October 1993 and included a broad range of participants drawn from the education sector and civil society. Participants’ submissions were rigorously examined through structured questioning by the secretariat, leading to the formation of focus groups that deliberated on key issues.
The outcomes of these discussions were subsequently synthesised into a report authored by the secretary general of the convention, Prof John Coolahan.
Perhaps the most important outcome was that it fundamentally changed the landscape for policymaking in Irish education by establishing the rights of wider society to play a significant part in the process. It also brought to public attention many of the serious challenges facing our education system. There is little doubt that the convention process, alongside the broader public engagement of the 1990s, contributed to subsequent improvements in educational provision.
While a comprehensive evaluation of developments over the decades is beyond the scope of this article, the prospect of a renewed convention, as indicated by Minister for Education Helen McEntee, presents a timely opportunity.
A re-examination of some of the issues outlined in the original report yields some valuable insights.
The convention devoted considerable attention to equality issues, specifically examining disparities related to socioeconomic status, gender, special educational needs and the educational experiences of the Traveller community.
These themes were subsequently reflected in the White Paper: Charting Our Education Future and enshrined in the Education Act (1998).
A key dimension of the broader equality agenda was the issue of educational disadvantage.
The Education Act provided for the establishment of an independent expert statutory committee on educational disadvantage, an initiative introduced by then minister for education Micheál Martin.
Operating between 2002 and 2005, the committee adopted a holistic perspective, framing educational disadvantage within the broader context of poverty and calling for a co-ordinated, cross-departmental policy response. This broader approach was later set aside with the launch of the Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools (Deis) programme by minister Mary Hanafin in 2005.
Deis shifted the focus more narrowly to school-based interventions, a model that has remained consistent under successive ministers.
The administrative structure of the Irish education system is historically complex. At the apex is the Department of Education, which oversees a wide range of management bodies, patronage groups and 4,000 schools, the majority of which are private institutions. The idea of establishing a “middle tier” of governance to manage the education system at a regional or local level has been periodically proposed. This reform would aim to relieve the department of day-to-day operational matters and enable it to focus more effectively on strategic policy development.
As noted in the landmark 1991 OECD Report: “The department is concerned with such minor matters because there is no administrative layer between it and individual units.”
This issue resurfaced during the convention, which prompted the minister to include provision for a middle tier in draft education legislation. However, during the 1997 general election the proposal was opposed by Fianna Fáil. Following its return to government, the idea was dropped .
The practice of out-of-field teaching, where teachers are assigned to teach subjects in which they lack formal qualifications, has been a long-standing feature of Irish post-primary education. The OECD, in its 1991 review, identified this practice as a significant impediment to the development of professional teaching standards, describing it as “a constraint on true professionalism”.
The government acknowledged this criticism in its subsequent Green Paper the following year stating: “While, ideally teachers should only teach their final degree subjects, it is not considered practicable to introduce such a requirement at this stage.”. The convention echoed this concern, warning that “in terms of promoting quality in education, it would be unwise to allow a situation to develop whereby a significant proportion of subject teaching was taught by non-specialists”.
Since 2005, the trajectory of education policy in Ireland has undergone a noticeable shift, particularly in how it addresses educational disadvantage, diverging from the broader, interdepartmental strategy initially introduced by Micheál Martin. Such shifts in policy direction are entirely legitimate within a democratic framework, where elected officials must retain authority to redefine priorities. Whether these changes have been advantageous is another matter.
Another issue which warrants focus is the issue of the middle tier. Despite backing from the OECD and the convention, the proposal to establish a middle tier was quietly abandoned, perhaps reflective of the influence of vested interests. Similarly, the persistent issue of out-of-field teaching has gone largely unaddressed, despite repeated warnings. If anything, the situation has worsened. These examples suggest a troubling trend: well-recognised structural challenges are consistently deprioritised and reform remains fragmented and reactive, rather than strategic.
The convention was a highly effective initiative in its effort to identify and prioritise critical issues within Irish education. Ms McEntee would be well advised to follow the model devised by her predecessor to a large extent.
A weakness, however, was that no mechanism was provided for ongoing review of the issues it raised. As the OECD observed in 1991, while “inspectors’ reports on individual schools are no doubt valuable ... they are not a substitute for a sophisticated review of what’s happening inside the entire education system”. More than three decades later, this weakness persists.
Consequently, the issues identified by the convention were not subjected to sustained or rigorous follow-up. It is imperative that the Minister incorporate a mechanism for ongoing, independent evaluation within any new structure she introduces.
Prof Judith Harford and Dr Brian Fleming are based at UCD’s School of Education
