Openness with Roots : Education in Religion in Irish Primary Schools [1 ed.] 9781443863216, 9781443853507

Citation preview

Openness with Roots

Openness with Roots: Education in Religion in Irish Primary Schools

By

Caroline Renehan

Openness with Roots: Education in Religion in Irish Primary Schools, by Caroline Renehan This book first published 2014 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2014 by Caroline Renehan All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-5350-X, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-5350-7

For my nieces and nephews Ingrid, Nikki, Tom, Lucy, Amy, Rory, Gaby, Alana, Michael, Sean and for my grandnieces and grandnephew Aria, Eve, JoJo, Theo

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword .................................................................................................... ix Dr Kevin Williams Acknowledgements .................................................................................. xiii Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 Chapter One ................................................................................................. 3 Ireland’s Heritage Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 21 The Documents Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 39 A Human Rights Perspective Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 63 The Patronage Question Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 77 Education in Religion Conclusion ................................................................................................. 89 Notes.......................................................................................................... 93 Bibliography ............................................................................................ 109

FOREWORD DR KEVIN WILLIAMS

Caroline Renehan is one of the most diligent scholars in Irish academic life, having acquired two Master’s degrees and two doctorates and I have had the privilege of being her teacher on two occasions–for her first and second Master’s degrees. Her two doctoral dissertations are in very different areas, the first in theology and the second in empirical research in education. Both are available in book form but this is the first of her Master’s degrees to be published as a book. Her achievements need no further commendation, so I shall take this opportunity to make some observations regarding the context of her arguments. The four points that follow as a foreword to the volume are offered in the spirit of John Locke, who envisaged the work of the philosopher as “under-labourer”. As he puts it in the introductory “Epistle to the Reader” in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, her or his job is to clear the “ground a little” by removing “some of the rubbish that lies in the way to knowledge”.1 There are some considerations that need to be taken into account in analysing the profile of religion in schools and these considerations apply whatever one’s position, i.e., the fundamental orientation of one’s belief system. Firstly, the status of religion in education prompts serious disagreement in most countries and different jurisdictions have different approaches to the issue. Contexts vary enormously. In Ireland the vast majority (over 90%) of schools in the primary sector are under denominational patronage, that is, they are sponsored by Churches or religious bodies. And this is where we are in respect of the control and management of schools; we are not starting with a clean slate. This is a matter of history rather than of a current conspiracy on the part of the Churches. Whether state support for religiously-affiliated schools is desirable from civic and educational perspectives and whether this support will prove financially realistic in the future are large questions. Changes are certainly afoot and the Department of Education and Science is seeking to curtail the dominance of religious patronage. Recent years have witnessed increasing demand for Educate Together schools and the opening of Community National Schools under the sponsorship of

x

Foreword

Vocational Education Committees. Yet whatever school systems are put in place, we live now in a world in which we find ourselves in servitude to the scarce resources of this world rather than in some ideal universe of total harmony and of limitless resources where all demands can be met to the total satisfaction of everyone. Secondly, reasoning on educational issues in not simply a matter of invoking a particular legal framework; it must be informed by appropriate philosophical and empirical research. A distinction must be observed between legal and educational/moral grounds for decisions. It is not sufficient simply to invoke a constitutional provision, a law or even a judicial determination as if this ended all moral and philosophical discussion about sponsorship of schools. In any case, although judicial determinations are binding in law, these determinations derive from judgements about the weight to be placed on different elements in a mosaic of principles. Thirdly, it is necessary to be circumspect in the use of the language of rights with regard to schooling. The rhetoric of rights should not be promiscuously invoked in political discourse because, in making a claim based on rights, particularly weighty and compelling moral considerations are being invoked. The deeply felt and ardent wishes of adults about the kind of school that they would like their children to attend do not necessarily convert to a right. As Loren Lomasky puts it, rights are the “heavy artillery in our moral arsenal”2 and there are limits to what can be demanded as a right, either as a liberty or as an entitlement. There is a whole knot of confusion about wishes or desires, freedoms and entitlements, and especially about obligations in the sense of charges that can be made of others. There is a distinction to be observed between freedom and rights and in particular between the right to education and the right to a particular kind of school. Children in Ireland have a right to education and parents have the freedom to send their children to a school of their choice. But this does not mean that parents have a right, in the sense of an entitlement, to have a particular kind of school. The following analogy might make this clear. Citizens have both a right and a freedom to get married and the state has an obligation to respect this right, but the state does not have an obligation to find partners for people. Fourthly, it is common to hear the rights of parents invoked in discussions, but I am not persuaded that conferring all rights on parents rather than on children themselves is always in the best interests of these children. The primacy given to parents’ rights does not do justice to the capacity of young people to make these decisions themselves regarding religion, especially at senior cycle at second level. It is both futile and

Openness with Roots: Education in Religion in Irish Primary Schools

xi

educationally reprehensible to attempt to subvert young people’s capacity for what John Hewitt calls “the stubborn habit of unfettered thought”.3 In any case, religious believers and secularists do well not to underestimate this “stubborn habit” in young people. Opponents of formative education in religion can seriously exaggerate the susceptibility of young people to indoctrination in this area. The classic account of resistance to the catechetical project of the school is to be found in Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, where James Joyce gives powerful imaginative expression to the human capacity to resist the proselytizing designs of adults. Stephen Dedalus, like Joyce himself, turns away from the Catholic faith that he found in so many respects appealing and which was urged so insistently upon him. As is obvious from these words, determining the status of religion in schools requires much deliberation on complex questions. I recommend Caroline Renehan’s book as a contribution to enabling us to think a little more clearly and accurately about the issues involved.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book would not have been possible without the wise counsel and invaluable guidance of my good friend and colleague in the Mater Dei Institute, Dr Kevin Williams. A great debt of gratitude is due to Kevin’s sharp eye and learned advice from the outset of the work to the point of providing the book’s title. I am also very grateful for the patience, encouragement and assistance of a number of my friends and colleagues in the Mater Dei Institute, including Dr Dermot Lane (recently retired as President) and Dr Gabriel Flynn. In addition, I should like to thank my friend, Dr James O’Higgins Norman, Dublin City University, for energetic debates on some of the topics contained in the book and Ms Sharon King of St Patrick’s College for her supportive conversations. I should also like to thank Ms Anne Hession, St Patrick’s College, Prof John Sullivan, Liverpool Hope University and Dr Patricia Kieran, Mary Immaculate College, Limerick for whose expert advice in religious education I am very grateful. Special mention and gratitude is due to St Patrick’s College Research Committee for granting a fund towards publication costs of the book. I very much appreciate the generosity of the College during these straitened times and the College’s recognition of the necessity for research in education in religion at primary level. I was also in a very privileged position to have been able to enlist the assistance of Dr Gráinne Treanor as my proofreader. Gráinne not only read countless drafts of the text with great diligence, patience and accuracy but she cared for the text in an especial way, as if it were her own. Finally, I am most grateful to Cambridge Scholars Publishing Ltd. for their personal and professional interest in the publication of this work. Ultimately, it is the confidence of the publisher that makes it all possible.

INTRODUCTION

This book explores the historical legacy and current debate concerning Education in Religion in the Republic of Ireland, focusing on the primary school sector and on denominationally managed schools in particular. A significant feature of these schools is a commitment to communicating religious truth claims to children who attend them. This activity goes beyond teaching merely about religions and beliefs. Taught within the broader context of a denominational school ethos, religion is a fundamental part of the school curriculum whereby its aim is to lead children to a mature faith and is visualised by the school and the faith community to be a life-long process. In light of the increasing diversity of religious and non-religious world views in Ireland, the relationship between religion and formal education in school has become one of increasing contention. The matter is all the more complex due to the Catholic Church’s managerial control of the vast majority of the country’s State funded primary schools. The rationale behind the book, therefore, is to consider two areas of importance, with the intention of contributing to the current debate arising from the aforementioned complexity. These are (i) the appropriateness of Irish primary schools in continuing to provide denominational religious education in state schools (ii) the appropriateness of denominational schools in providing an exclusively phenomenological programme of religion without undermining their mission to educate in a given faith tradition. The situation pertaining to education in religion in this country did not materialise out of a vacuum. The rationale is thus grounded in a synopsis of Ireland’s historical legacy outlined in the first two chapters respectively. Chapter One offers a brief account of education in religion from the Bardic Schools through to the Powis Commission on Primary Education, covering the period from 1475 until 1870. The second chapter traces education in religion through most of the twentieth century, commencing with the Foundation of the Irish State in 1922 and culminating in the Education Act of 1998. The purpose of Chapters Three and Four is to focus on aspects of two important documents pertinent to the current debate. Chapter Three thus makes reference to a report prepared by the Irish Human Rights Commission (IHRC) opening a discussion relating to religion and education from a human rights perspective. In doing so, the

2

Introduction

IHRC makes the point that this is an issue with which every country throughout the world has to grapple. Chapter Four is concerned with the more significant of the two documents. At the request of the Minister for Education, the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector was set up chiefly to examine denominational school patronage and the disparity between that system and contemporary Ireland’s increasingly diverse society. The rationale behind the fifth and final chapter of this book is to examine the role of religion as a subject in the denominational school. It will be shown that a radical shift may take place in future years by removing faith-based religion from its timetable slot during the school day and replacing it with a purely phenomenological approach to the teaching of the subject. Some of the implications of this possibility are teased out in the final chapter by means of contribution to the current debate. It is important to note from the outset that one of the most difficult challenges for anyone attempting to deal with the relationship between religion and education is that of language. A plethora of terms abound as to the meaning of “Religious Education”, which would make of it a study in its own right. The task of explaining such terminology in any depth, however, is not within the remit of this book. To attempt that task would be to distract from the debate and the rationale behind the endeavour undertaken. Nonetheless, some clarification is required prior to commencement. The phrase “education in religion” is used in general throughout the text as a broad, general modus operandi. Thus an essential point is being made. That is, the focus is placed on the role of education in religion, not on religion in education. This is a significant matter of emphasis and the former phraseology better expresses the essential essence of education in religion as it is understood in the context of this text. Cognisant also of the need to refer to both denominational and phenomenological approaches to education in religion in the final chapters of this work, terminology advised by the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in their report has proven extremely helpful and will be referenced in due course.

CHAPTER ONE IRELAND’S HERITAGE

Education in religion in Ireland cannot be fully appreciated without reference to the trials and tribulations of its early historical context. Therefore, the specific purpose of this chapter is to trace that history, albeit in synopsised form, from the Bardic times after 1475 until the eve of the Foundation of the State in 1922. The broad sweep proposed outlines the contours of the various systems of education for consideration, taking account of the Bardic Schools, an insight as to why Ireland was bestowed with the ancient, anecdotal title, “Land of Saints and Scholars”, the effect on education in religion arising from the Tudor period, the Penal Laws, the Hedge Schools, Catholic Emancipation, the National School System and The Royal Commission of Enquiry into Primary Education or, as the latter is otherwise known to educational historians, the Powis Commission.

The Bardic Schools Although the time of their foundation is uncertain, the Bardic order developed from the ancient pre-Christian Celtic tradition of the Druids and its position in society can be traced back from that pre-historic tradition.1 Out of the Bardic tradition there emerged a rare but important aspect of Irish life, that of the Bardic school, which was to impact directly on daily life for a period of around 1,500 years. The subjects studied in the Bardic schools consisted mainly of history, genealogy, language, literature and law, which were all taught through the medium of the native Irish language. In these schools, a broader study of history began to focus more on Irish history and a general study of law became more focused on Irish law, otherwise known as the Brehon Law system. This law system originated from an oral tradition, passing its customs down from one generation to the next until the seventh century, from which time written laws came into practice. According to Ginnell, poets composed verse for laws and genealogy, including their own indigenous system of dating from Celtic times until the seventeenth century, encouraging their students to

4

Chapter One

memorise poetry rather than prose, as it was considered easier to learn.2 The task, however, was to preserve and interpret the law as opposed to expanding it. Depending on one’s perspective, Brehon law was progressive by today’s standards. For example, it recognised divorce and equal rights between the genders as well as paying attention to the environmental conditions in which they lived. In respect of criminal law, offences and penalties were outlined in detailed fashion. Brehon law preferred restitution to retribution for wrongdoing, with homicide or bodily harm being punishable by means of the so-called “eric” system, calculated by a scale and applied against the offender in just measure. Capital punishment was not among the range of penalties available to the Brehons. The absence of either a court system or a police force suggests that people living and working within the Brehon law structure had strong respect for the law.3 The Bardic schools were pre-Christian and a separate institution to ecclesiastical schools, remaining until the seventeenth century. Today, these schools might be termed “lay” schools and it was from these that their poets, the Brehons (judges), historians, doctors and other professional people graduated. Education in these schools ran parallel to education in the monastic or ecclesiastical schools, pointing to an educational tradition outside the Church as well as within it. Their officers were laymen living and working along analogous lines with the great schools of the clerics. Auchmuty claims, therefore, that the Bardic schools retained everything that was best in ancient Irish culture4. Nonetheless, their school buildings were little more than ordinary houses or huts occupied by the chief poet (File) and the professor (Ollamh). Where the professor led, the school followed, although the poet usually remained, since he was normally attached to the local king.5 When the Bardic schools did at last become Christian, however, they were not associated in any way with the famous monastic schools.

Land of Saints and Scholars In the monastic schools, the focus on religion in relation to learning and Ireland’s past is well expressed in the praiseworthy phrase, the “Land of Saints and Scholars”. Salafia was to say of this Golden Age: The fierce and restless quality which had made the pagan Irish the terror of Europe, seems to have emptied itself into the love of learning and the love of God and it is the peculiar distinction of Irish medieval scholarship and

Ireland’s Heritage

5

the salvation of literature in Europe that the one in no way conflicted with the other.6

It was through the influence of the monastic schools in the eighth and ninth centuries, founded originally in the sixth century for young men intended for the Church, that schools and colleges spread rapidly all over the country.7 In these schools, secular as well as religious (ecclesiastical) learning was well catered for. Their subjects of discipline included divinity, the scriptures, the classics, literature and science. In these great seminaries, religion in education appears to have sat seamlessly alongside education in secular subjects. As time progressed, religion and education became intertwined with love of God and love of learning. In the words of Raftery, “the history of the labyrinthine connections between the Churches, the State and schooling in Ireland … dates back at least to the sixth century”.8 Not all of their students were destined to enter the Church, however, for a large proportion of them were the sons of chiefs and kings preparing to take their place in civil or military life.9 A sense of the seamlessness between life and education, education in religion and other disciplines for young men in the monasteries is summed up in a novel by Follet.10 Subsequent to losing his parents and entire family in a murderous rampage, a youth named Philip was taken in by the local Abbot. Philip began to behave badly, as if he had been imprisoned unjustly, by subverting official authority. He broke eggs, loosed horses, stole food when it was unnecessary, mocked the infirm and insulted his elders, only stopping short of sacrilege, as the Abbot would forgive him everything but that. However, within a twelve month period of his entry into the monastery, Philip’s behaviour began to improve. Follett writes: There was no single reason for his return to normality. The fact that he got interested in his lessons probably helped. The mathematical theory of music fascinated him, and even the way Latin verbs were conjugated had a certain satisfying logic … [He] began to find some kind of solace in the daily round of prayers and services. And so he slipped into adolescence with the organization of the monastery on his mind and the holy harmonies in his ears.11

This fictional story was based on life and education in monasteries such as that founded by Colmcille (or Columba, the son of a Donegal Chief) at Iona. The monasteries facilitated the spread of Christianity to the Orkney and Shetland Islands in Scotland and also to northern England. Another significant figure, Columbanus, who was born in Co Meath, emerged from the austerity of Celtic Christianity and became one of the most outstanding sources of cultural, educational, and spiritual renewal in

6

Chapter One

Europe. Travelling from Ireland to Italy, he and his followers established numerous monasteries in France, Switzerland, Germany, Austria and Italy, which became strongholds of safety, education, employment and culture amidst the turmoil of the Dark Ages. These monasteries continued for centuries to serve both religious and social life in Ireland at one and the same time. The typical monastery was like a small village of huts and small houses surrounding the central church. The Irish Church at this stage was largely independent of the structure and influence of Rome; hence it developed along its own idiosyncratic lines. By the twelfth century, the great European monastic orders such as the Cistercians, Franciscans, Dominicans and Augustinians built enormous monasteries, abbeys and priories throughout the country.

