Oireachtas Committee calls for integration not segregation in schools

Michael Nugent

The Oireachtas joint Committee on Education has concluded that multiple patronage and ethos as a basis for policy can lead to segregation and inequality in the education system, and that the objectives of admission policy should be equality and integration.

This reflects the arguments made by Atheist Ireland to the Committee, both in our written submission and in the presentation by Jane Donnelly to the Committee hearings last December, about the new Bill on admission to schools that the Committee was considering.

This is a significant and strongly-worded conclusion, that contrasts the current segregation and inequality with the objective of equality and integration. This recognition goes to the heart of the religious discrimination in the Irish education system. The Minister should take it seriously, and act on it.

Access to a local school without religious discrimination is a human right, and Ireland is in breach of its international obligations by permitting this religious discrimination. This religious discrimination disrespects the philosophical convictions of secular parents and their children and treats them as second class citizens.

The Committee also concluded that concerns were raised by stakeholders about the religious ethos exemption provided for in Section 7(3)(c) of the Equal Status Act, 2000.

Atheist Ireland had told the Committee that this provision breaches provisions of Bunreacht na hÉireann, and Ireland‘s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Atheist Ireland had argued that, if the proposed Amendment permitted exemptions on the grounds of race or disability, everyone would instinctively recognise that this was discrimination and could not possibly meet the stated objective of ensuring that schools’ enrolment policies and procedure are non-discriminatory and are applied fairly in respect of all applicants. Unfortunately the State believes that discrimination on religious grounds is somehow acceptable while recognising that discrimination on the other recognised grounds is unacceptable.

The Committee noted that Section 7(3)(c) has not been challenged in the Courts, and concluded that there is a potential tension between Articles 42 (Education) and 44 (Religion) of Bunreacht na hÉireann, and this poses a particular difficulty when legislating in this policy area.
.

robindch

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Note: Can someone with power to do so please change the title of this to calls FOR integration not segregation. Thanks.

Just click the [Edit] button in the bottom right of the text panel, then [Go Advanced] to go into the full post editor.

lazygal

Very disappointed to hear Joanna Tuffy say on The Last Word that the committee won't make recommendations on religious barriers to entry due to constitutional issues. Ffs it's the main issue in terms of entry to schools and they say their hands are tied. Not impressed.

recedite

Michael Nugent wrote: »

This is a significant and strongly-worded conclusion, that contrasts the current segregation and inequality with the objective of equality and integration. This recognition goes to the heart of the religious discrimination in the Irish education system. The Minister should take it seriously, and act on it.

Hmmm... so what you're saying is this gives Minister Quinn some extra ammunition, if he wants to use it, but nothing more.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The Committee also concluded that concerns were raised by stakeholders about the religious ethos exemption provided for in Section 7(3)(c) of the Equal Status Act, 2000.

Atheist Ireland had told the Committee that this provision breaches provisions of Bunreacht na hÉireann, and Ireland‘s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

So they are aware of your/our view that people's rights are being breached. What are the pros and cons of actually taking a case to ECHR ? Has anyone researched that yet?

The Committee noted that Section 7(3)(c) has not been challenged in the Courts, and concluded that there is a potential tension between Articles 42 (Education) and 44 (Religion) of Bunreacht na hÉireann, and this poses a particular difficulty when legislating in this policy area.

Is this a political-speak for saying that the existing exemptions to the Equal Status act are wide open to a constitutional legal challenge?

Congratulations on getting this far BTW, I am not knocking what you have already achieved. Sometimes when you get someone to admit there is a problem, you are more than half way to solving it.

Peregrinus

The report in full:

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/Report-on-Schools-Admissions-Bill.pdf

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Is this a political-speak for saying that the existing exemptions to the Equal Status act are wide open to a constitutional legal challenge?

I think it is.

But it's not political-speak for saying that s. 7(3)(c) is probably unconststitutional, or that a challenge would succeed, or that a challenge would necessarily have whatever outcome the challenger hoped for.

What strikes me reading the report is that, on this particular question, the Committee sets out at length the various submissions made by stakeholders, but says practically nothing about what they themselves think. This is in contrast to other issues (waiting lists, children in care, etc) where they are happy to take clear positions. This, means, I think, that in relation to religious factors in admission criteria either (a) they don't know what to think or (b) they do know what to think, but different Committee members think different things, and there is no consensus that they can put into the report.

