The announcement by Mary O'Rourke, Minister for Education on November 26th, 1990, that the Government intends to issue Green and White Papers on education during 1991, preparatory to issuing a comprehensive Education Act in 1992, is extremely welcome news for Irish liberalism. The announcement follows two and a half years of intensive lobbying from the Campaign to Separate Church and State (CSCS). While other groups and individuals have been calling for legislation, CSCS set the running on the issue and is known to have done so. This must be the first Irish reform that has been placed on the agenda as a direct result of liberal secularist pressure, and the Minister has made it plain that major reform is what she has in mind. The Act, she states, "will be more than a tidying-up operation to codify existing administrative procedures and will spell out a policy for educational development" (Irish Times, 27.11.90.).
Minister O'Rourke wants a thoroughgoing debate before the legislation is framed. This article is intended to set the ball rolling among liberals and secularists; comments, criticisms, letters from all quarters are welcome. Liberals hold an advantage in this debate, having initiated the call for legislation; it would be shameful if that advantage was squandered by making inadequately prepared or politically unrealistic proposals in Submissions to the Minister.
Of course Green Papers and White Papers have often been ignored and the Education Act is very long from being passed. The process could be derailed by, for example, the removal of Mary O'Rourke from Education. But for the moment the omens are good.
An account of the many issues raised in the course of the campaign provides a good starting point for the debate on what should be in the Education Act.
During the last decade there have been several references to the need for legislation, but they have been no more than references: Fine Gael's 1980 Policy Document, Action Programme For Education In The Eighties; a motion carried at the 1982 Conference of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation (INTO); a passing reference by an educationalist, Dr. Dennis O'Sullivan of University College, Galway, to the need for legislation, "which would specify the rights and obligations of the State, school authorities, teachers, parents and pupils", while addressing the centenary celebrations of St. Finbarr's Seminary College, Farrenferris, Co. Cork (Cork Examiner, 2.3.87). Clearly many people in the education sphere wanted legislation, but the speeches and policy documents were not being sustained, or translated into political pressure.
CSCS began lobbying for education legislation during the summer of 1988. One of the first public statements on the matter came from two of the independent senators, John A. Murphy and Brendan Ryan, while addressing a CSCS meeting in Cork. Murphy stated:---"For too long Department mandarins have operated mysteriously behind closed doors in collusion with educational vested interests. In an area of such vast public expenditure statutory accountability to public representatives is imperative" (IT, 9.9.88). The headline in a sympathetic Cork Examiner feature not long afterwards summarised what many education watchers were thinking:---Independents Rush In Where Angels Fear To Tread (19.10.88).
CSCS launched its campaign for an Education Act in earnest at its AGM on 24th September, 1988, with a document entitled, On The Need For A Legislative Basis For The Provision Of Schooling. The main thrust of this was that the schools system should be opened up to democratic control at every level: Dail control of the Education Department and paper representation on school Boards of Management. A longer version of the document was carried in Church & State, No. 29. In November of that year the document was submitted to the Review Body on Primary Education. The Irish Times quoted from it:---"It should be said that the voluntary providers of education enjoy a position of power without responsibility. They provide such services as suit them, to such pupils as they select, without having overall statutory responsibility to provide appropriate education for all the children of the neighbourhood. Inequalities are bound to result from such a laissez faire system" (IT, 28.11.88.).
Michael McKillen from CSCS attacked from another angle on 2nd December, 1988, in a letter to the Irish Times:---"It seems strange indeed that a state department which has a voracious appetite for funds and which plays a pivotal role in the mass education of the populace should operate in a legislative vacuum. Could it be perhaps due to the fact that the real control of the educational system lies outside the Oireachtas in the corridors of Maynooth and the other seats of denominational power? The existence of an education Act would bring this extra parliamentary power-brokering out into the open, and this is something that would not please those who seek to arrogate control of the system for their own ends. Democratic scrutiny which would be involved in placing an education Act on the statute books would upset the denominational control applecart".
The CSCS campaign was launched in this way and sustained throughout 1989 and 1990. The teacher unions were lobbied; Dublin Trades Council was addressed; a large number of politicians were met; the parent bodies were met; discriminatory aspects of the system were researched; a stream of letters to the papers was kept up; and the intention of mounting a legal action were publicised. Two of the teacher unions were quick to come out for legislation, as was the ICTU. On February 21st, 1989, the Irish Times carried the remarkable story that a senior official from the Department of Education was concerned about the lack of legislation governing education. Educationalists and parent bodies were beginning to support the campaign. During 1990 John Colgan drafted a document, Minimum Requirements for An Education Act, which was presented to the Minister when a CSCS deputation met her on July 3rd, 1990. Minimum Requirements went beyond previous work in providing draft clauses for an Act and detailing the areas of denominationalism which CSCS wish to see reformed. The full text is reproduced on page 16.