The Tudors The establishment of the monasteries, however, did not signify peace in Ireland. The Vikings habitually invaded and plundered the monastic establishments, well aware that the monasteries housed many valuable items such as gold chalices, scriptures, paintings and even surplus foods. Although a considerable number of the monasteries had been destroyed during the Viking raids, the ultimate destruction came at the hands of the English in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Plunder may rob society of its wealth, but colonisation aims to steal the spirit, the heart and the soul of society. So it is, Dunn argues, that, from: the early days of the Tudor conquest, schooling in Ireland became intimately bound up with the process of colonisation and with the consequent ascendancy of the English language.12

In the same way, education in religion became part of Tudor policy in respect of the Church of England’s Reform tradition. According to Glendenning, the Tudors were the first to legalise the promotion of the religious principles of the Reformation.13 As the Irish dioceses became anglicised in the early sixteenth century, the Irish episcopacy failed to reform the quality of its leadership. Some Irish bishops, however, made significant attempts to educate their adherents in religion with a certain level of dynamism through religious observance. In this period, the nominations of the bishops in the colonised zones (Dublin, Meath, Kildare, Leighlin, Ossory and Ferns) were under the authority of the King. Despite local canvassing for Irish bishops, according to Lennon:

Ireland’s Heritage

7

[t]hose favoured for sees in Anglo-Ireland were usually well-trained English-born canon lawyers and servitors who were expected to double as secular administrators.14

Regardless of the dual responsibilities of the English bishops in Ireland, their record as diligent pastors and spiritual supervisors to their respective communities was taken seriously. These men faced not only the cultural divisions of the day but, as an institutional Church, they were closely interconnected with the secular, socio-political elite through financial endowment and patronage. The crown, for its part, also depended to some extent on the Church as a source of patronage for clients, expert officials and financial gain. Even as late as the 1520s, neither the Church nor the State made any serious attempt “to centralise ecclesiastical jurisdiction, revenues and patronage”.15 This period of congenial but perhaps guarded reciprocity between Church and State did not last, however, partially due to the appointment of John Alen to the archbishopric of Dublin in 1529. He was the former commissary-general to Cardinal Wolsey’s legatine court in the Reign of Henry VIII (1509-1547) and a single-minded man of the reform era. Although his episcopacy was only of six years duration, ending in his violent death, he raised important questions about the nature of the Church and royal ecclesiastical control in Ireland, both of which were to last for many decades. After Henry VIII, at the outset of the Reign of Edward VI (1547-1553), certain concessions were permitted in order to appease the Irish Catholics. For example, a Latin version of set prayers could be used where English was not understood or spoken and church ornaments such as statues and vestments, not favoured by the institutional Church, were permitted.16 By the time of the reign of Henry’s daughter Elizabeth I (1558-1603), the established Church and royal ecclesiastical control came into greater effect. Elizabeth declared herself, through key Acts of Supremacy, to be: the supreme governor of the Church of Ireland, against whose authority it was potentially treasonous to preach…[and] ‘she incorporated’…an oath to be sworn by principal ecclesiastical and civil office-holders.17

Here the State tried to take a firm hold, dictating what happened in devotion and in the religious life of the people. This is evident specifically in the second Act of Supremacy, in which Elizabeth ordained that liturgical practices in Ireland should be compliant with the laws of The Book of Common Prayer (1552). Furthermore, attendance at holy services on all subjects was compulsory under penalty of fines and determination

8

Chapter One

of offences was to be administered by towns’ mayors and other justices of the peace.18 These attempts at reformation in Ireland did little for Elizabeth specifically in terms of educating people in the religion which she propagated. According to Ellis, Elizabeth’s Church faced an identity crisis readily recognisable but equally less remediable. As Ellis recounts: The Elizabethan settlement required a full-scale campaign of evangelization … Irish born reformers like Bishop Brady, Lord Chancellor Cusack and Chief Baron Dillon tended to advocate a more persuasive campaign based on preaching, education and the liturgical use of Gaelic to generate popular enthusiasm for reform … Brady, Lancaster and Long all promoted projects to endow local schools and campaigned for the establishment of a university … The interest in Gaelic as a reform medium led to the publication in 1571 of a catechism … the first Gaelic book printed in Ireland … a Gaelic New Testament was also begun … but appeared far too late to help the Elizabethan church.19

The idea was to educate through wholehearted propaganda, a policy which would create an active preaching ministry to reform surviving followers of popery in the Gaelic parts of the country.20

Penal Times From 1612 onwards, the religious distinctions between the English Protestant and the Irish Catholic became more pronounced.21 Following the Battle of the Boyne (1690), the Protestant ascendancy in Ireland came increasingly to the fore, dominating education in religion through the reform tradition. Tudor policies were instrumental in spreading the influences of the Reformation for approximately the next century and a half. Glendenning recounts that, throughout the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries: England relied upon a comprehensive series of repressive legislative measures, (the Penal Laws), to implement its policies in Ireland thereby affecting four crucial areas of Catholic life; property; religion; personal disabilities and education.22

Education in religion, delivered from the perspective of Catholic Christianity, was particularly adversely affected by these laws, as Catholic teachers were forbidden either from teaching or running a school. Any teacher or member of the clergy found not adhering to these laws received punitive treatment, mostly in the form of heavy fines, with senior Church

Ireland’s Heritage

9

officials having to pay heavier fines than their lower clerical counterparts. School teachers, at the bottom of the hierarchical order, were expected to pay the least in monetary retribution.23 According to McManus, however, the purpose of these acts was not to reduce Catholics to ignorance and servitude, but instead to force them to send their children to schools where they would have to avail of the education in religion already on offer. This education was Protestant. The goal was to train Catholics to become loyal to the Protestant crown.24 Raftery holds a less benign interpretation. Going further, she claims that Catholic education was eroded, particularly given the passing of the Act to Restrain Foreign Education (1695). This Penal Law act forbade Catholics from sending their children to Catholic education centres in countries such as Spain and France.25 It would appear that Hyland and Milne support this latter interpretation when they state specifically that the Act was intended to protect children from being educated anywhere by “any Jesuit, seminary priest, friar, monk, or other popish person”.26 Although such historians disagree to some extent as to how rigorously these laws were enforced, no doubt enforcement depended on the attitudes of local magistrates bringing or hearing particular cases, some of whom were rigorous and others of whom were likely to be more liberal. Regardless of historical interpretation, within approximately ten years of the passing of the Penal Law Act of 1652, toleration of the government long enjoyed by Catholics had come to an end, thus ensuring that they were deprived of every means possible to threaten the position of the dominant minority rulers.27 This meant that, although Catholic parishes were left intact, parish priests had to be registered. All other clergy were forced to leave the country on pain of death and no Catholic chapel could have a steeple or a bell. In respect of education, no Catholic could teach school or send their children abroad for education. As late as 1920, Sean T. O’Ceallaigh (1882-1966), the second President of Ireland (1945-1959), tells of the long standing insidious effects of the Penal Laws, when he writes in a memorandum to Pope Benedict XV (1920) that: The position of Irish Catholics is a cruel one … The injurious social and economic results of these anti-Catholic laws will not be overcome for generations. To the present day we suffer political injury inside and outside of Ireland, simply and solely because we are practicing Catholics … An ex-minister of France confessed to me that the reason why Ireland remained so long unsuccessful in her struggle for independence and got so little assistance from foreign countries, was the fact that we are a Catholic nation.28

10

Chapter One

O’Ceallaigh continues in his memo to the Pope that “Ireland suffered and fought and bled while the oppressor repudiated, blasphemed and persecuted it”.29 The effect of the Penal Laws, however, did not prove to be the deterrent undoubtedly intended by their authors. Rather, it might be said that these oppressive laws of their time resulted in an unintended consequence, the so-called illegal "hedge schools".

The Hedge Schools Such was the commitment of the poorer parents that they sent their children to the hedge schools in order to afford them the opportunity of the best education available during those times. For the same reason, the more prosperous Catholic parents, despite the Penal Law prohibition, sent their children to be educated on the continent. Sporadic schooling for the children of the hedge schools was provided secretly by travelling teachers (sometimes referred to as pay schools because the teachers were given some form of remuneration or other). Lessons in these schools took place, as the name suggests, mainly in the open air, at the sunny side of a hedge or in cabins during inclement weather, in return for either fees and/or lodgings.30 Given that teaching had to take place surreptitiously, the schools were hidden away from public view. McManus spells out the difficulty for the travelling teachers and their pupils in the following way: A pupil was usually placed on sentry duty to warn the master if a suspicious-looking stranger was approaching … arrangements were then made to reconvene at another location on the following day … the master knew he would rely on the hospitality of the people, as he moved from one location to the next “earning a little perhaps by turning his hand to farm work, or, when he dared, by teaching the children of his host”.31

These school masters taught at considerable risk to their own freedom and evidence is not in short supply to show that prosecutions were delivered against them, particularly whenever political turmoil was encroaching. One such period was the Jacobite scare (1714).32 Corcoran, for example, reported nineteen indictments against the Catholic hedge schoolmasters summonsed before the Limerick grand jury alone (1711-1722). Any schoolmaster who contravened the Penal Laws could be imprisoned for up to three months and be fined twenty pounds. Furthermore, he could be banished to Barbados and expect the death penalty if he returned to Ireland.33 On the same matter Dowling observes that:

Ireland’s Heritage

11

… the schoolmaster was liable to be punished with the greatest severity; his life was at stake as well as his freedom. In the Commonwealth Records we find … “that such persons corrupt the youth of this Nation with Popish principals. Such school masters to bee secured, and put on board of such ship bound for the Islands of the Barbadoes”.34

Nonetheless, the majority of the Irish population clung, defiantly, it might be said, to their traditional religion, and Catholicism and Irish identity had become more or less synonymous. Fear of persecution did not prevent the spread of hedge schools. As early as 1730, the Catholic diocesan statutes of Dublin required every “parish priest to have a schoolmaster in his parish to teach Catholic doctrine”.35 These men kept a careful watch on education in religion. Corish observes that the hedge schoolmaster “was expected to teach Catechism … If he did not he was carpeted; if he could not he was instructed”.36 Two reasons are evident for this watchfulness. Firstly, it was because of the attempts of the Established Church to convert the indigenous population to Protestantism and, secondly, it was because the hedge schoolmasters were gaining control in education through a private, pay operated system. As time passed, there was also a two-fold outcome. Firstly, the priest and the hedge schoolmaster worked together in close cooperation and, secondly, the hedge schools became tolerated. Furthermore, as subsequent generations of liberal Protestant planters came to see themselves as Irish, they began to question the injustice of the repressive system of the Penal Laws. This, coupled with the influence of the eighteenth century Enlightenment values throughout Europe, resulted in the persecution of Catholics becoming untenable.

Catholic Emancipation In that more enlightened climate, the priest-teacher relationship in education flourished, albeit unofficially. By the time of the Catholic Relief Act (1782), when Catholics were permitted to teach school, the hedge schools still had the loyalty of the native population. This relief act was the beginning of a process which involved reducing and removing many of the restrictions on Catholics which had been put in place by the Penal Laws.37 The most significant measure, however, was the Catholic Relief Act (1829). This Act was the culmination of the process of Catholic Emancipation throughout the nation following a vigorous campaign on the matter by Irish lawyer, Daniel O'Connell. O'Connell, a democrat who had experience with the social and economic problems of the Irish through his

12

Chapter One

work in the minor courts, obtained firm support from the Prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington, the Whigs and the liberal Tories. He had seen the effects of English rule on the Irish. His crusade was to liberate the Irish socially, economically and politically by taking one step at a time within the system. Ultimately, his aim was Home Rule, but Catholic Emancipation was the first step, given that it already received support in the House of Commons. O'Connell thought that, once there were Catholic Members of Parliament in the Commons, they might be likely to use their influence in the interests of Home Rule for Ireland.38 Mescal rejoices in the consequences of Catholic Emancipation: After the long night came the inevitable day … It is in an Irish saying that one should pray for the soul of Daniel O’Connell on hearing the chapel bell. With regard to the Mass, the removal of Catholic disabilities by the Emancipation Act was the necessary condition of all later progress. Priests and people could then set themselves without fear of dungeon or gibbet to build less unworthy homes for their Eucharistic Lord.39

Mescal, as we can see from the above, defines his understanding of the struggle in terms of justifying the religious basis of education and the fortification of Irish Catholics in their resolve. That resolve harks back to an earlier age, once almost vanquished but now returning, according to his thinking. He goes on: It is now widely conceded that the old people exhibit an almost patriarchal fervour in the practice of their religion, which centuries of persecution could not impair, and the younger people certainly have this awesome and almost super-human example all about them.40

In this refrain, Mescal exhorts Irish educationalists to aim at carrying on this tradition while at the same time concerning themselves with the application of modern research and experiment in order to ensure the future of the religious life of the country’s people.41 Overall, within the context of the time-frame of Catholic Emancipation, Glendenning observes that, between the years 1800 and 1869, the Church of Ireland (that is, the Established Church in Ireland) and the Church of England were united by the Acts of Union (1800). This law set up the Church in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as one United Church of England and Ireland whose doctrinal essence, discipline and government would be the same as “are by law established for the Church of England”.42 During this period there was increased activity, particularly by a considerable number of voluntary religious groups showing an interest in education. On the Protestant side, societies were set up such as

Ireland’s Heritage

13

the London Hibernian Society, the Baptist Society for promoting the gospel in Ireland and the Sunday School Society, some of which were in receipt of public funding while openly proselytising.43 Neither the funding nor their proselytising practices escaped the notice of the Catholic population, giving them cause for concern. In that context, religious orders such as the Ursuline Sisters, the Presentation Sisters, the Sisters of Mercy, the Loreto Sisters and the Christian Brothers began laying their own specific foundations to ensure that children would be taught the values of Catholic Christianity.44