In this context, I think their hopes regarding a challenge to s. 7(3)(c) are not so much that the section would be struck down as that the judgment in such a challenge would provide some much-needed clarity as to the relationship between Articles 42 and 44, because they as legislators would find it easier to legislate in this area if they knew what the constitutional parameters were.

expectationlost

Education Committee publishes recommendations on Schools Admissions legislation http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/mediazone/pressreleases/name-20988-en.html

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/Report-on-Schools-Admissions-Bill.pdf

for the source link deficiently OP ^

expectationlost

http://www.todayfm.com/player/listen_back/7/9893/05th_March_2014_-_The_Last_Word_with_Matt_Cooper_Part_2 at 40 mins

admission by religion 'another days work' pathetic

recedite

Some interesting comments from the faith schools there in 4.3.5 of the document under "Withdrawal from Religious Instruction"

Many stakeholders highlighted their concerns around the issue of religious instruction, arguing that at present this constitutional right is a duty owed by the State. NABMSE write that it would seem the State is attempting to pass its obligations on to schools.

the Loreto Education Trust Board expressed concern that:
―The difficulties posed by having to put in place clearly articulated arrangements to cater for those who wish to withdraw, as is their right, has the potential to push Religious Education to the periphery of the school curriculum.

And the COI delegation seems to be looking for extra funding to cover this extra supervision.

They admit that it was the parents constitutional right all along to have their child supervised in a separate classroom during the time religious indoctrination was going on. The faith schools are saying that previously it was up to the State to provide the supervisor (which didn't happen, but it wasn't their fault) Now it looks like the State is legislating to put the onus squarely on the school itself, to provide that supervision.

Peregrinus

I gotta say, if the state recognises "the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction", then the funding of schools needs to cover the costs incurred when any child exercises that right. If the state recognises the right but withholds resources from those who exercise it, what kind of human rights practice is that?

It's a regular complaint of parents who withdraw their children that the childre are bored, unsupervised, etc. If the right exists, then any reasonable funding model has to assume that it will be exercised, and schools should be resourced accordingly.

recedite

Its a right that is more honoured in the breach than the observance.

Peregrinus

Undoubtedly. And as it's a right that more and more people are exercising, this is going to become a bigger issue. As long as the state fails or refuses to provide places in non-religious schools to meet demand, more and more people in religious schools are going to exercise this right, and the costs of accommodating this should be borne by the state. I think schools are quite right to point to the need for more resources here.

Michael Nugent

Peregrinus wrote: »

I gotta say, if the state recognises "the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction", then the funding of schools needs to cover the costs incurred when any child exercises that right. If the state recognises the right but withholds resources from those who exercise it, what kind of human rights practice is that?

It is actually the opposite.

It is a condition of schools receiving state funding that they respect the constitutional right of parents to withdraw their children from religious instruction classes.

Peregrinus

I don't see that as "the opposite", Michael. If it's a condition of receiving state funding that schools accommodate pupils who withdraw from religious instruction, isn't the corollary that the funding received should cover the costs of accommodating them?

Non-religious parents may send their children to religious schools (and then withdraw them from RI) for a variety of reasons, but a significant factor is likely to be the unavailability of places in non-religious schools. That, of course, is a policy failure for which the state is responsible. Issues of principle aside, it's bad governance if the state doesn't have to pick up the financial fallout from its policy failures. If the costs of providing more non-religious school places are borne by the state, but the costs that flow from not providing them can be offloaded onto others, then the state has a financial incentive not to provide them.

recedite

I don't think the cost is genuinely a big issue. Its just that schools have been using the cost issue as an excuse to prevent people from exercising their constitutional rights. The upcoming legislation seeks to clarify that the school is responsible for providing the supervision out of existing resources already given by the State.

There are other supervision situations in schools; playground supervision, remedial reading classes, special needs children etc. and these are dealt with routinely via the Unions under the Croke Park Agreements etc.

Michael Nugent

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't see that as "the opposite", Michael. If it's a condition of receiving state funding that schools accommodate pupils who withdraw from religious instruction, isn't the corollary that the funding received should cover the costs of accommodating them?

The schools do have the funding to cover the costs of doing it. They just have to re-allocate some of their existing resources.

Many of them don't want to re-allocate resources to that, because they would prefer to do something else, but they have to give priority to constitutional obligations.

If they want, they can then lobby the government for more funding to things that they want to do, but are not obliged to do, but they can't just choose not to do what they are obliged to do.

Michael Nugent

The report says wrote:

With regard to the arrangements for upholding the constitutional right of students who do not wish to attend religious instruction in schools, the COIBOE representatives noted that the current situation is that schools facilitate this where possible and in practice it is the parent who withdraws their child from class time and schools facilitate this on the basis of practicality and within the scope of available resources on the basis of goodwill.

They shouldn't think of themselves as facilitating it "on the basis of goodwill". It is a legal obligation.

The report says wrote:

Stakeholders highlighted potential difficulties regarding resources on this issue as any student who leaves religious instruction must be supervised.

For instance, the COIBOE write that:

“Should this now become an obligation on schools it will obviously have to be resourced.”