A controversial property sale took place during the summer of 1989 which transformed the campaign for an Education Act---the sale of Carysfort college. The Mercy Order nuns placed their Teacher Training College and adjoining lands, valued at £20 million, on the international market on 20th June, 1989. Two days later the Irish Times reported:---
"In 1980, the State invested £2.5 million in new libraries, a restaurant and other facilities, only a few years after a £1 million investment. But it would appear that the lease signed between the order and the Department of Education does not oblige the nuns to repay anything to the State out of the proceeds of the sale, which are expected to amount to £20 million.
"According to sources in the Department of Education, officials visited the college recently to see if photocopying machines, audio-visual equipment and other items could be used for other educational purposes. They were told that the order had obtained a legal opinion that everything belonged to the Sisters of Mercy, even though it had been purchased with a hundred per cent State finance" (22.6.89).
That is where the matter rested until Dick Spicer lodged a claim with the State Solicitor on 14th August; he accused the State of endowing religion and of failing to ensure that public monies invested in Carysfort were being used for the purpose originally intended. The effect of the case on the Department of Education was electric. Mary O'Rourke immediately set up a departmental investigation to consider the terms under which the State funds religious establishments. On the RTE radio programme, This Week, she said:---"leases signed with Church bodies are a matter of concern to me and I will be giving the matter my close attention in the coming weeks" (13.8.89.). The Irish Press described Carysfort as the tip of a huge iceberg (15.8.89) and quoted Senator Joe O'Toole:---"In the primary sector alone, about £100 million had been invested by the State in the past four years. The question is, how much of this do we still own?". The payment of Grants to schools and the property rights of religious establishments in receipt of public money had been exposed as a legal minefield. The case for proper legislation was becoming unanswerable.
On 10th October, John Walshe of the Irish Independent broke the news that "many of those who put in tenders for the property are believed to have asked that the question of repayment be first clarified". In other words, the potential buyers were insisting that the wrangle caused by Dick Spicer's legal action be sorted out prior to sale, leaving the Sisters of Mercy little choice but to reach an accommodation with the Department. The nuns finally agreed to pay £1.75 million to the State. Meanwhile, the Department hurriedly negotiated retrospective leases with the entire secondary school sector to ensure that if schools were sold, the State could reclaim any capital investment. For once, Church/State relations had been conducted on an equitable basis.
The importance of the Carysfort case cannot be overemphasised: it rocked the Department of Education and showed that the powerful clerical lobby in education was not unbeatable. It also focussed attention on what John Horgan writing in the Sunday Tribune (2.7.89) referred to as:---"serious allegations about financial procedures" of which the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Dail Committee on Public Accounts had been complaining during the seventies and eighties, an aspect of the controversy that again highlighted the need for legislation.
On September 26th, 1990, Dick Spicer was officially informed that the Mercy Order had repaid the £1.75 million, and returned library books and equipment to the value of £600,000, which had been distributed to "Educational Institutions funded by the state". Following a discussion of the Carysfort settlement in the Dail Committee on Public Accounts, one of its members, Gay Mitchell, TD, stated:---
"If the State put public money into a venture which was then sold privately at enormous gain, the State should automatically and statutorily get back a proportion of what it had put in. In the case of Carysfort there should have been a legal requirement that the State get a substantial part of the sale".
In retrospect, the whole row over the Carysfort sale might be seen as the coming of age of Irish democracy.
Throughout the campaign nobody spoke against the idea of an Act, with one exception: Kieran Mulvey, Secretary of the Association of Secondary Teachers of Ireland (ASTI). The INTO President during 1989, Michael Drew, spelt out his Union's position during the 1989 Annual Congress:---"Present practice is educationally unsound and unacceptable in a modern democracy. An Education Act is urgently required". Billy Fitzpatrick of the Teachers Union of Ireland (TUI) has been equally forthright and was interviewed on RTE radio and television when Mary O'Rourke's announcement was made showing how closely the Union is identified with the call for legislation.
Mulvey stated his opposition to an Act on two occasions that we are aware of. A report in the Irish Independent of 24th August, 1989, stated:
"Recent international evidence suggested the right wing view would win such a debate, as was seen in the US, the UK and France, he commented.
"We are likely, in such a debate on the constitutional issues involved, to have the same negative and somewhat hysterical debate as those which we had on the most recent referenda on divorce and the pro-life campaign' said Mr. Mulvey.
"He told the General Humbert Summer School in Ballina, Co. Mayo, that such a debate would be a sterile discussion on the so-called 'control' of education. It would not be fought on the issues of most concern to parents, teachers, management or pupils, ie on an effective delivery of educational resources and services where it matters most---in the classroom."