The National School System As far back as 1787, a consensus had been emerging on the part of the government whereby it was believed that some form of state intervention should promote the idea of united or “mixed education”, where all religions would be catered for in one school.45 Two years subsequent to Catholic Emancipation, a mixed education plan began to take shape nationwide as a National School System. A document known as the Stanley Letter (1831) helped the British Government to establish a legal basis for national schools in Ireland. It was penned by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Edward Stanley, and addressed to the Duke of Leinster.46 Of particular significance was the introduction of the responsibility of the management of schools to that of a Patron. Patronage was and still is inextricably linked to the place of education in religion. The catalyst was the Stanley Letter. Stanley’s plan was to separate education in religion, which normally took place during the school day, from other subjects on the curriculum. The outcome was intended to: … afford combined literary and moral, and separate religious instruction, to children of all persuasions, as far as possible, in the same school, upon the fundamental principle that no attempt shall be made to interfere with the peculiar religious tenets of any description of Christian pupil.47

The complexity of education in religion from this juncture and the control of this education began to resurrect itself in a different way from the days prior to the Relief Acts. Although the problems concerning education in religion remained, the oppression and violence evident during Tudor times and throughout the period of the Penal Laws had decreased significantly. Nonetheless, difficulties for the Government in Ireland were always under the surface, ready to erupt at any time. Williams’ observation of the situation is as follows:

14

Chapter One Awareness of the potential for social disharmony deriving from the “crazy knot” of identities, the aspiration to separate religious from cultural and national identity formed part of the impulse behind the attempt to introduce a multi-denominational school system in the nineteenth century. The aim of the architects of the system of national education that was eventually established in Ireland in 1831 was therefore to promote a shared identity on the part of the inhabitants. The multi-denominational system that was introduced limited the remit of the state to secular learning and assigned responsibility for religious education to the respective churches.48

That “crazy knot” of identities was and still is the kernel of the problem.49 The Government’s intention in 1831 to establish multi-denominational schools, by divorcing secular education from education in religion, was hardly likely to be accepted by those parents who wished their children to be educated in a denominational context. The struggle for power between the churches and the state, presumably in the best interests of the children of the nation, was gathering momentum. While both were clamouring for control it was the churches, especially the Catholic Church, that were gaining ground. The churches and the state clashed or, as Coolahan expresses it: This conflict between state and church on the control of schooling pursued a tortuous and labyrinthine path resulting in the state’s retaining the concept of a de jure mixed system which, from mid-century onwards, became increasingly denominational in fact.50

In addition, it is open to question as to whether the Government was truly concerned with a mixed education principle of non-segregation in education. Glendenning argues that the Government’s interests were based less on altruism and more on their desire to foster the advancement of the English culture and language. Furthermore, she claims that the government wished to experiment with state-aided education which would have proven unpopular with the people of England at the time.51 On the other hand, the various denominational churches perceived the mixed system to be contrary to their firmly held religious beliefs, particularly in respect of non-denominationalism. The Presbyterians, for example, had difficulty with the unpaid National Board of Commissioners, which had been set up to oversee the new National School system. Their chief concern was the denominationally mixed nature of that board and its power over school texts and teachers. Furthermore, the Bible was no longer the centre of education. The Church of Ireland was unhappy that education in religion was to take place outside of literary instruction and that its control was being weakened in education.52 For its part, the

Ireland’s Heritage

15

Catholic Church, by far the strongest denomination, accepted the new system at first, but became increasingly suspicious of it in a relatively short period of time. Raftery remarks thus: The Catholic Church had a complex relationship with the system; while it initially tolerated it for any potential benefits to Catholic children, it became hostile to the principle of mixed education. By 1836, the Christian Brothers had openly demonstrated their concern with the influences of Protestantism and British culture, and they withdrew their schools from the system.53

From that time onwards, Catholic teachers and their employers (the parish clergy) were ever more closely allied in education. As a result, education in religion and correspondingly school ethos (or characteristic spirit) was firmly established under the control of the patron in national school management. The onus was then placed on the patron (usually the bishop or ecclesiastical authority) to request permission to establish a school and, once this was granted, a subordinate manager (usually the local clergyman) was delegated with responsibility to follow through. So it was with the passing of time that the Stanley plan was adapted as opposed to adopted, not only by Catholic denominational schools, but by all contemporary denominations, to meet their respective requirements and objectives.54 The informal system of the mixed educational principle contained in the Stanley plan grew weaker in the face of the stronger denominational interests. As for parents who wished their children to be educated in a denominational context, one would expect that their wishes had been granted, although one legal commentator, Osborough, is somewhat more dubious, hinting that parents were “persuaded to perceive” the value of elementary education in denominational terms.55 Persuaded or otherwise, freedom to practise religion was of the utmost importance to parents and those who wished that their children be taught accordingly had to be taken into account. Hence, the so-called “conscience clause” was introduced into provision for education. This was an important term permitting parents to withdraw their children from religious services and religion lessons that were deemed to violate their religious principles (although in principle it applied to any subject to which the parents objected). Glendenning outlines the significance of the conscience clause from Stanley’s time through to today by listing the following acts pertaining to it. She writes: The conscience clause has an ancient lineage which can be traced from the Stanley plan for primary education (1831) down through various measures such as: the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Act 1878, s 7; the

16

Chapter One Government of Ireland Act 1920, s 5; the Irish Constitution of 1922, Art 8; the Constitution of Ireland 1937, Art 44.2.4 and the Education Act 1998, s 30(2)(e) … the Minister … shall not require any student to attend instruction in any subject which is contrary to the conscience of the parent of the student or in the case of a student who has reached the age of 18 years, the student…56

In order to comply with such acts, timetabling of education in religion had to be accommodated from 1831 onwards so that instruction in secular subjects and instruction in religious subjects were provided separately. Children were therefore separated from each other in their classrooms at times during the religion period, to the extent that even the classroom resources required manipulation. One such example is given by Glendenning when she refers to the use of a blackboard, where one side of it was marked “Secular Education” and the other side of it was marked “Religious Instruction”. The blackboard was turned around depending on which subject was being taught.57 The inevitable consequence was that all children would recognise the separate status given to these two important bodies of knowledge but also, of course, the dichotomy between them. Although it had been Stanley’s vision to promote harmony in multidenominational education, this became well-nigh impossible, partially due to the fear of proselytism among the various denominational school agencies. No doubt there was a power struggle between the Anglican, Catholic and Presbyterian proponents, who were in mutual disagreement. At the same time, each of these was also in a power struggle against the government. All parties, it could be said, fought to mould the national school system as they saw fit, but each was, in its own way, sincere for the betterment of the education of the children of the country. The power issue was the inevitable side effect. Nevertheless, it can be said that the structure of the elementary system of education set up by Stanley in 1831 remains effectively unchanged up until today.

The Royal Commission of Enquiry into Primary Education (Powis) In order to avoid an impasse between the State and the churches, the Government tacitly accepted the findings of the Royal Commission of Enquiry into Primary Education set up under the chairmanship of Lord Powis (1868-1870). After the Powis Commission, the National School system effectively became segregated into denominational institutions or, in the succinct phraseology of Ó Buachalla, the schools were “undenominational

Ireland’s Heritage

17

in theory but denominational in practice”.58 In the phraseology of another commentator, Akenson, the de jure system of non-denominational education had become, by the end of the nineteenth century, a de facto denominational one.59 Between the middle of the nineteenth century to its drawing to a close, several groups put pressure on the government to undertake a review of the entire National School System. Among the most notable of these were the Catholic Church and the English treasury. Coolahan’s work on the state of affairs during that period provides ample fiscal evidence of the situation. His account is as follows: During the 1850s public expenditure on education had risen sharply: in 1851 the expenditure in England was £150,000, while in Ireland it was £125,000: by 1859 the figures for education had reached £837,000 in England and £294,000 in Ireland. In a political climate of control and accountability for public expenditure questions were raised about the increasing costs of education and the returns. As a result, the Powis Commission of Enquiry into Primary Education in Ireland [was set up in 1868].60

Coolahan’s detailed analysis shows that such large expenditure on education did not benefit either the children whom it was supposed to educate or the teachers who were responsible for teaching them. For example, only 34% of the teachers had formal training and outward mobility had risen to 2,594 between the years 1863 and 1867 (through emigration, dismissal or to other employment). Worse still, the Commission discovered that, regardless of the school type or denomination, by and large attendance was poor and teacher training was clearly unsatisfactory, leaving much to be desired in the children’s learning. This, coupled with leaky roofs, inadequate floors and windows, insufficient toilets and playgrounds, deficient work-desks, heating, lighting and ventilation, promised only a dreadful legacy for Ireland’s future.61 This state of affairs was so bad that Powis and his Commission could do nothing but improve the situation. They did so by introducing a number of recommendations, some of which were to make a significant contribution to the teaching profession, schooling and children’s literacy levels. Coolahan is again worthy of note for this information. Out of 129 recommendations relating to education in general, three of the more momentous referring specifically to education in religion are as follows:

Chapter One

18

x x

x

In localities where only one school existed, religious instruction should be at fixed hours and be confined to pupils of particular denominations. In districts where two or more schools had been operating under Catholic and Protestant management for at least three years, with not less than twenty five pupils on the roll, such schools should be adopted by the Board, subject only to the operation of a conscience clause. State aid should be extended to training institutions of religious societies under certain conditions, while the existing district model schools should be gradually discontinued.62

Subsequently, children’s education improved considerably, particularly in literacy and numeracy skills and, according to Raftery, “it is fair to say that this kind of progress was to lead to a need for a system of intermediate (or second level) education”.63 In addition, when the Intermediate Education Ireland Act (1878) was passed, young Irish Catholics were able to follow educational pathways to the Civil Service and universities.64 There was another pertinent long term effect of the Powis Commission; it gave the churches, in particular the Catholic Church, the opportunity to try to convince the government that the majority of national schools were denominational. Referring back to the “mixed education” principle of the National School System (1831) above it may be noted that, by midcentury, only a small number (4%) of pupils were in schools under mixed management.65 Such was the case because of the desire of the various church bodies to have the children of those denominations educated in their own faith traditions. Furthermore, they had also managed to persuade the Board of the National School System (1831) to allow aid to be given to schools under denominational management.66 By the late 1890s, however, a de jure formula to give recognition to denominational schools was proving difficult, principally because the government had to ensure that children who did not belong to either of the major Christian faiths could not be discriminated against. To this end, the Rules and Regulations of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland were introduced by 1898, emphasising insistence on the conscience clause.67 A certificate book was introduced whereby a parent would be given the opportunity to consent to a child receiving religious instruction other than that of the parent. In keeping with the Commissioners’ regulations, the document had to be certified by both the teacher and the relevant inspector.

Ireland’s Heritage

19

Conclusion This chapter set out to deliver a potted history of education in religion from the Bardic schools subsequent to 1475 until 1898. It is a narrative that tells the tortuous story of the contested space and the emergent struggles of a people whose competing voices were intrinsically bound up with their respective religious identities. The focus in these years was on “Education in Religion” as opposed to “Religion in Education”. It is the distinction between these two phenomena that caused religious tensions to become increasingly acute throughout the centuries under consideration above. Education in religion focuses on religion, on what is meant by religion, its given faith perspective or set of perspectives, its respective values, its pedagogies and its relationship to the meaning of life. Religion in education, on the other hand, is more closely allied to politics, to its place in the school curriculum and whether or not it should have a role in the broader environment and ethos of school life. Distinctive though they are, they remain inextricably intertwined, particularly at primary school level, in Ireland’s education system. Throughout the centuries and specifically from Tudor times, governmental authorities and the religious organisations, especially the Catholic Church authorities, vied for control of the religious interests of the country’s school children. The churches in Ireland and particularly the Catholic Church became effective pressure groups, ultimately successful in undermining Stanley’s “mixed principle” for the introduction of a nondenominational education system, albeit with the promise of a religious instruction programme. This system was not acceptable to the various church authorities and arguably, therefore, not to the parents belonging to the churches. This was the situation despite Stanley’s scheme to establish a board that would centrally administer primary education and provide school buildings, teachers’ salaries and teacher training. The emphasis of the “conscience clause” and the document outlining the rules and regulations of the Powis Commissioners produced at the end of the nineteenth century are indicative of the fundamental desire of parents to educate their children in the values of their choice. As such, it is a narrative not simply about the complexity of Ireland’s educational history, but about the accommodation of firmly held beliefs. The narrative continues into and throughout the twentieth century, during which the people were better educated and better informed, but belief in the values that should be transmitted to their children in a formal educational context remained, regardless of what those values were.

CHAPTER TWO THE DOCUMENTS

Shortly prior to the Foundation of the State in 1922, the Irish Nationalist and political activist Patrick Pearse wrote: In a true education system, religion, patriotism, literature, art and science would be brought in such a way into the daily lives of boys and girls as to affect their character and conduct. We may assume that religion is a vital thing in Irish schools but I know that the other things, speaking broadly, do not exist.1

The statement was a reflection of its time, particularly due to the historical distrust which had existed between Church and State up until that period. At times the Irish people had to grapple with imperialism on the one hand and nationalism on the other, both inside and outside of the school context. In this sense, we saw in the previous chapter how education in religion served considerable ideological purposes pertaining to the generations of Irish people from the Bardic times through to the Powis Commission (1868-1870). Throughout the trials of that long period in Ireland’s history, education in religion moved back and forth between the various intrigues of the political and religious masters of the day. It is now time to outline the radical shift that took place throughout the next seventy years, marked by successive governments’ attention to education in general and education in religion in particular. This chapter describes how Ireland began to take control of its own destiny, both from a political and a religious perspective, but this time as a Free State. To make the case, the chapter offers an outline of education in religion in relation to the Foundation of the State (1922), the Constitution (1937), some significant educational documents (1954-1971), the Revised Primary Curriculum (1971), the Green Paper (1992), the White Paper (1995) and the Education Act (1998).

