The State was entitled to refuse to fund a Co Clare school, which is based on the Steiner method of education, because of the school's failure to employ teachers with State-recognised qualifications and its inadequate provision for the teaching of Irish, the High Court decided yesterday.
But Ms Justice Laffoy was critical of the Department of Education's handling of the application for State aid by Cooleenbridge School, Tuamgraney, Co Clare, saying the Department should have adopted a more searching and pro-active approach.
She noted the Department's deputy chief inspector, Mr Sean O Fiachra, had indicated a new application for funding would be met with a degree of flexibility in relation to curriculum issues other than Irish and early-childhood learning.
Ms Justice Laffoy said she regretted the court was unable to provide any solution for the school. The strong commitment of the parents to their children's education was evident and commendable. "It would be unfortunate if Cooleenbridge school ceased to operate because of lack of resources," she said. "If it were to close, I think the ultimate irony would be that it would probably cost the State as much to deal with the consequences of closure as it would to fund the school if it was recognised."
The Cooleenbridge school, established in 1986, operates the Waldorf/Steiner method based on the teachings of Rudolf Steiner who established a school in Stuggart in 1919. It has more than 100 pupils and costs £120,000 a year to run.
The hearing opened in November and lasted 20 days, with judgment reserved on January 26th.
Yesterday, Ms Justice Laffoy said the school claimed entitlement to funding on the same basis as other primary schools recognised by the State. The core issue in determining whether that claim was sustainable was the extent of the State's liability under Article 42.4 which provided that the State shall provide for free primary education.
The State said it had discharged its obligation to provide for free primary education in the area by funding 15 denominational schools within a 12-mile radius of Cooleenbridge, although those schools were incompatible with the lawful preference of an appreciable number of parents there.
This was not a tenable argument and it was also clear this was not the stance adopted in practice by the Minister because of the recognition of multi-denominational schools and Gaelscoileanna, the judge found.
The State contended the criteria for recognition of a primary school contained in the 1965 Rules for National Schools were constitutional and provided a valid legal basis for implementation of the State's obligations.
The judge said the State had never itemised all the relevant criteria for recognition of a primary school but had identified two, relating to teacher qualifications and the teaching of Irish, and claimed the Cooleenbridge school failed to comply with those. Therefore, the State argued, the refusal of funding in February 1995 was properly made in accordance with the rules.
The State also had concerns about the approach to early childhood learning, a perceived lack of comprehensiveness and continuity in the curriculum and the absence of a principal teacher.
There was a question whether the failure of the Minister to seek a solution to accommodate the parents' choice within the system of recognised primary schools, by relaxing the normal qualification, infringed the parents' constitutional rights.
If there was a reasonable solution available, the failure of the Minister to adopt it would breach the parents' constitutional rights. But to suggest there should be no prescribed standards for teacher qualification was not reasonable and that was in essence what the plaintiffs were doing.
On the evidence before her, it was not possible to conclude there was a reasonable solution to the teacher qualification dilemma, although there might be a solution in the approach adopted by the Minister in relation to restricted recognition for Montessori-trained teachers in special schools.
She was not satisfied the State had breached the plaintiffs' constitutional rights in applying to the school the rules regarding teacher qualification.
It was undoubtedly the case, the judge said, that the treatment of Irish in the Cooleenbridge school curriculum submitted to the Department in 1994 was totally inadequate and the Minister was justified in withholding recognition on that account. Despite the best efforts of the parents, the present position regarding Irish at the school was not satisfactory.
Concluding, the judge said the plaintiffs had not established that the rejection of their application for recognition breached their constitutional rights nor had they established that they had the right to require the State to fund the school.
The case was adjourned for a week to allow both sides consider the judgment before consideration of costs.