Following the Minister's announcement of intention to introduce legislation he reiterated his belief that right wing views would win the debate while acknowledging that the concept was welcome. "Whereas some restrictions on Ministerial authority might be welcome to teachers, other changes could limit their influence in shaping Government education policies, Mr. Mulvey maintains"(IT, 12.90).
These points should be answered. that right wing ideas have won out in other countries is irrelevant in this state. The impetus for change in Irish education is coming from the unions, liberals and educationalists, all of whom are demanding that the education system be used to achieve greater social equality. The current inequality of educational opportunity is such that change can only be in a 'left-wing' direction. So far the argument about making schools compete for business etc. has not arisen. Perhaps it will some day, when it will be a matter to be decided by the democracy which funds the system.
"A negative and somewhat hysterical debate" is a peculiar way of describing the social issue referenda. On the questions of abortion and divorce there was and still is a strong difference of opinion in the society and both sides argued their case vigorously during the referenda. That was no bad thing. It was probably one of the better things that have occurred in Irish democracy. We had a difference of opinion and we thrashed it out. Perhaps the political timing of the divorce poll and the ethics of allowing the majority to decide on matters of personal morality should be questioned but the actual debates were a positive experience for the society.
Antidemocratic bias runs throughout Mulvey's reasoning. His points that a debate on who should "control" education would divert attention from the real issues and that legislative change could limit the influence of teachers are just that: debating 'points'. They sound like the voice of the old system trying to justify itself. The real issues in education will not disappear when proper legislative controls are instituted. If teachers, or any other of the parties involved in the schools have something to say after the passing of an Education Act, they will have access to the relevant forum, whether it is a school Board of Management, a Local Education Committee, or the Dail. There is no reason why the teachers' lobby should decline in influence.
The matter of "control" is not a red herring. The current set-up is paid for out of taxpayers' money, but the State which acts on behalf of the taxpayers has no control over it (how that works in practice can be seen in the dispute over Carysfort). The Education Department is not properly answerable to the Dail. The citizen/taxpayer/parent has no properly defined rights in relation to education. The peculiar relationship between the Department, the Church authorities and the teacher unions sits like a weight on the society discouraging change.
Kieran Mulvey has recently been appointed to an executive position in the Labour Party and has resigned his position in the ASTI.
Involvement by the parties on this issue has been encouraging if a bit tentative. The Labour Party voted overwhelmingly at their Conference in Tralee in 1989 to support an Act, and Michael D. Higgins warned delegates in a good speech to be ready for a fight on the issue. The Workers' party include the call for legislation in their agitational campaigns for educational improvement. Fine Gael have been preparing their own draft legislation and John Bruton, as leader of the Opposition, was quick to welcome the Government's commitment to an Act. Fianna Fail deserve credit for the performance of Mary O'Rourke as Minister. Her impact on her Department is reminiscent of Noel Browne's impact on the Department of Health. The only party that have made no contribution that we are aware of is the Progressive Democrats.
Pressure for an Education Act came from many different sectors of society. One notable advocate was Senator John A. Murphy. At the Annual Delegate Conference of the National Parents' Council for Primary Schools on 20th April, 1990, he stated:---
"I hope that parents will add their voices to the growing clamour for a comprehensive Education Act, and pressure their public representatives accordingly. There is no legislation governing our education system, and Ireland is unique in that respect. Extending back into British days, education has been the subject of an undemocratic consensus between churches and state. Important education decisions are still taken behind closed doors, as an arrangement between interest groups, or at administrative desks. It is unacceptable that an air of secrecy, even of sensitive security, should attach to an issue of central concern to parents and taxpayers. The organisation and administration of education must be put on a statutory basis, and be made accountable to public and democratic control. The elected representatives of the people (themselves parents, for the most part) must be responsible for a publicly funded educational system. Only under an Education Act can parents properly fulfil their constitutional right and duty to provide for the education of their children".
Two representatives of the media also played an extremely useful role. John Walshe of the Irish Independent and Michael Foley of the Irish Times reported the progress of the campaign consistently. Walshe described how a challenge in the courts to the denominationalism of the school system would be the "legal battle of the century" (II, 19.12.88), and Foley wrote a well researched article entitled, A School System That Cries Out For An Education Act for the Irish Times. The article states:---
"Major policy decisions are decided without debate either publicly or in the Dail. An example of this was the decision two years ago to raise the pupil-teacher ratio, reversing successive Government policy at a stroke. In the same year another circular made it impossible for schools to develop to a six-year, post primary cycle: it laid down that only in the most extraordinary case might a child repeat a year of post primary school unless they could pay. This year the reasons allowing a child to repeat were changed. Every year school principals can expect circulars to land on their desk like confetti, changing rules, contradicting existing rules and enacting new rules".