22

Chapter Two

The Foundation of the State (1922) The island of Ireland was partitioned into Northern Ireland and the Free State (1922), a partition which saw the country’s education system divided into two different systems of delivery. Each of these systems was essentially distinctive in character from the other. As a result of partition, those responsible for education in the North of Ireland were impelled to introduce with immediacy an innovative structure of administration, given that the greater part of the Catholic elementary school system under English rule had been located in Dublin. Northern Ireland made provision for its citizens mainly through three different types of school. These were (i) Controlled or State schools (ii) Maintained schools and (iii) Voluntary schools.2 Controlled or State schools were those established either by local authorities or the State, or where transfer had been made to the State by former managers. Maintained schools were supported by management committees comprising four representatives, two consisting of previous managers and two from local government authorities. State funding was supplied to schools in proportion to State representation on the respective management committees. Initially, Catholic schools not wanting government interference in their education system remained voluntary until the passing of an amendment act in 1967. Upon agreeing to increase State representation on their boards, the Voluntary schools received better funding and, from the mid-1970s onwards, they became maintained schools. Furthermore, although the initial intention was not to finance religious instruction with public money (Education Act 1923), this was amended (Education Act 1925). The amended act (1925) also allowed employing bodies to give consideration to candidates holding religious beliefs to apply for teaching posts.3 The Free State, on the other hand, would progress along very different lines to that of Northern Ireland. Firstly, 26 counties out of the 32 on the island were now politically separated from England, complete with the Free State’s own Constitution (1922).4 Mescal expresses what this meant both in political and religious terms when he points out that: Church and State became separate and independent of each other for the first time since the sixteenth century. Politico-religious discrimination ceased to be part of State policy and no citizen [was] debarred by reason of his beliefs from any right or privilege.5

Secondly, as a consequence of the new Constitution, responsibility fell to the government to provide free elementary education suitable to aid all classes and creeds.6 This meant that the Constitution of the Irish

The Documents

23

Parliament in principle did not endow any specific religion, prohibit or restrict religious freedom or discriminate between schools under the management of the various denominations.7 Thirdly, monetary problems dogged the Free State’s endeavours to develop its educational system. Financial constraints prevented the government from building new schools or increasing its number of teachers in the profession. Consequently, the hugely under-resourced Free State had to content itself with the existing non-statutory system of educational institutions and administrators already existing in Dublin. Given this established system and the predominant denominational Catholic majority of the Free State’s citizens, there was a preferential move towards denominational education.8 According to Glendenning, there were early indications of such preferential intentions in the closing of the non-denominational teacher training college in Marlborough Street (1922) and the transfer of its students to denominational colleges. Furthermore, the increased practice in favour of denominationalism, according to Glendenning: is apparent also from the Rules for National Schools as from 1922 onwards the Rules relating to the protection of the rights of religious minorities in schools became less precise.9

The inextricable historical relationship between religion and education in Ireland, therefore, presupposes a much more complex situation than simply that of monetary considerations. Griffin presents the tenor of this point when he remarks that: Church involvement and interest in Irish education, since its formal inception in 1831, runs far deeper than would be indicated by financial gain or loss, and the willingness to to (sic) defend this case would indicate a desire to maintain [the] Church’s involvement at its historical level.10

Reference to the dominant position gained by the Catholic Church as a result of its historical circumstance is noted by a number of authors. O’Donoghue and Harford refer to it as owning a “triumphalist” position shortly after Irish Independence was attained.11 Dunn would appear to support that particular viewpoint noting that, shortly after the establishment of the Free State, the National Department of Education was set up and administered by “loyal conservative Catholics”.12 The Catholic bishops, for their part, were also satisfied with the ground gained five years subsequent to the foundation of the Free State, evident from a Pastoral Letter they produced at the time, and read at Masses throughout the country.13 Inglis was to say of this period that, in respect of education

24

Chapter Two

in religion, Church personnel were at the centre of developing curricula wherein a religious ethos would be the kernel of its success.14 It could be claimed that the “triumphalist” position of the Catholic Church stemmed from the historical memory from previous centuries of the struggle for cultural identity, leading to a strong desire that education in religion would come to fruition in the education of the young. In this instance, both Church and State shared common ground. Creed, cultural nationalism and the aspiration of a Gaelic speaking Ireland, coupled with the Free State’s populace as a relatively homogenous society, facilitated the Church’s influence in education. Williams’ account of the situation is as follows: In the light of the salience of religion in Irish culture, this also involved the continuation and strengthening, through education, of the connection between religion and national identity.15

Williams goes on to say that the Catholic Church in particular was to find itself dealing with a sympathetic government in its educational endeavours.16 The historic trust placed in the Catholic Church relating to guidelines for an Irish policy of Education was noted by the First Minister for Education of the Free State government, Eoin MacNeill (1922-1925). Ironically MacNeill, though a Minister for Education, was suspicious of State involvement in education, as were some of his contemporaries such as George O’Brien, who advised the Constitution Committee.17 Osborough interprets MacNeill’s views as follows: ... Statism regards education as a right and duty of the State … The State notion of education corresponds to a materialistic view of humanity. In this view the individual ends with death … In the Christian teaching, the individual is immortal, the particular community to which he belongs, and its political organ, the State are transitory. Therefore, the interest of the community and the State is subordinate to the interest of the individual.18

By the time that the Second National Programme Conference was held in 1925, the new State affirmed a central role for religion in the primary school curriculum. Hyland and Milne refer to the reiteration of that position by noting that the Department of Education included in its policy for primary schools part of the report produced by the conference. This reads: Of all the parts of a school curriculum Religious Instruction is by far the most important, as its subject matter, God’s honour and service, includes

The Documents

25

the proper use of all man’s faculties, and affords the most powerful inducements to their proper use.19

Thus Mescal, writing thirty years later, could claim that the educational atmosphere underwent a significant change in Ireland in the years following the Foundation of the State. Here he is referring back to the “siege conditions” prior to the hedge schools, the British pressure to foster English cultural influences and the struggle of the “hapless” Irish people who were held together by their “native Gaelic patriotism and the devotion of their bishops, priests, brothers and nuns, [who] fought on to remain Irish and Catholic”.20 The historical experience of those former times was such that Mescal was able to pronounce Irish education as having been, in the days prior to the Constitution (1922), too similar to English education in terms of capitalism, materialism and predominant secularism, all of which had been founded on the Reformation settlement of the Tudors.21

The Constitution (1937) This historical experience, particularly relating to the State and religion, found its way into the Irish Constitution of 1937.22 One influential commentator, Alfred O'Rahilly (1884–1969), was a noted academic, President of University College Cork and Teachta Dála (TD) for Cork City.23 He had made a significant contribution to the political life of his time, playing an important part in the drafting of the 1922 Constitution. His anti-statist philosophy, based on the principle of State subsidiarity in education, is noted as follows: ... For when the State starts to become schoolmaster, it ceases to be neutral and liberal, it begins to inculcate a creed and to suppress all cultural rivalry and diversity, it becomes a monopolistic Church backed by physical force and overwhelming economic pressure. We in Ireland – Catholic, Protestant, or Jew – are determined to resist any State imposed ideology.24

O’Rahilly allied himself to a like-minded man, Éamonn de Valera, the First President of Ireland, who, like O’Rahilly, was interested in promoting constitutional change.25 When taken in the context of this mindset, it is not difficult to see how the churches, and the Catholic Church in particular, began to exercise greater influence over the Constitution than was possible heretofore. Even a cursory glance at the Constitution of 1937 reveals what might be termed the theocentric orientation, not only of these men, but of the majority of the people of Ireland. The Preamble, worth quoting in part, is as follows:

26

Chapter Two In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred, We, the people of Éire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial, Gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain the rightful independence of our Nation …Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.26

Thus the State’s philosophy revealed in the Constitution the acceptance of the particular part played by religion in Irish society. The State now clearly had a role relative to religion and it could be argued that any fears of a purely statist philosophy had lost considerable ground. In affirming its principles on religion, the Constitution singled out the Roman Catholic Church as one that held a special position, while at the same time recognising the minority religions. These were the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Methodist Church in Ireland, the Religious Society of Friends in Ireland, the Jewish Congregations and the other religious denominations which existed at the time the Constitution came into effect.27 The implications for education in religion now become clear, given the consolidation of the relationship between religion and the State in the 1937 Constitution. It is important to keep in mind also that non-denominational education was barely an issue, with the majority of the population holding religious values.28 One significantly important reference to education in religion is Article 44 of the Constitution. Mescal offers his interpretation as follows: The intention of Article 44 is that Ireland will look with favour upon the full development of religious life and activity among the Irish people. This article also provides for the development of Church schools, and of religion in the schools, upon the most scrupulous basis of policy.29

Williams, for his part, considers the emerging tension between what he terms “confessional and liberal impulses” in the Constitution which spills over into educational policy.30 The constitutional position in respect of education is found in Articles 42, 44.2.4 and 44.2.6 of the Constitution. Article 42 refers to the State’s obligation and the rights and responsibilities of parents with regard to their children’s education. Article 44 not only acknowledges freedom of religious practice but also provides for it.31 The articles which specifically name education in the same context as religion are outlined here:

The Documents

27

Article 42 a) (1.) The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children. b) (3.2) The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social. c) (4.) The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation. Article 44 a) (2.2) The State guarantees not to endow any religion. b) (2.4) Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending Religious Instruction at that school. c) (2.6) The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation.32 Clearly established in Article 42 is the supportive but subsidiary role of the State to protect and promote the primary rights and responsibilities of parents in the education of their children. It should be noted also that there is a distinction between the duty of parents in Article 42.1 referring to the “religious” dimension of education and Article 42.3.2 which requires that children receive “a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social”. In the latter article, the reference to the religious dimension is omitted. The Irish National Teachers’ Organisation observes that the omission of this term is designedly left out but the authors of the document do not offer a suggestion as to why.33 Williams, on the other hand, fills the lacuna by explaining that, “in the provisions relevant to education, the Constitution confers upon the State no direct role in the religious formation of citizens”.34

28

Chapter Two

Article 42 thus acknowledges that the primary and natural educators of the child are the parents, with the State providing a guarantee that it will respect the inalienable right and duty of the parents to provide for an education that is inclusive of religion. Williams draws attention to the fact that, in the provisions relevant to education, “the Constitution confers upon the State no direct role in the religious formation of citizens”.35 Nor, he continues, does the article offer an undertaking “in respect of a minimum religious education”.36

Documents 1954 to 1965 Aside from the two Constitutions referred to above, other documents and reports relating to education and religion were produced. It is not possible to deal with all of them in this work, although two require some mention.37 The first of these documents, entitled The Report of the Council of Education on the Function and Curriculum of the Primary School, 195438, offers a treatment of education and religion, supporting the denominational and catechetical nature of primary education. The tenor of that document does not hesitate in asserting the rapport between that which is taught in school and the wishes of parents in respect of religion. It states that, in Ireland: … happily, there is no disagreement as to the place religion should occupy in the school. Through many centuries our people have striven to secure the freedom to have children taught in schools conducted in accordance with the parents’ religious concept of life.39

Furthermore, the authors of the Report (1954) attribute to parents’ values the view that religion: was not merely one of many subjects to be taught in the school: it was the soul, the foundation and the crown of the whole educational process, giving value and meaning to every subject in the curriculum.40

In addition, reference to the multi-denominational system of national schooling endorsed in the Stanley Letter (1931), outlined in Chapter One above, is condemned in the Report (1954) when it states that the “undenominational principle underlying” this system is characterised as “obnoxious to our people”.41 The second document is entitled Rules for National Schools (1965). Its publication emphasises the importance of religion in the curriculum and its

The Documents

29

role in the overall work of the school.42 The rules specifically relating to the teaching of religion are as follows: Rule 68 Of all parts of a school curriculum Religious Instruction is by far the most important, as its subject matter, God’s honour and service, includes the proper use of all man’s faculties, and affords the most powerful inducements to their proper use. Religious Instruction is, therefore, a fundamental part of the school course, and a religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole work of the school.43

Rule 69 (1) The religious denomination of each pupil must be entered in the school register and roll-book. This information should be ascertained from the parent (the father, if possible) or the guardian of the pupil where necessary. (2) (a) No pupil shall receive, or be present at, any Religious Instruction of which his parents or guardian disapprove. (b) The periods for formal Religious Instruction shall be fixed so as to facilitate the withdrawal of pupils to whom paragraph (a) of this section applies. (3) Where such Religious Instruction as their parents or guardians approve is not provided in the school for any section of the pupils, such pupils must, should their parents or guardians so desire, be allowed to absent themselves from school, at reasonable times, for the purpose of receiving that instruction elsewhere. (5) The periods of formal instruction shall be indicated on the timetable.44

An assumption as to the centrality of education in religion can therefore be seen as emanating from (i) The Constitution (1922), (ii) the Constitution (1937) and the Rules for National Schools (1965). O’Donoghue and Harford claim that, by the late 1960s, the Church was well entrenched in the schools in terms of the number of loyal Catholics administering and teaching in the schools for the majority Catholic population.45

Statistics from Duffy affirm that viewpoint. For example, in 1965, local priests managed 3,789 primary schools with a staff of 8,776 Catholic lay teachers. In addition, religious orders managed primary schools, mostly in urban areas, with lay teachers numbering 1,990 and the orders consisting of 2,948 members. Most of the schools catered for the less prosperous, by and large, under the management of the Irish Christian Brothers, the Sisters of Mercy and the Presentation Sisters. In respect of the secondary

30

Chapter Two

schools, the teachers numbered 4,110 and members of the religious orders totaled 2,384.46

Curriculum Issues (1971 to 1992) As we have seen, formal education up to the late 1960s in the Republic of Ireland had been typified by the prevalence of men and women belonging to religious congregations, not only in managerial positions, but also amongst the teaching profession.47 Little, however, has been said here so far by way of offering a rationale for education in religion and its relationship to school curricula. It is timely, therefore, to make a distinction between managerial denominational control over an educational institution, in this case the primary school, and the teaching of religion as a topic on school curricula. Editing papers from a conference on religion and education, Hogan perceives with interest: Apart from the notable contributions of the Conference of Major Religious Superiors (now the Conference of Religious of Ireland), a striking feature of the debate itself was the lack of attention by the main “partners” during the continuing national education debate to [the] basic question of a rationale for religion in our rapidly changing education system.48

This can be interpreted as an argument by Hogan in favour of the retention of religion as a subject on school curricula, which raises a question about the dearth of any serious attempt on the part of the respective “partners” to provide a more contemporaneous rationale for education in religion in a modern society. It appears that, at the time of Hogan’s writing (1997), there was little evidence of the situation having changed from that of 25 years earlier, when a new curriculum for primary schools was introduced in 1971. The latter curriculum re-emphasised the importance of religion as found, for example, in the Second National Programme Conference (1925-1926)49 and the Rules for National Schools (1965). The same emphasis on the importance of religion is found in The Primary School Curriculum: Teachers’ Handbook (1971)50, which states that there is no need for “further elaboration as a declaration of the principles by which Religious Instruction in our primary schools is animated”.51 Again, this shows that there did not appear to be a need for a more advanced rationale for education in religion, on the part of the authors of the Teachers’ Handbook (1971), to meet the requirements of Irish society in the early 1970s. It is curious for the subject matter of religion that it had become so embroiled in the long history of Church and state politics that it should be

The Documents

31

envisaged as requiring no further elaboration. Religion as a subject on the curriculum, more so at primary than secondary level, became ever more entangled in a political system which continually insisted that it had to remain part and parcel of the entire school day. This is commonly known as the “Integrated Curriculum”. Williams explains that the Primary School Teachers’ Handbook (1971) stalwartly promotes this indivisible relationship between religion as a subject and the practice of it in a faithbased context, in which case, he claims, “it is hardly surprising to find that the document attributes a crucial role to religious education in promoting this integration”.52 The relevant quotation from the document states that the: separation of religious and secular instruction into differentiated subject compartments serves only to throw the whole educational function out of focus … The integration of the curriculum may be seen … in the religious and civic spirit which animates all its parts.53

This is a reference not only to the subject matter of religion but also to a broader understanding of religion as an ethos that has to be recognised, at least in principle, through all subjects on the curriculum. It may be claimed, therefore, that the curriculum of 1971 did not advance in its rationale as to why religion should be taught in schools except to endorse the status quo. As Hyland and Milne explain, it was understood, not just as one among many subjects, but rather “it was the soul, the foundation and the crown of the whole educational process, giving value and meaning to every subject in the curriculum”.54 It is evident from the above that there are two issues at play. One is the need to understand religion as a subject on the curriculum and the other is the role that it plays in the living out of a given faith tradition. The complexities around these issues and the various terms employed will be developed at appropriate stages in the following chapters. In the meantime, a distinction between the two is clearly drawn by Watson.55 Writing from a UK background, she explains that, despite the continued official presence of religion in Britain, “most people today will concede that we live in a profoundly secular society”.56 She identifies from their Education Act (1944) through to the 1960s the presence of two major but interrelated reasons why education in religion was integral to curricula. These were (i) “the passing on of the truth of religion which had sustained society in the past – the ‘confessional’ approach’”; and (ii) “that of ensuring the moral stability of society, thus appealing to non-religious people who subscribed to Christian values in general”.57