It is not "becoming" an obligation on schools. It has always been an obligation on schools. They have just chosen to ignore the obligation.

The report says wrote:

NABMSE also believe that it will be particularly difficult for smaller schools to allocate staff resources to supervision duties should any parent choose to withdraw their child from religious instruction. The Association of Community and Comprehensive Schools (ACCS) also highlight the difficulty that any withdrawal by parents of students from religious instruction would present in terms of resources.

Responding to this provision, the Loreto Education Trust Board expressed concern that:

“The difficulties posed by having to put in place clearly articulated arrangements to cater for those who wish to withdraw, as is their right, has the potential to push Religious Education to the periphery of the school curriculum.”

I suspect that for many schools, this is the real reason for ignoring the obligation. Fulfilling the obligation "has the potential to push Religious Education to the periphery of the school curriculum."

Peregrinus

I agree with this, Michael, and with what you said, recedite. Also, I suspect that in the overall scheme of things the cost of supervising kids withdrawn from RI are pretty modest.

It's just that, with (as I assume) more parent withdrawing kids from RI, the cost implications, however modest, must be rising. And if more and more parents are doing this, it's evidence that the imbalance between places in non-religious schools and demand for such places is growing. And if the state can wash its hands of the cost issues and say "not our problem", that just licences the state to ignore the problems caused by its policy. Which is Not Good.

Michael Nugent

Peregrinus wrote: »

And if the state can wash its hands of the cost issues and say "not our problem", that just licences the state to ignore the problems caused by its policy. Which is Not Good.

I agree that the state should not wash its hands of the problem. What the state should do is actively insist that the schools must fulfill the legal obligations that the schools undertook when they were given their funding. That would not be washing its hands of the cost issue. It would be implementing what the money has already been given to the schools to do.

Peregrinus

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I agree that the state should not wash its hands of the problem. What the state should do is actively insist that the schools must fulfill the legal obligations that the schools undertook when they were given their funding. That would not be washing its hands of the cost issue. It would be implementing what the money has already been given to the schools to do.

Even that has implications, though. If the state funds the schools to do a certain thing, but more resources are required to do that thing (because demand is increasing) then that must have implications for the required funding.

Michael Nugent

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even that has implications, though. If the state funds the schools to do a certain thing, but more resources are required to do that thing (because demand is increasing) then that must have implications for the required funding.

In principle that is true, but in practice it wouldn't apply to this issue.

If the increase in demand is small, then the same resources that are (or should be) already allocated to it would still suffice.

If the increase in demand is large, then there is a corresponding decrease in demand for religious instruction classes, which frees up resources to allocate to supervising pupils who are opted out of them.

It's not a resources issue. It is a power play based on maintaining an ethos that includes faith formation at the expense of breaching the constitutional rights of other citizens.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

I agree with this, Michael, and with what you said, recedite. Also, I suspect that in the overall scheme of things the cost of supervising kids withdrawn from RI are pretty modest.

There is zero cost if religious instruction takes place after the end of the standard school day, pupils not taking part can simply go home.

But of course making it easy to opt out means parents who aren't bothered about religion will do so in increasing numbers, and we can't have people excercising their constitutional rights willy-nilly now can we?

expectationlost

today with sean o'rourke

School Places

If you are the parent of a child who has reached school going age you may well be dealing with the fretting that comes with trying to get a place for your son or daughter in a local primary school.

New legislation on enrolment policies is forthcoming...but for now, getting a place in a school depends on a list of criteria that can leave many children out in the cold, stuck at the wrong end of a long waiting list.

I’m joined in studio now by Kitty Holland of The Irish Times who has written about the difficulty she had in getting her son into a local school...another parent, Alan Boland who experienced similar difficulties, and by Councillor David McGuinness who is inundated with calls from concerned parents on this issue.

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/today-with-sean-o-rourke/programmes/2014/0307/600707-today-with-sean-o-rourke-friday-7-march-2014/?clipid=1502856

alan boland had to go to a fee paying school, to avoid 35 minute commute to st louis school, he want enough schools and central point of information about getting into schools

kittly holland again, non-church schools over subscribed, sean o'rourke trying to shift blame for our catholic dominated education policy, lack of schools in no by influenced by religion in ireland

david mcguiness FF *spit* his hero mary hanafin didn't do anything about this, but he's complaining now, wants district school enrolement, but is there enough places still?

sean o'rourke blaming it on parents signing up to multiple schools how can he blame them?

st mary covent school principal has 9 religions in his school, only problem when full, so his school is fine then isn''t it, there's no real problem.

where the ministry for education and government spokesperson to answer these problems

kitty holland got her kid in to st louis in a catholic order school in rathmines which she describes as not local as she lives in ranelagh