The Constitution expressly prevents the State from forcing parents to send their children to schools of a particular type, the High Court was told yesterday.
But through its refusal to provide funding for schools using the Steiner/Waldorf scheme of education the State was effectively saying parents should send their children to other schools, said Mr John Rogers SC. He claimed the State was acting unconstitutionally in failing to fund the Tuamgraney school in Co Clare, which uses the Steiner method and was the first such school in the State.
Mr Rogers was continuing submissions for the plaintiffs on the second day of a constitutional challenge by Miss Nora O'Shiel, suing by her mother, Mrs Margaret Boyle O'Shiel, other pupils and parents of the school, and Coolenbridge Ltd, manager and owner of the school.
Their action is against the Minister for Education, Ireland, and the Attorney General.
Mr Rogers said his clients provided primary education, and the State was obliged under the Constitution to make provision for the funding of that education. He told Ms Justice Laffoy that if she decided the school provided primary education, she must also find that according to the Constitution it was the duty of the defendants to provide funding for that.
The court has heard the school was established in 1986 and currently has about 70 pupils.
Mr Rogers has claimed it has sought recognition and funding since 1991. In 1995 it had been told that to qualify for funding it must be recognised under the Rules for National Schools Under the Department of Education published in 1965.
Mr Rogers claimed the 1965 rules were "just the tip of the iceberg". He said the defendants required that schools be run according to those rules, and a Steiner school could not be. That was the crux of the case.
He said the State had not shown precisely how the Steiner schools did not conform to those rules. They had been told their teachers and curriculum were not appropriate and had been refused recognition. Ms Justice Laffoy said the rules appeared very much out of date. Mr Bill Shipsey SC, for the State, said the plaintiffs were well aware of the reasons for the refusal to grant recognition. The State was not saying the parents of children attending the Steiner school were not entitled to establish and maintain such a school. It was his case that the State was not obliged to fund such a school. The hearing resumes today.