32

Chapter Two

The above two criteria, in place in Britain from 1944 to the 1960s, offer a distinctly different rationale for the place of religion in the decades leading up to and including those provided for in the Irish primary curriculum (1971). One important point to emphasise is that Watson is offering an explanation as to why education in religion is “integral to curricula”. This is not the same as a school having an “integrated curriculum”. An integrated curriculum permeates the school day, but a subject that is integral to curricula reflects its status as one essential subject among other equally essential subjects. Watson, in reference to the latter, was posing an argument in favour of education in religion by taking account of two of its principle aspects, (i) a religious knowledge approach (ii) a phenomenological approach. It needs also to be said that the cultures between England and Ireland are very dissimilar. England was and is considerably more multi-cultural and multi-denominational than Ireland, although the landscape in Ireland has become increasingly diverse, particularly due to immigration since the economic boom years in the 1990s. To what extent that diversity will continue in the coming decades is questionable, given the fiscal constraints and increasing unemployment the country is currently experiencing. Furthermore, it would appear that religion remains relevant to a considerable number of people in Irish society if the National Census (2011) figures are taken into consideration. According to that census, 84% of the population in the Republic of Ireland defined themselves as Roman Catholic, with the Church of Ireland representing 2.8%.58

Government Documents (Green and White Papers) It is argued by O’Donoghue and Harford that, from the 1960s onwards, the Irish government began to show signs of a more interventionist role in education. At the same time, the Catholic Church in Ireland was seen to act positively towards the government’s administration and provision of education.59 The latter was due partially to the Second Vatican Council (1963-1965), in which the Church embraced the modern world in a way that was radically different from previous Councils. Rather than defending its position politically or apologetically, it worked towards a spirit of “hermeneutic of reform”.60 Thus O’Buachalla could say that the Catholic Church in Ireland was welcoming of state developments in education largely because of the influence of the Second Vatican Council and its sweeping reforms.61 In addition, the Church was relaxing its control over education in Ireland. There were a number of reasons for this. O’Donoghue names some of these, including the dramatic decline in the

The Documents

33

number of people entering religious orders and the removal of the ban which had prevented Catholics from studying at Trinity College University.62 Fiscal concerns were the primary force behind the increasingly interventionist role of the government in education. This is particularly evident in the draft policy document entitled Education for a Changing World: Green Paper on Education (1992).63 The Irish National Teachers’ Organisation recognised the need for economic prudence in its own response to the Green Paper in stating that: The Green Paper is a conservative document, its impetus deriving from the desire to make the most of limited resources in a period of restricted economic growth.64

In order to economise, the government’s development strategy was to amalgamate smaller primary and second-level schools into larger establishments, to encourage smaller secondary and vocational schools to cooperate with each other and to initiate greater parental involvement in school management.65 Given the economic situation of the country at the time, it may be claimed that the government found itself having to emphasise monetary considerations to the detriment of other considerations, while under-emphasising such values as moral, artistic or civic elements necessary for the good of the society which it served. In respect of education in religion, Williams aptly observes that The Green Paper, in its treatment of religion, is significantly different to that of previous documents such as The Primary Teachers’ Handbook and The Rules for National Schools.66 In particular he continues: [w]here matters of religion and spirituality are mentioned, they are treated in a dispassionate tone as aspects of a culture which merit being critically understood rather than assimilated in any formative sense.67

In this respect, Williams observes the Green Paper as having: a tendency to interpret Religious Education narrowly in terms of instruction in a religious faith. This means that the implications of belief for general values education and for the full personal development of young people are overlooked.68

By the time that the Government’s White Paper (1995) was in the public domain, the reference to education in religion was a more positive one.69 Perhaps the authors of the Green Paper had paid scant attention to

34

Chapter Two

education in religion due to the urgency of the fiscal situation. On the other hand, perhaps the intention was deliberate in order to reduce the significance of the subject in the curricula of the day. Whatever the reason for its apparent diminishment, the tone of the White Paper, according to Williams, was “more balanced, nuanced and sensitive than that of the Green Paper”.70 Williams draws attention to that distinction by identifying the difference between them specifically in their aims. On the one hand, the Green Paper does not include the term “religious”, while that word is inserted into the White Paper. Furthermore, the White Paper makes reference to the positive values that religion contributed to the building and strengthening of Irish society.71 The nuanced distinction between the two papers is evident from the following respective quotes. In the Green Paper, we find among its aims the “[fostering] and understanding and critical appreciation of the values – moral, spiritual, social and cultural – of the home and society generally”.72 On the other hand, in the White Paper we read of: an understanding and critical appreciation of the values – moral, spiritual, religious, social and cultural – which have been distinctive in shaping Irish society and which have been traditionally accorded respect in society.73

The White Paper quotation, unlike that from the Green Paper, is inclusive of the term “religious”. Again Williams’ analysis of the contrast between the two papers is useful, particularly when he deals with the treatment of the White Paper on the role of religious education during the junior cycle of secondary school.74 Once more the Green Paper authors declare that: [religious] education should form part of the available programme of all students, with due regard to the constitutional rights of parents related to the participation of their children.75

Yet, on the other hand, the White Paper emphasises something of a more experiential objective in stating that, by the time they have finished their junior cycle compulsory schooling, “all students in accordance with their abilities and aptitudes”, will have had the benefit of “formative experiences in moral, religious and spiritual education”.76 Education in religion and its formative dimension is therefore included as a subject area which each school is expected to provide.77 It is important also, as noted by Williams, to be aware that the White Paper makes no reference to religion at senior cycle level. Undoubtedly, as he explains, this is

The Documents

35

“consistent with the treatment of the standard curriculum for the Leaving Certificate where the role of individual subjects is not explored”.78 He presupposes correctly that the rationale for the omission is due in large part to the normal practice of a junior cycle programme being followed by a senior cycle one, in which case it can be claimed that there is “an implied recognition of the place of Religious Education at this level”.79

The Education Act (1998) In its consideration of curricula at both primary and secondary level, the State’s first Education Act (1998) makes provision for education in religion, while at the same time taking account of the diverse beliefs of the country’s populace.80 The State’s attempt to legislate for the varied philosophies and values held by Irish society are clearly set out in the Education Act. Firstly, the State guarantees that the education system, “in the interests of the common good … respects the diversity of values, beliefs, languages and traditions of Irish society”.81 Secondly, that guarantee is given in the context of a broader duty of care and responsibility by the State in ensuring that: a recognised school shall … promote the moral, spiritual, social and personal development of students and provide health education for them, in consultation with their parents, having regard to the characteristic spirit of the school.82

The outcome of this act was due in part to the consolidation of events leading up to it. The first was a National Education Convention held in Dublin in 1993.83 This was a gathering, as Norman summarises, “to promote dialogue and consensus among the various interest groups such as teachers, parents, unions and churches involved in Irish education”.84 The work of the Convention was consolidated in the Report of the National Education Convention (1994) and again in the Government White Paper on Education (1995). The outcome of the publication of the Education Act (1998) not only recognised the legal right of the various church authorities to design curricula for education in religion at primary level, but also included their right to supervise, implement and teach religion according to the belief systems of their respective faith traditions.85 Consequently, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) does not include a religious education syllabus in its Revised Primary Curriculum (1999), although it is listed as one of the seven areas for study.86 However, it

36

Chapter Two

recognises the significance of the spiritual dimension of the person and the place of education in religion. It does so by enabling “the child to develop spiritual and moral values and to come to a knowledge of God”.87 In addition, the same curriculum recognises that: The spiritual is a fundamental aspect of religious experience, and its religious and cultural expression is an inextricable part of Irish culture and history.88

Equally, the Revised Primary Curriculum, in the context of the Education Act (1998) and in reference to the school, also states: It is the responsibility of the school to provide a religious education that is consonant with its ethos and at the same time to be flexible in making alternative organisational arrangements for those who do not wish to avail of the particular religious education it offers. It is equally important that the beliefs and sensibilities of every child are respected.89

A serious difficulty of course arises for those who do not wish to avail of the particular kind of religious education offered by a given school.90 The matter is all the more grave due to the preponderance of denominational primary schools in the country. This situation will be deliberated on in the following chapters of this work but, for the present, it may suffice to agree with Glendenning when she considers the growing secularity of Irish life and the necessity: to find a more equitable balance between the constitutional protection of denominational rights in education and the safeguarding of the rights of those who profess other religious faiths or who profess no religion.91

Conclusion The history and background of education in religion, as we have seen, are somewhat more complex than that of any other subject, particularly at primary level. The conclusion to this chapter now signals the opening of a discussion for the following three chapters. The review of education in religion from the Foundation of the State (1922), through to the Constitution (1937), related documents (1954 to 1971), the Green and White Papers (1992 and 1995 respectively), the Education Act (1998) and brief reference to subsequent curricula, has been introduced by way of background material for the ensuing debate. Throughout that time span, education in religion has both influenced and been influenced by such

The Documents

37

documents. Since the Foundation of the State in 1922 until the Education Act of 1998, Irish society has changed dramatically from a relatively homogenous one to an increasingly diverse one, both in its cultural and religious contexts. It is of considerable importance, not only for the authors of educational policies and curricula, but also for stakeholders and those responsible for education in religion, to take account of the increasing diversification of religions and beliefs in the Republic of Ireland today. The following chapter begins to take account of the dialogue pertaining between religious society and secular society and the disposition of one of the State’s statutory bodies–the Irish Human Rights Commission–in order to deliberate on the contemporary situation.

CHAPTER THREE A HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE

In the previous two chapters, some account of the traditional interaction between religion and education as it is played out in Ireland’s history and politics raises a question about the appropriateness of education in religion in schools today. As in the past, there remains a plurality of voices. One voice may focus on the challenge of providing knowledge and understanding of the subject as a topic on the curriculum. Another may concentrate on religious knowledge enabling pupils to evaluate religions and beliefs, while at the same time grounded in a particular religious tradition. This would include preparing pupils to counteract religious fundamentalism, atheistic, religious or secular indoctrination and religious extremism. Yet other perspectives may embrace an instrumentalist approach to religion, permitting pupils to take account of the various social circumstances of citizenship. It might even be argued that a holistic approach to education in religion will not exclude raising the level of awareness of all of the above, whether or not they espouse a given faith tradition. Others, however, may argue that the mention of religion, religious belief or the name of God in any form should not be discussed or debated within the confines of the school walls. This chapter is based on the premise that education in religion is fundamental to Ireland’s history and culture and that serious consideration must therefore be given as to whether or not it should remain an integral part of the school curriculum. How that may change from existing practice into the future will require a considerable amount of dialogue and debate. With this in mind, it is now time to concentrate on questions concerning freedom of religion and equality before the law relating to children’s human rights in school. In particular, attention is given to the work of the Irish Human Rights Commission (IHRC) by focusing on selected areas of one of its documents, entitled Religion & Education: A Human Rights Perspective.1 Operating within the framework of this document, the following topics will be addressed: Religion and Education: a Human Rights Perspective; Responses to the IHRC Discussion Paper; The Question of School Patronage/Ethos; Curriculum: Religion in the

40

Chapter Three

Classroom or Not?; Religious Education and Recommendations to the Minister for Education. For convenience, page numbers relating to the IHRC document are inserted into the main text of this work.

Religion & Education: A Human Rights Perspective In the previous chapter, it was noted that the Irish Constitution must provide education for its citizens regardless of their political, social, philosophical, religious or non-religious background. Reference was also made to the increasing diversification of religious and non-religious beliefs and the State’s endeavour to resolve the interplay of tensions between them within the school system. One organisation, the Irish Human Rights Commission (IHRC), believes that the resolution of such tensions should be situated within a human rights framework and it undertook to test if the State was fully meeting its human rights standards (pp. 8-9).2 Specifically, the IHRC focuses on the place of religion in education, pointing out that this is an issue, not just for Ireland, but globally. The IHRC justifies its role in this debate by pointing out that: Some countries could be said to have approached the issue in the wrong way, whereas others have got it almost right and it could be argued that those are the countries in which human rights is used as the prism in balancing the competing rights at issue (p. 6).

Acting on its mandate as monitor of the State’s adherence to its human rights obligations, the IHRC commits itself to discharge its responsibility under the terms of the Human Rights Commission Act (2000)3. On this cognisance, the organisation holds that it is best placed to make recommendations to the government with reference to religion and education adding that, “as Ireland’s national human rights institution it feels it is uniquely placed to do so” (pp. 8-9). To this end, the IHRC set about its business by initiating a four step process as follows: (i) a joint conference between the IHRC and the Trinity College School of Law4 (ii) a Discussion Paper launched at the conference and setting out human rights standards under the Irish Constitution and various international agreements on the part of the State5 (iii) the dissemination of a questionnaire in order to survey responses from the public on the basis of same and (iv) the subsequent publication of a report on religion and education from a human rights perspective, which included responses from more than 60 respondents6. The IHRC embarked on this process by

A Human Rights Perspective

41

focussing on “the theme of ‘religion’ as a component in the education system”.7 Following the publication of Religion & Education: A Human Rights Perspective (hereinafter identified as the Report), the IHRC made recommendations to the government based on responses received from its survey and through its own casework testimonials. In order to construct those recommendations, the IHRC enlisted the assistance of national and international academics, educationalists and various stakeholders in the majority of religious and non-religious traditions in the Republic (p. 8). At the outset, the IHRC defines its statutory understanding and use of the term “human rights” in the following way: (a) the rights, liberties and freedoms conferred on, or guaranteed to, persons by the Constitution. (b) the rights, liberties or freedoms conferred on or guaranteed to, persons by any agreement, treaty or convention to which the State is a party (p. 5). The Report offers a brief background in relation to Ireland’s demographic situation, noting that it has changed significantly from around the mid-1990s, making reference to statistics available to them at the time of their writing (Census, 2006) (p. 9).8 Since the publication of the Report, these statistics have been updated in the subsequent census (2011).9 These statistics show that the majority of people belong to the main Christian Churches (Roman Catholic and Church of Ireland), with a relatively smaller number defining themselves as Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, other belief or of no (religious) belief (p. 9). The IHRC also notes that the Irish education system is largely founded on private Church initiatives and supported by state funding. As such, these publicly funded schools, under denominational patronage, inform the ethos or characteristic spirit of the school. The main concern of the IHRC is to ensure that the State takes due account of the human rights of children and their parents in respect of their constitutional right to education regardless of their religious or non-religious beliefs (pp. 8-11). Given this situation, the IHRC wishes (i) to ensure that “human rights standards are properly understood by reference to the domestic context … [relating] to our religious and educational heritage” and (ii) “to identify any disparity between the law and practice in the State on the one hand and the human rights standards on the other” (pp. 10-11). The Report itself consists of six chapters under the specific headings of “Law & Practice in the State Regarding Education and Religion”,

42

Chapter Three

“Response to the IHRC Discussion Paper”, “Education and Religion Under the Irish Constitution”, “Human Rights Standards”, “Analysis and Conclusions” and “Recommendations” (pp. 12-106). Although each of these areas is important in its own right, it is unnecessary here to deliberate on each of the chapters or even to offer a synopsis of them, because much of the subject matter contained in the Report is well documented in Irish educational law10 and Irish educational history.11 Instead, specific account will be taken below of Chapter Two of the Report, entitled “Response to the IHRC Discussion Paper” and Chapter Six, entitled “Recommendations”. The reason that Chapter Two has been selected for attention is that it provides considerable insight into the experience of the respondents in respect of a set of important and complex issues on the question of their human rights relating to religion and education. Chapter Six was selected because it offers an opportunity to reflect upon the kind of counsel offered by the IHRC to the government in relation to the religion and education debate.

