Madam, - Seamus Mulconry, I feel, fails to see the causal link when he claims that the achievements of the Nordic system are not due to the State being better able to manage schools than churches, but are the result of more effective pedagogy and better resources (December 31st).
Many generations of Irish schoolchildren were taught by people with no proper qualifications, with no vocation for the task and with little or no interest in the subjects being taught. That the Church undertook to provide this education at a fraction of what it would have cost the State is beside the point. I suggest that a State has a different end in mind when educating children than any religion will have, and that that difference accounts for better management.
As a product of the church system - the Sisters of the Presentation and the Carmelite Fathers (both schools also employed lay people) - I can say that some of my teachers were great, most were good and some were pathetic. The latter, we pupils believed at the time, tended to wear habits.
Why are children who haven't yet reached "the age of reason" being taught as "Roman Catholics", "Church of Ireland", "Methodists", etc? They're none of those things until they can make an informed decision on the matter - and they'll never be fully informed in a segregated environment. Can there be a "Catholic" approach to mathematics, accountancy or Spanish? Do Church of Ireland pupils need to learn a different type of economics or geography? Enough of this foolish division based on maintaining the numbers of "faithful".
Mr Mulconry also says: "If parents believe that religion is an important part of that education, then the State should support parents by enabling them to send their children to a faith-based school". No-one would disagree, but the problem seems to be in finding out whether most parents actually desire a religious element in their children's education. Stick a pin into the map of Ireland and imagine what educational options are available to a family living there who wish to send their child to a non-religious-run establishment.
- Yours, etc,
TONY McCOY O'GRADY, Grangebrook Close, Rathfarnham, Dublin 16.
Madam, - Just because the Constitution places the primary responsibility for the education of children on parents does not mean it is necessarily a good idea. What has been happening in practice is that those parents who value education do not need to be reminded of their duty in this regard, to the extent that they will spend large amounts on private education even where excellent free schools are available. On the other hand it has been necessary, in the case of some parents who do not value education, to have the so-called responsibility taken over by the State anyway.
The part of the Constitution giving effect to parental responsibility in education (Article 42) is closely related to that (Article 41) which makes the family the primary "unit group of Society". This has been found wanting to such as extent that the Government is forced to hold a referendum later this year to provide for the rights of children. Would that we had made our primary education system child-centred rather than faith-centred. If we did, we would teach our young people how to think, not what to think.
- Yours, etc,
SEAMUS McKENNA, Farrenboley Park, Dublin 14.