Foley quotes Dr. John Harris, a former special advisor to three Ministers for Education:---
"The drafting of such an act would force the political system to define its objectives for education and even to establish a philosophy of education, which is sadly lacking at present" (17.10.89.).
In a private court case mounted by Donal Callaghan of Ashbourne, Co. Meath, against the local Bishop, the Department, and Meath Vocational Education Committee, Justice Declan Costello stated in his judgement:---"many hundreds, perhaps thousands of rules and regulations, memoranda, circulars and decisions were issued by the Department and Minister (dealing sometimes with the most important aspects of educational policy) not under any statutory power, but merely as administrative measures" (IT, 21.11.90.). A statement of this sort from a member of the judiciary is unlikely to be ignored by the Government.
The final push on the matter came from the ICTU during the negotiations for a Programme of Economic and Social Development. The highly praised ICTU document, Ireland 1900-2000, contained the demand for:---"more investment in key areas of the education system with the introduction of an Education Act".
Time was when contributors to Church & State (founded in the early seventies) referred to the Irish secularist movement more in hope than in honest description. Perhaps there never will be an Irish secularist lobby large enough to be a movement. But, as we go to press, January 1991, a network of people exists throughout the country who are unhappy with catholic denominationalism and prepared to do something about it. This network is organised in two totally separate organisations: the Campaign to Separate Church and State; and the movement for multi-denominational schools, Educate Together (ET).
Both organisations have been quietly breaking new ground in their different areas---the achievements of the ET membership in building ten functioning primary schools is monumental---and a common thread runs through the culture of both. Whereas in the past criticism of the Catholic Church tended to be declamatory, embittered, isolated, and, most of all, abstract, this new liberalism is practical, focussed on specifics. The Committees in ET and CSCS have steered clear of anticlericalism but they have not been afraid to stand up and be counted. What they want is not the destruction of the denominational system, but the creation of an alternative to it, so that the liberal and non-religious minorities can live, work and raise families in the society. The influence of both ET and CSCS on the raw material of anti-denominational feeling has been a moderating one.
What is the way forward for the new liberalism? CSCS has helped to discredit the existing set-up and most of the interested parties are agreed that legislative controls make sense. ET has shown that it is possible to establish and run schools outside of the denominational system. The logical next step would seem to be an Education Act that allows non-denominational/multi-denominational schools to be established by the State wherever parents want these. A proposal along these lines is already being discussed in liberal circles and hopefully will be contained in the next issue of Church & State. It is an idea worthy of consideration.
An editorial entitled, Religion And Endowment, in Church & State No. 21, produced in March 1986, reviewed a two part series of articles in the Irish Press by Desmond M. Clarke. The editorial reads:---
The conclusion which Clarke draws from his arguments is that the Government should start 'constructing secular schools in larger population centres, as an alternative education', alongside the religious schools; and that 'In smaller population centres, to deconfessionalise schools so that children of any religion or none may attend, in which competent teachers of any religion or none may teach, and to make provision for special religious education only for those who request it.' This soundly based liberal position is immensely superior to the flabby defensive posture adopted by many would-be liberals.
In the same issue, Angela Clifford wrote:---If a secular movement strong enough to wrest blanket control of education from the Church develops, it will have a secular or liberal Catholic outlook as its inspiration to replace the present repressive values and as an alternative inspiration for the society, which can be transmitted in the (secular) schools.
Both these statements may yet turn out to be prophetic. Happily, in the years since 1986 much has been written on and reproduced from the liberal Catholic tradition in Ireland, stretching from the Confederation of Kilkenny, through the Jacobites and the Wild Geese, through to the anti-denominationalism of the Young Ireland movement and on to the most recent flowering in the Cork-based All-for-Ireland League and the novels of Canon Sheehan in the early part of this century. This well of culture is there to be drawn from as required. Secularist thinking has also progressed.
The new liberalism is still at an early phase of development. Mary O'Rourke may fail in her endeavour to introduce legislation; the legislation, if it is ever passed, may reinforce the denominational monopoly; any number of variables may prevent the scenario that has been painted here from happening. Yet there is in the proposal for a small number of secular schools, an opportunity to resolve an ugly quarrel. By granting an institutional base to the new liberalism, the society could be exposed to a new development of its culture and the negative carping about denomination could be removed from education.
If you wish to subscribe to the Irish Political Review, Labour & Trade Union Review, Church & State or Problems Of Capitalism & Socialism please go to our secure sales area. Postal delivery is free within the European Union.