Responses to the IHRC Discussion Paper The purpose of the Discussion Paper was to open the debate “on religion and education from a human rights perspective and to launch a consultation process” (p. 5). The respondents included: parents, grandparents, former pupils, national and international academics, primary school teachers, teachers’ unions, members of the Christian Churches, think-tanks, members/former members of the Campaign to separate Church and State and unaffiliated members of the public (p 39).

At the outset of Chapter Two, the IHRC, in its deliberation on the responses to the Discussion Paper, summarises the critique of a cohort of those 60 plus respondents to the accompanying questionnaire. Respondents were given the option of answering all or a selection of the questions posed. Alternatively, they were invited to respond in writing without having to use the questionnaire template. The IHRC then pieced together a bricolage of individual and group representations in order to supply the State with its overarching set of recommendations. Before considering the responses, it should be noted, therefore, that the data produced by the IHRC and subsequent analysis did not show evidence of employing certain methods of enquiry that might have proved useful to those interested in data analysis.12 Although it was undoubtedly not the intention of the IHRC to conduct research of this nature, it may have

A Human Rights Perspective

43

generated a further degree of enquiry for those oriented towards future private or collaborative ventures in respect of the Report.13 Nonetheless, the Report clearly revealed a complicated set of terms, patterns and concepts. The primary recommendation was to ensure that “there is a diversity of provision of school type within educational catchment areas throughout the State which reflects the diversity of religious and non-religious convictions now represented in the State” (p. 104). Given its undertaking, the IHRC made public the agreements, disagreements and discrepancies found among the respondents, offering accommodation for future dialogue and debate. As Crotty puts it: we need to recognise that different people may well inhabit quite different worlds. Their different worlds constitute for them diverse ways of knowing, distinguishable sets of meanings, and separate entities.14

In the same way, the narratives contained in the responses, which are complex in character, reflect the multiple voices of the IHRC respondents. Representation of some of these voices will now be considered. In order to analyse the material in a coherent format, an abbreviated and modified process of thematic analysis as found in the work of Braun and Clarke will be employed, (i) reviewing themes (ii) defining and naming themes (iii) producing the commentary.15 The responses in the IHRC Report are written in prose form, some of which are highlighted and some of which are not, with the IHRC offering explanatory comments at various intervals. The themes selected below are contained largely in Chapter Two of the Report under their respective sections, entitled (i) School Patronage/Ethos, (ii) Curriculum, Religion in the Classroom or Not? and (iii) Religious Education.16 The commentary offered is intended to interact with the respondents’ points of view presented under each section, thus providing an opportunity to reflect on the two key areas for consideration. The first is the appropriateness of primary schools in continuing to provide denominational religious education in State schools. The second is the appropriateness of denominational schools in providing an exclusively phenomenological programme of religion without undermining their mission to educate in a given faith tradition. In addition, it should be noted that the commentary will include any clarification necessary in relation to the relevant responses.

44

Chapter Three

The Question of School Patronage/Ethos The main concern of the Report in this section is to find out if “the system of patronage in primary and post-primary schools allows for the protection of human rights or whether a different structure is required” (p.41). It is unclear if the Report here is advocating that the State should supply a greater number of schools to account for the wider diversity in religious and non-religious interests or whether the denominational system of patronage should be dispensed with. The “Recommendations”, however, do advise that, if the current system of patronage is to remain, “significant modifications” would need to be made to satisfy human rights standards (p.104). The IHRC, taking its statistics from the Catholic Schools’ Partnership (CSP)17 and the Catholic Primary School Management Association (CPSMA),18 points out that the patronage system is largely due to historical circumstances, where 97% of schools are under denominational patronage, 89% of which are Catholic. Furthermore, there is an inter-related factor indicating a preponderance of small primary schools with fewer than 200 pupils, particularly in rural areas. Reference is also made to second level schools where an analogous system of patronage exists, although there is a more varied form of management structure such as inter-denominational and multi-denominational models (p.41). Given this informative background, we now turn to a synopsis of the responses both in favour of and against the retention of denominational patronage, keeping in mind the relationship between that form of patronage and education in religion.

Report: Responses in Favour of Retaining Denominational Patronage/Ethos The following points reflect the responses in favour of retaining denominational patronage/ethos in school: x Schools are run at low cost due to large number of volunteer assistance (p. 41). x Positive experience of denominational schools throughout the country (p. 42). x There is a place for Faith Communities to establish faith based schools so long as parents require them (p. 43). x Denominational schools are an expression of a pluralist society (p. 44).

A Human Rights Perspective

45

x The Churches should do what is reasonable to accommodate diversity (p. 44). x There are great efforts to accommodate minority faith or non-faith children in Catholic schools (p. 45). x It is illogical or unreasonable to expect Catholic patrons to provide a non-denominational ethos in schools and religious ethos cannot be confined to religious instruction (p. 48). x To confine the ethos to religion class is to misunderstand the nature of ethos (p. 46).

Report: Responses Against Retaining Denominational Patronage/Ethos The following points reflect the responses against retaining denominational patronage/ethos: x The role and place of religion and religious organisations in management of educational services (primary and post-primary) imposes unacceptable constraints on communal human rights. x Religion in schools is unfairly biased against the non-religious outlook in life (p. 42). x There is a lack of alternative schooling for those who do not wish for a doctrinal Christian education (p. 43). x There should be a religion-free school environment and abolition of all management boards with the principal running the school to meet the wishes of the parents/guardians, stakeholders and scholars (p. 45). x Setting up of faith schools on grounds of religious or non-religious beliefs by faith is morally wrong as it segregates children (p. 45). x In a democratic society where free education is provided by the State, the current patronage system is a clear breach of human rights standards (p. 47). x The only way for a state education system to vindicate everyone’s rights to freedom of conscience, religion and belief is for it to be run on a secular basis (p. 47). x The Catholic religion is more or less forced upon children and teachers (p. 48).

46

Chapter Three

Commentary This selection of arguments in favour of and against the system of patronage/ethos of schools portrays some sense of the divergent opinions of the respondents. Whether or not a patronage system is in breach of human rights in a democratic society is, however, much more complex than the viewpoints cited above. Embedded in the opinions of the respondents the reader will find, not only divergent responses, but also areas of considerable convergence and unqualified agreement. The Report is helpful here, as it offers a brief explanatory history both of the patronage system and more recent developments relating to primary and second level school management structures (pp. 13-18). That information is instructive and balanced in its acknowledgement that, “while there are denominational, inter-denominational and multi-denominational schools, the Department of Education have not designated any non-denominational schools”. Nonetheless, “the meaning of these terms is unclear with definitions a source of much debate” (p. 41). It is necessary, therefore, to attend to the “unclear” terminology before progressing with the commentary. Williams makes a useful contribution to our understanding of the terminology in question when he proposes definitions in the introduction to his work Faith and the Nation.19 A brief summary will suffice here. Firstly, Williams points out that the terms “confessional”, “denominational” or “faith” schools are synonyms for schools in which the policy is to foster commitment to a particular faith tradition consistent with the given school’s ethos. He describes these schools as “mono-confessional”.20 They do, however, accept pupils from all faiths without requiring a faith commitment either from principals or teachers. Secondly, Williams mentions inter-faith or ecumenical schools in which education in religion takes place during school hours. Here there may be some shared religious beliefs as part of the school’s ethos, but there is no particular association with any one denomination.21 Thirdly, Williams explains that there are what is referred to as multidenominational schools, in which the emphasis in timetabled lessons is on ethics and world views rather than on any given faith tradition or set of faith traditions. Opportunities are provided outside of school hours on the premises by way of faith formation for those who want it. During the school day, certain annual festivals and sacred days are drawn to the pupils’ attention and they are encouraged to participate in such experiences. Fourthly, there are non-denominational schools, sometimes referred to as secular schools. Although currently there is no such model in

A Human Rights Perspective

47

Ireland, Williams refers to the situation in France by way of clarification. He writes: [the] state school is conceived as religion-free space and all teaching of religion even as a cultural, sociological or psychological phenomenon is prohibited.22

Some secular schools do permit the teaching of religion as a human phenomenon, but any attempt at faith formation or development is precluded.23 It is useful to make reference again to Williams by way of terminological clarification in respect of the widely used term “ethos”, which he describes as a term reflecting character or disposition. Williams claims that all human institutions, whether or not they are schools, possess a pervasive characteristic spirit.24 Although it is something of an elusive term, the influence of ethos is what remains possibly long after the individual has left the institution. A helpful quotation infuses the reader with a deeper sense of its meaning when Williams claims that: When lessons are forgotten, and differential calculus, the periodic table of the elements and irregular verbs have become shadowy memories, the ethos of the school we attended can remain part of our consciousness.25

He goes on to point out that religious connotations may apply to the term, but that this is not necessarily always the situation, particularly in a nonreligious oriented organisation.26 Williams gets to the kernel of the term “ethos”, which is useful here due to the broad and inclusive connotations he employs in his understanding of it. Although this is a rudimentary version of Williams’ account of the terminology in question, it facilitates a return to the commentary among the respondents in the IHRC Report in general and on the theme of “School Patronage/Ethos” in particular. It is important to begin by noting that, although there are conflicting opinions, areas of convergence are evident among the divergent voices. One major proponent of the retention of the school patronage system is the Catholic Schools’ Partnership (CSP). That Partnership welcomes the establishment of “clearly secular, nondenominational schools providing a non-religious alternative for parents” (p. 42). This is not out of keeping with the submission of a parent, opposed to denominational schooling, who states, “I am concerned almost all the schools in Ireland are religious and they all teach religion. There are no secular schools in Ireland” (p. 42). Nor is it contrary to Mawhinney,

Chapter Three

48

known for her opposition to denominational education when, in the context of her response, she notes: In the provision of a local service, such as education, the need to avoid a geographical dominance by a religious non-state service provider is of particular importance27 (p. 43). .

In the same vein, the CSP reiterates that: The Catholic Church accepts that there should be choice and diversity within a national education system. The Catholic Bishops and the CPSMA as early as 1997 called for and continue to call for additional models of patronage to reflect parents’ rights. The idea of a “one size fits all” is not the answer to the needs of a pluralist society (p. 43).

The above points of view also concur with Kieran and O’Connell, both of whom are in favour of denominational schooling, when they reveal that: there is no national system, geographically distributed over the 26 counties, which offers an alternative form of schooling to parents/children of minority faith or non-religious groups, or indeed Catholics who do not wish to send their children to a Catholic school (p. 44).28

Moreover, despite disagreement as to whether or not the patronage system should be replaced, most agreed that there should be change. There was also general agreement that schools were under-funded (pp. 44-45). Opposing sides were relatively uniform in other areas, such as upholding the right of parental choice in the provision of school type for their children. In fact, this was considered to be the main criterion (pp. 44-45). In relation to accommodation for minority faith or non-faith children some respondents, associated with Catholic schools, indicated that great efforts were being made to cater for their diverse needs in denominational schools (p. 45). The fact that denominational school patrons were making such efforts indicates clearly that they were aware of the limitations in attempting to cater for the diverse religious and non-religious beliefs and values of children attending their schools. This view-point is not entirely at odds with some secular views which stated that the accommodation offered by denominational schools “was insufficient” (p. 45).

A Human Rights Perspective

49

Curriculum–Religion in the Classroom or Not? Having outlined some of the areas of convergence between those who believe in the retention of the patronage/ethos system and those who wish to see it removed, it is now time to turn to the second major theme for consideration, “Religion in the Classroom or Not?” The sub-heading, however, somewhat belies the complexity of the respondents’ feedback and the information provided by the IHRC found in this section of the Report. Initial perusal indicates that the responses comprise two major issues, not one. The first refers to religion as a subject on the curriculum, as per the sub-heading above. The second issue relates to the place of religion, normally in a denominational school, where manifestations of a given faith tradition may arise, not only during timetabled hours, but also outside of them. A distinction, therefore, needs to be made between these two issues before embarking on an exploration of the text. One is the faithformational or practical dimension sometimes described as education in a particular faith. This would include convictions, attitudes, emotions and such like manifested in acts of worship, prayer, moral and ethical commitments and sacramental preparation in primary schools.29 The theoretical dimension focuses on an approach that seeks to provide teaching about different religions and beliefs which is not devotionally or denominationally oriented.30 Here the aim is to educate students in awareness of religious and non-religious views of life. Each dimension would take serious account of sound scholarship as the essential precondition of the education of the young. Emphasis, however, on the practical dimension often tends to present both pupils and teachers with considerable opportunity to “practise what is preached”. Examples would include involving pupils in issues such as human rights, the developing world, community projects, visiting the local nursing home or elderly/infirm people, and fundraising for international disasters and so on. This is likely to vary from school to school and teacher to teacher, depending on the time available in denominational primary schools and the pressure of state examinations in religion in denominationally managed second level schools. As in the first section for consideration above, the same procedure of reviewing, defining, naming and producing the commentary will be followed. The responses for and against religion in the classroom will be set out in bulleted form followed by the commentary.31 This section of the IHRC document begins by informing the reader that religion is usually taught as a thirty minute subject each day in denominational primary

50

Chapter Three

schools (although it does not provide evidence as to whether or not teachers are always compliant with this practice). Time is made available for sacramental preparation, prayers may be said in class and generally religious symbols are evident in the environs of the school. Furthermore, the religious ethos of the denominational primary school permeates the day and contributes to the integrated curriculum. The inter-denominational and multi-denominational schools tend to place Religious Education classes at the beginning or the end of the day’s lessons (p. 48).

Report: Responses in Favour of Retaining Religion in the Classroom (or Not)? The following points reflect the responses in favour of retaining religion in the classroom: x Ethos presumes a vision of the person as made in the image of God spilling into all the relationships of the school day (p. 48). x Parents have a positive right of choice for denominational education (p. 49). x Primary education includes the full and harmonious development of the child. The integrated curriculum takes account of all aspects of the child’s life providing an overall vision of different dimensions of life (p. 49). x Religious education, like all education, is not an objective or neutral imparting of information but the promotion of a critical engagement between learner and knowledge (p. 50). x A religious ethos that is confined to religious instruction alone is of no value in promoting important formation characteristics in young children (p. 50). x Religious instruction in isolation and without wider integration into school life is no more than a history lesson (p. 50). x The education of the spiritual dimension of children is a basic human right and a necessary element in a holistic understanding of the education of young people (p. 50). x Religion enriches a person’s understanding of life (p. 50).

Report: Responses Against Retaining Religion in the Classroom The following points reflect responses against retaining religion in the classroom:

A Human Rights Perspective

x x x x x

51

Religion has no place in the classroom as it removes the child from important learning in science and the arts (p. 52). Instruction in religion should take place outside of school and not on state owned property (p. 52). Religion in schools is unfairly biased against the non-religious outlook in life (p. 52). Non-religious parents (due to the large number of denominational schools), are obliged to send their children to a religious school (p. 52). Any exemption clause is rendered inoperable violating human rights standards as sacramental preparation may endanger the right of a minority-belief student to an effective education (p. 52).

Commentary It is not difficult to see the opposing points of view in the two sections referred to above. One set of respondents made it clear that religion should be taught in the classroom, while others believed that religion should not be part of the school curriculum under any circumstances. Nonetheless, although the bullet-pointed synopsis outlines somewhat neatly the arguments for and against religion in the classroom, it belies the very profound and complex difficulties that the IHRC attempts to portray. This is because education in religion is a multi-faceted, complex phenomenon which cannot easily be taken account of in a relatively short report of this nature. The question focussing on whether or not religion should be taught in the classroom is not just about the teaching of a subject called religion on the curriculum. There are deeper and far more pervasive concerns, such as the place of the integrated curriculum and what that means in a denominational school. The Catholic Schools’ Partnership (CSP) justifies the ethos behind the integrated curriculum as a structure whereby “children are introduced into an integrated world rather than one arbitrarily divided into discrete academic subjects.” (p. 49). Not only does the CSP view the integrated curriculum as one which contains an academic element, but it also promotes an experience of the spiritual, the human search for meaning, the cultural heritage, the richness, appreciation and variety of religious and non-religious traditions. The integrated curriculum is complex, partly because it does not separate academic learning from other forms of critical, experiential, practical, spiritual and religious forms of learning in a denominational school. At one and the same time, like every curricular subject, religion in the classroom is intended to provide opportunities for pupils to participate “in

52

Chapter Three

their own conscious and critical development”.32 Perhaps this complexity is best expressed by the authors of the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector.33 In the introduction to the Forum’s recent report submitted to the Minister for Education we read: Religious belief plays a sensitive and intimate part in people’s lives. In Ireland, the religious dimension has been very interwoven with the primary schools’ way of life. Thus, when a re-shaping of school provision is on the agenda so as to reflect greater diversity of belief systems, it is to be expected that concerns and apprehensions will be involved.34

These concerns and apprehensions are clearly reflected in the bulleted responses contained in the IHRC Report. Yet there are common threads among the disparate views expressed. In the midst of controversy, there appears to be general agreement in two significant areas. The first area refers to the rights of parents to rear their children according to their own specific philosophies summarised in the statement that “both secular and religious respondents felt parental choice should be the defining criterion” (p. 45). The second area of agreement makes reference to the requirements of a pluralistic, liberal society to promote essential values such as equality, tolerance, liberty and respect for differing forms, beliefs and ways of life. This is summarised in the statement that a: variety of provision seems crucial in our changing context [which] is supportive of a plurality of patronage models [where] all models, irrespective of patronage and trusteeship, should be inclusive and respectful of diversity (p. 46).

Although the diverse representations are sometimes polarised, the IHRC Report encourages open debate on the tension between people of faith and non-faith traditions. This has the hallmarks of healthy deliberation provided the holders of each set of values do not retreat into a fundamentalist ghetto of their own making. One outcome is the promise of collaboration between both religious educators and secular educators. The common denominator is education. Every education system and every school, if its education system stands up to scrutiny, attempts to serve society to the best of its ability. The educational value of education in religion is well documented and certain assumptions can be made about the relationship between the two.35 For example, education regardless of the culture or context, religious or otherwise, is about the capacities of human nature, emotions, conscience, wonder, energy, intelligence, memory, human will and hope and how these are developed and orientated. These will inevitably be influenced by one’s own view, the society in which one

A Human Rights Perspective

53

operates and how individuals learn. In this sense, education and education in religion attempt to offer answers to the great metaphysical questions about the meaning of life such as creation, the nature of humankind, moral responsibility and human sexuality. There is nothing by way of significant divergence as to the importance of such questions either from an educational or a religious educational perspective. Indeed some respondents in the Report, coming from a secular perspective, state that “education about different religions can make an invaluable contribution to the upbringing of a child” (p. 51). Nonetheless, for those who do not wish their children to have any contact with teaching in or about religion, drawing parallels between religion and education is unsatisfactory (p. 52). Such respondents hold that state education should be secular, with the rationale being that children would then be taught in an “objective, critical and pluralistic manner” (p. 52). Against that, the question was raised as to whether or not secular education had the capacity to be value-free. One commentator wrote that “[t]here is nothing neutral or value free about secularism. Secularism is a legitimate and particular ideology among many ideologies” (p. 53).36 It is evident that the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) would concur with the view that values and beliefs, regardless of their perspective, cannot be expressed as value-free, particularly where that organisation states that: In a strict sense, no course – whether on religion or on any other subject – is absolutely neutral or objective: rather there is in fact a spectrum of possibilities.37

In his account of religion and schooling, Williams, for his part, argues that education is not value-free, but that openness to other beliefs and values is what counts. He claims that, as long as confessional schools are open in their outlook, whether they espouse the beliefs of the major world religions, smaller faith traditions or none, they are hospitable to the promotion of autonomy. If they do not aspire to the cultivation of intellectual autonomy, that is if they are fundamentalist in outlook, then they may be described as closed confessional schools which ignore the wider religious, cultural and educational frameworks necessary for the development of the young people they teach. The same criteria apply to closed secular or non-confessional schools which do not permit the possibility of any encounter for children relating to religious belief. As Williams puts it about such schools, they “set limits to the autonomous development of children in as far as this approach is inhospitable to the possibility of coming to embrace religious commitment”.38

54

Chapter Three

Religious Education The sub-section entitled “religious education” in Chapter Two of the Report appears to have caused considerable confusion among the respondents. This is due partially to the contested nature of the term itself and to the variety of nomenclature employed in reference to the teachers of the subject. What is required is the provision of a shared language, particularly if the state is to find a means of upholding its human rights commitments to its school-age citizens. Unless agreed terminology is employed, there is a real danger that any attempts to explore the possibility of informed and respectful dialogue among the stakeholders will be little more than a futile exercise resulting in misunderstanding and distrust. School children’s education will then no longer be at the forefront of the debate and education in religion is likely to become the victim of partisan, ideological agendas. More will be said about the terminology employed in the commentary below. In the meantime, the contributions of some of the respondents require consideration before any further evaluation of education in religion can take place.

Report: Responses in Favour of Retaining Religious Education x In second level schools, the Junior Certificate and Leaving Certificate Religious Education Syllabi provide “a clear framework … engaging with pupils of any religious faith or none” (p. 54). x Religious education is formative and as such will include such aspects as prayer, morality etc. (p. 54). x Religious education has a contribution to make. It is part of culture and history so everyone including those of a secular conviction can benefit from education about religion (p. 54). x Religious education in the public or common school context is possible but would require reflective accommodation given the dominance of faith based schools and the balance between denominational and multi-denominational second level schools (p. 55). x Information and knowledge in the education curriculum is conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner in Catholic primary schools in so far as this is humanly possible (p. 55).

A Human Rights Perspective

55

Report: Responses Against Retaining Religious Education x The Religious Education course (Junior Certificate) is not a general history of world religions and does not respect the non-religious outlook. Changing the emphasis of this exam to a history of religion would be less discriminating to non-religious parents and pupils (p. 54). x Throughout the submissions of non-religious parents there is a significant sense of grievance. Some have experienced hurt and dislocation as a result of having had to place their children in denominational and in some cases inter-denominational schools (p. 55). x Some parents became involved in disputes with the school as to how religion was being imparted. Others avoided conflict because they wished to do the right thing by their children but that left them feeling isolated and excluded (pp. 55-56). x The “opt out” clause whereby a child may be excused from attending RE class was generally considered not to be adequate because (i) children were still required to remain in the class (ii) the integrated curriculum ensures that religion permeates all aspects of school life, so opting out is not a realistic option because they cannot opt out of the culture of the school (iii) providing alternative supervision for children not wishing to take Religious Education was placing constraints on school resources (pp. 57-58). x Children having to remain in religious education class are naturally inclined to listen and removing them puts an unreasonable pressure on parents (p. 58). Commentary In the sub-section entitled “Religious Education”, the IHRC immediately noted the varied terminology employed by the respondents such as “religious instruction” and “religious education”. The Report related that some respondents found the former term offensive, although the IHRC justified their usage of it on the grounds that “religious instruction” is drawn from Article 44.2.4 of the Constitution (1937) and the Rules for National Schools (1965, Rule 68). In an attempt to clarify some of the terminological confusion involved, the IHRC selected one respondent’s explanatory opinion by way of drawing a distinction between the two terms “religious instruction” (RI) and “religious education” (RE) (p. 53). The respondent makes that distinction by referring to “religious instruction”

56

Chapter Three

as promoting one form of religion from a denominational perspective. The overwhelming majority of religious traditions in the world, he claims, “are unthinkingly marginalised or ‘othered’ by a denominational RI approach (of any tradition)” (p. 53). No evidence is supplied in support of this statement. In his account of the term “Religious Education”, the same respondent is clearly much more in favour of its use when he describes it as an academic subject in the humanities/social sciences. It follows a required examinable or non-examinable curriculum offering a number of religions and world views for study. He contrasts religious instruction unfavourably with religious education by referring to the latter as a “wholly educational”, “objective, open-minded, and appropriately academically rigorous programme of study” (p. 53). Furthermore, in justification of his preferred term, it is one he claims is best suited for a “pluralistic real world” capable of fostering “a critical, questioning, evidence-based, pupilcentred approach, developing ‘religious literacy’” (pp. 53-54). Although the respondent offers one acceptable explanation of “religious education”, he implies that “religious instruction” is not suitable for a school setting due to his understanding of it as a subject that is necessarily devoid of an academic component. The point apparently is that a person who lives life from a particular religious, ethical or philosophical perspective is incapable of teaching in an objective and fair manner. Although there is no intention to treat the opinion of this respondent with disrespect, it is but one example of statements which have the potential to cause serious confusion as a result of their treatment of categories that do not appear to have been investigated enough. More than twenty years ago, the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (INTO) were aware of the ambiguous distinction between “religious instruction” and “religious education”. Cognisant of the various usages, they pointed out that the meaning of education in religion in schools is often a combination of both terms. They write: Religious Education is now used by most denominations to describe the newer religious programmes in denominational schools. These programmes combine in varying degrees both Religious Instruction and Religious Education.39

It is important to note also that the Forum on Patronage recognises that: a certain fluidity exists in the use of terms in relation to religious education … [where some] of the terms found in older documents are no longer in general current usage.40

A Human Rights Perspective

57

In reporting to the Minister for Education, the Forum makes its own interim recommendation to liberate the term “Religious Instruction” from its outdated usage by using the term “Denominational Religious Education”. The Forum explains that this is the formation of people in a belief system whereby they are involved in living out their lives according to religious values, moral actions and modes of thinking in light of those beliefs. Employment of the term “Denominational Religious Education” has the added advantage of being inclusive rather than exclusive of the broader terminology “religious education”. In this respect, it gives due recognition to the “critical thinking” dimension of faith formation while at the same time avoiding the charge that either “religious instruction” or “indoctrination” should play any part in children’s education in religion today.41 In time, no doubt, use of the term “religious instruction” will cease to be employed. Nonetheless, until language in official documentation in this country such as the Rules for National Schools or the relevant articles in the Constitution are revised, the Forum’s recommended terminology is worthy of serious consideration. The IHRC, therefore, would have done better justice to the sub-section on religious education by referencing at least one or two published works from other national or international experts in the field.42 Attention to the available expertise will also reveal that considerable debate in the academy has been taking place for a very long time. Much of this has focused on faith formation from an academic perspective and also on contemporary pedagogies in religious education. Neither of these is necessarily exclusive of the other.43 Again, the Forum on Patronage is helpful when it recognises that there has been a substantial amount of innovative thinking around the nature and content of religious education, particularly in relation to pedagogical approaches.44 It also extends its deliberation on terminology by making reference to “Education about Religions and Beliefs” (ERB). This terminology is the preferred language of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and employed by the Forum to explain what ERB is.45 Such teaching is intended to help pupils to learn about the various forms of religions and beliefs held by humankind as part of the rich cultural heritage that they are normally perceived to be. Although pupils study certain aspects of the main theist and non-theistic belief systems and their cultural manifestations, the nurturing of any of those beliefs in particular is not part of the ERB remit.46 Further reference to the meaning of denominational religious education and education about religions and beliefs will be considered in greater detail in Chapter Five of this work.

58

Chapter Three

In the meantime, mention must be made of one more sensitive term found in the IHRC document, that of “indoctrination” (generally cited alongside “proselytism”). Writing in the context of denominational schooling, the IHRC correctly makes the point that dissenting parents have the right to withdraw their children from timetabled classes in religion, but states that this right may be thwarted if religion informally permeates the school day (p. 101). Even if a very small percentage of parents do not wish their children to be exposed to any form of religious education or to a religious ethos that does not concur with their own beliefs, they have an inalienable right for that to be respected. The Report also states that: Where a denominational school takes steps to guard against any indoctrination or proselytism of other faith or non faith children by teachers, they will be taking positive steps to uphold those children’s human rights. (p. 101).

There should be no ambiguity on this matter. Although the Report points out that the manifestation of religious beliefs was not a significant matter of concern for parents, a minority of them complained that their children had been taught to pray in class. The IHRC refers to this as a practice which “could in any event be regarded as indoctrination” (p. 101). Most certainly, children should not be taught to pray against their parents’ wishes, whether or not they are in a minority situation, and other means of catering for such children must be arranged. A difficulty arises in the Report, however, in that an account of its understanding of the term “indoctrination” is neither explained nor referenced. Nowadays, indoctrination is by and large viewed as a derogatory term not to be applied to religious education, faith formation and denominational religions unless evidence for such is presented. Kazepides has it that people who are indoctrinated are either unwilling or unable to subject their doctrinal beliefs to rational scrutiny. In that sense, many of them desire that their doctrines should “function as regulative principles of the way of life of the whole society”.47 It is not clear in the Report if that is how the term is understood by the IHRC. If so, their application of it requires revision. Astley offers a useful account of the term when he explains that, until the twentieth century, indoctrination had the neutral meaning of teaching or instruction. It only acquired pejorative associations later. Given the large number of “lapsed Catholics” in contemporary society, he suggests that the idea of Catholic indoctrination is not true or, if it is true, it is certainly not very effective.48 This point of view has very recently been borne out in a survey taken by the Association of Catholic Priests in Ireland (ACPI).49 According to the survey (and the

A Human Rights Perspective

59

2011 Census),50 the overwhelming majority of Irish people still claim Catholicism as part of their identity (84%). Yet the ACPI survey shows that a considerable number of Catholics do not embrace the Church’s teaching on female ordination, divorce, homosexuality and contraception.51 It is unlikely, therefore, that indoctrination is particularly effective among the greater part of the Irish population, most of whom would have been educated in denominational primary schools. It is all the more surprising to discover that the IHRC continued to employ the term in their Recommendations to the Minister for Education despite respondents’ representations to that effect in the earlier (IHRC) Discussion Document.52

Recommendations to the Minister for Education That said, it is now timely to turn to a number of those recommendations proposed by the IHRC in their reporting to the Minister for Education. The recommendations number 13 in total and they are contained in Chapter Six of the document, reflecting the important and complex issues relating to human rights and education in religion (pp. 104-106).53 It should also be noted that the Forum on Patronage, writing subsequent to the publication of the IHRC Report, appreciatively acknowledges a number of the recommendations in its own submission to the Minister for Education.54 The IHRC Report details its overarching recommendation regarding the State’s responsibility to cater for religious, non-religious and minority views of life, advocating that the State should provide for a diversity of school types to cater for such needs. To this end, the document recommends that the experience gained from the introduction of the Vocational Education Committee (VEC) community national schools and the development of Educate Together schools and Gaelscoileanna (schools teaching through the medium of the Irish language) should be taken into account (p. 104). These are acceptable suggestions and they have also been proposed by the Forum on Patronage. The Forum recognises these suggestions as being significant for the protection of the human rights of both children and their parents.55 Should the State continue to retain the current patronage model, the IHRC Report recommends that significant modifications should take place in denominational schools (p. 104). Among those, the State should set up an inspectorate to ensure that “indoctrination and proselytism” do not happen in any State funded school (p. 105). If or where indoctrination and proselytism are promoted, the State should act with immediate effect. The Report does, however, recommend that terms such as “denominational”, “multi-denominational”, “inter-denominational” and “non-denominational”

60

Chapter Three

should be defined clearly in legislation. It also advises that the State should pay specific attention to children of minority faiths or of no faith by ensuring that modifications are made to the integrated curriculum. Furthermore, one of the recommendations advocates that Section 15 of the Education Act (1998) be amended to provide for such modification.

Conclusion The Irish Human Rights Commission holds that religion in schools should be viewed through a human rights prism. In Chapter Two of its Report, the IHRC identified itself as the one which was uniquely placed to act as facilitator in order to address the debate in favour of and against the role of religion in schools. That chapter was particularly relevant and enlightening because it acknowledged the various viewpoints of stakeholders and individuals who responded to the IHRC questionnaire elicited through its earlier Discussion Document produced in respect of its research. The main areas for review were School Patronage-Ethos, Curriculum-Religion in the Classroom and Religious Education. Under each of these headings some questions were raised in the responses as to why religious bodies should be involved in education or even if religion should be taught in school in any way from any perspective. One of the most significant concerns was that of school ethos and this is a concern that is not easily resolvable in schools where a given ethos is expected to be upheld. Others were in favour of retaining religion in schools through its role in religious education, whether that be from a denominational or a phenomenological approach. Much of the difficulty around examination of the responses, however, arose from the fact that the terminology employed in relation to school types such as denominational, multi-denominational, inter-denominational and non-denominational was open to different meanings, sometimes depending on the various view points of the respondents. It was also disconcerting (although understandable) to discover that terminology employed by the respondents to denote “religious education” was so diverse that it has the potential to cause confusion for any current or subsequent debates taking place on the matter in the country today. In relation to the IHRC Report’s recommendations to the Minister for Education, however, it is evident that there is more to the debate than can be satisfied by human rights considerations alone. This calls into question the IHRC’s belief that it is uniquely placed to act as facilitator. It makes a very significant contribution, but it is yet just one more organisation entering into a very long-contested debate. Reference to human rights of

A Human Rights Perspective

61

itself, although necessary, does not admit of straightforward problem solving in any area where equality or parity of esteem is expected in a democratic society. Such is the reality of religion in schools. It is multifaceted; there is no single issue; there is no neat solution. The next chapter continues the debate, focusing on another more comprehensive document produced by the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector in response to a directive from the Minister of Education.

CHAPTER FOUR THE PATRONAGE QUESTION

“Is there a place for God in the Irish classroom?” was the title of an article written by journalist Kim Bielenberg, reporting on the Catholic Bishops in defence of their influence in schools.1 The title may lead the reader to believe that a theological question about the nature of the Mystery of God was being raised in class by a teacher in a school setting. On reading further, it became apparent that this was not just a question about education in religion in the classroom or the amount of hours spent on teaching religion each week. Rather it was much more focused on the Catholic Church’s control of over 90% of Irish primary schools, referred to previously as patronage. In the preceding chapter, reference was made to the Irish Human Rights Commission and those concerns about school patronage, religion in the curriculum and religious education, all of which that organisation was examining from a human rights perspective. In keeping with the human rights of a country whose civic leaders are democratically elected, these and related issues became the concern of the Minister for Education, Ruairi Quinn, resulting in the establishment of the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector (hereinafter identified as the Forum) and its subsequent report (Forum Report, 2011).2 Before proceeding, a number of details regarding the Forum and its related surveys need to be made: x It should be noted at the time of writing that the Minister for Education has outlined his action plan in response to the Forum’s recommendations and intends to draw up a White Paper for Government consideration by 2013.3 As part of that plan, the Minister announced that surveys of parental preferences in 44 areas were to be undertaken. In light of the plan, the Department of Education and Science prepared a report for the New Schools Establishment Group by means of a pilot survey in five areas nationally, in order to calculate the preferences for diversity of patronage among the parents/guardians of pre-school and primary school-going children. All five areas were surveyed.

64

Chapter Four

x Total population between 5,000 and 20,000. x Total number of valid survey responses of 1,788 represents the preferences of the parents/guardians of almost 3,500 children across the five areas. x Almost 73.5% of the overall numbers of children concerned are primary school pupils, while the remaining 26.5% of the cohort are pre-school children. x Survey ONLINE = 98.9%: Survey PAPER = 1.1% (Appendix 1).4 As the Minister’s action plan is on-going and it may take some considerable time before the outcome is established, it is not possible for this book to deliberate on the analysis of the pilot survey at this juncture. In the meantime, it might be noted that one commentator, Michael Drumm (Catholic Schools’ Partnership), claims that “‘only about 30 pc’ of the parents who completed the survey indicated they were in favour of more school diversity. This number constitutes around 4pc to 8pc of the total number of relevant parents’.5 Drumm is reported as going on to say that “the Church was now closely analysing the report of the pilot survey with a view to submitting a response to Minister Quinn in the coming months”.6 It is therefore to be expected that the recommendations of the Forum may well have far reaching implications, not only for the proposed revision of the Patronage system as it currently pertains, but also particularly for education in religion. Undoubtedly, at least, it has opened the door for considerable analysis, debate and dialogue for decades to come. This chapter, therefore, is one of exploration, paying particular attention to (i) the rationale behind the Forum Report (ii) Aspects Favourable to Denominational Education in Religion (iii) Challenges to Denominational Education in Religion and (iv) Education about Religions and Beliefs.

The Forum on Patronage: Rationale The need for appropriate forms of primary school patronage to cater for the country’s increasingly diverse society was the reason behind the establishment of the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism.7 The Forum, consisting of a wide and inclusive cohort of stakeholders, was asked to take account in its deliberations of (i) the exceptionally large number of primary schools per head of the populace in relation to other developed countries (ii) the areas of static or declining population with a concentration of denominational schools where there is parental demand for diversity and (iii) the so-called denominational “Stand Alone” schools.

The Patronage Question

65

Stand Alone schools are those schools which serve a local community in which it is not possible to establish a second school. The remit of the Forum was to ensure that such schools be as inclusive as possible in accommodating the various belief systems of the parents of pupils in a minority by not infringing on their rights and needs while, at the same time, responding to those rights and needs of the majority denomination attending the schools (pp. 1-3). The Minister appointed an Advisory Group of three people charged with overseeing the work of the Forum.8 Under the Government Programme for National Recovery, the Advisory Group was to sit for a maximum period of twelve months and given concise terms of reference.9 These were: 1. How it can best be ensured that the education system can provide a sufficiently diverse number and range of primary schools catering for all religions and none. 2. The practicalities of how transfer/divesting of patronage should operate for individual primary schools in communities where it is appropriate and necessary. 3. How such transfer/divesting can be advanced to ensure that demands for diversity of patronage (including from an Irish language perspective) can be identified and met on a widespread basis nationally (p. 3). The Advisory Group was also to consider two important factors. Firstly, it was intended that it should keep in mind “[t]he expressed willingness of the Roman Catholic Church to consider divesting patronage of primary schools”. Secondly, it was to take account of the “current financial constraints within which the State is operating, the need for continued restraint into the future and the requirement in this context to make maximum use of existing school infrastructure in catering for future demands” (p. 4). A multi-dimensional approach was employed consisting of (i) a consultation/enquiry phase (ii) an interpretation and analysis phase and (iii) the preparation and submission phase of the required Forum Report by the end of 2011. Subsequent to deliberations on 215 submissions received from the consultation process and a three-day open working session of the Forum, the final report was presented to the Minister for Education, including a comprehensive set of recommendations for his consideration (pp. 5, 105-114).10 Although the above synopsis outlines the rationale for the establishment of the Forum on Patronage and highlights the areas considered essential for

66

Chapter Four

the Minister’s attention, education in religion was not the principle concern of the Advisory Group. Rather, the main emphasis was to achieve “patronage change” affecting a relatively significant cohort of schools under denominational patronage.11 Our concern here, on the other hand, is that the suggestions, comments and recommendations contained in the 164-page document will impact on the place and role of education in religion in the primary school.12 Whether or not the ultimate outcome will be favourable or detrimental to education in religion is uncertain, as it may well take some years before the impact will be evident.13 Consideration of the Forum Report in this chapter, therefore, can only highlight the work of the Forum and draw attention to the possible consequences of some of its recommendations for education in religion. Some of these and related issues will be addressed in the relevant sections below.

Aspects Favourable to Education in Religion (DRE) Before proceeding, it should be noted that the Forum Report employs a dual understanding of the place of education in religion in primary schools and the document is supportive of both of them. On the one hand, denominational religious education (DRE) emanates primarily from a monotheistic faith perspective, dealing with issues of ultimate meaning and rooted in a sense of the sacred. Lane explains it as a belief that God is present in ordinary everyday life and the believer or holder responds to that in faith.14 In a denominational school setting, according to Meehan and O’Connell, this is not confined simply to the teaching of religion, but must be part of the culture of the life of the school, pointing to its meaning, value and purpose.15 It therefore goes beyond merely teaching about religion. On the other hand, education in religion may refer only to the phenomenon of religion, which recognises the role that different religious denominations play in the public square, without espousing any one religion or faith tradition in particular. This latter meaning will be discussed in the final section below. Firstly, let us begin by taking account of the Forum Report in relation to education in religion in denominationally managed schools. In the previous chapter, it was noted that the Forum Report advised the use of the term “Denominational Religious Education” in order to liberate it from the outdated term “religious instruction”. The Forum is right to point out that DRE recognises the value of a religious belief system in which people live out their lives according to values, moral actions and modes of thinking in light of their beliefs. Furthermore, the authors of the Forum Report reveal that they are readily aware of the academic environment within which

The Patronage Question

67

DRE functions in the curriculum. In this respect, they state that DRE “also incorporates a dimension of critical thinking and is opposed to the indoctrination of pupils” (p. v). Sometimes, in current debate, this is referred to as “confessional religious education”.16 The Forum Report is in keeping with international expertise in this instance. Jackson, for example, claims that: it is possible to have a confessional approach in which religious education is taught from within a faith-based setting, and yet grants autonomy and agency to pupils.17

He goes on to say that, before students can understand, have knowledge of and interpret those of other traditions, they need to deepen the understanding of their own background traditions.18 He is not alone in expressing this view. Rik Van Nieuwenhove, for example, states that all education, including religious education, is not simply about the imparting of information in a detached way. Rather it “is about formation of the whole person, and is therefore always integrated”.19 Recognition of a belief system inclusive of the whole person and particularly where it is part of school life is one issue with which the Forum Report engages. It explains that often there is a narrow interpretation of the meaning of school ethos, assuming it to be that of a religious ethos only. The Forum Report, therefore, points to the broader meaning of ethos as something that should be experienced by children in the everyday life of the school through dignity and respect for their rights. The document is clear in its understanding of the legal responsibilities of all schools to uphold a school ethos or characteristic spirit (pp. 16-21). That the Forum Report is appreciative of the Catholic Church’s role in its commitment to the upholding of a characteristic spirit in their schools is noted in the document’s clarification of the concept. A quotation which “impressed” the authors of the Forum Report is taken from a statement made by the Irish Episcopal Conference’s Commission for Justice and Peace, and this statement is worth quoting in full: While trustees insist, and rightly so, on certain minimum requirements as facilitating the creation of a particular ethos, there are intangibles at the heart of a living ethos which cannot really be compelled. Ethos is best expressed, helped to develop, and enriched within the school community as the result of the continuing interaction between a shared dialogue on the core values of the school, embracing the patron, trustees, principal, staff, parents and students, and the daily practice which endeavours to embody those values (p. 76).20

68

Chapter Four

The Forum document also welcomes initiatives taken by the Council of the Catholic Schools’ Partnership in providing a self-evaluation tool for use in 2011-2012. The tool (recently published) is intended to facilitate the: deeper understanding of what it is to be a Catholic school [and] to prepare the way for the change of patronage [in order] to reflect on identity and priorities with all of the school community [so that] results will provide examples of good practice (pp. 76-77).21

Denominational Religious Education, in this context, is also considered by the Forum Report as one that should be protected specifically through a school’s right to legislate concerning its specific ethos, provided, of course, it does not discriminate against “religious/belief, socio-economic, language, cultural, special needs or other grounds” (p. 77). This latter requirement refers to all schools concerning their respective policies and practices, but particular emphasis is placed on the so-called denominational “Stand Alone School”. Consideration of the possible effects of the recommendations for denominational religious education in the Stand Alone School is, according to the Forum Report, necessary at this stage, and will be raised in a later section below. In the meantime, some account of its function, place and role in the primary school system is outlined by the authors of the Forum Report by way of contribution to that system and to education in religion.

The Stand Alone School A Stand Alone School is a denominational school serving local communities in which it is not possible to provide a second school. There are approximately 1,700 of these, not in urban areas, with a travelling distance of between three to five kilometres for pupils (pp. 2, 73). In this situation, the Forum Report points to the inherited tradition of the denominational patronage system, whereby 96% of primary schools in the country are under Catholic patronage. A problem arises when it comes to accommodating pupils who need to attend school when the respective denominational patronage is not the freely chosen one of parents for their children. The authors of the Forum Report are rightly concerned that this may contravene the first objective of the Department of Education and Science to provide a place for every child if, due to geographical or other relevant constraints, parents have little choice but to send their children to these schools (pp. 73).22 The complexity of this circumstance is one which

The Patronage Question

69

the Forum Report endeavours to resolve by appealing to what appears to be two mutually exclusive assertions. Firstly, while it states that the Stand Alone School must strive to be as inclusive as possible in accommodating pupils of varied belief systems to the extent that the work of the school does not infringe on their rights, the report also reads that “[t]he school, at the same time, needs to respond to the needs and rights of the majority of pupils [presumably denominational] attending” (p. 2). This latter point clearly recognises the difficulty in which the Stand Alone School finds itself and is an indication that the schools under religious patronage clearly should have their denominational benefaction respected. Secondly, however, there is a competing assertion which appears to argue against the majority rule, and is made by entreaty to the common good. This is evident where the document reads that “[t]he wishes of parents as individuals need to be balanced against the common good” (p. 73). This seems to suggest that, although parents with the majority advantage may wish their children to avail of the traditional religious patronage pertaining to the Stand Alone School, those wishes may need at one and the same time to be sacrificed to the common good. It is interesting to note that the authors of the Forum Report appeal to one of the Second Vatican Council documents, written over forty years before, as a supportive resource in the matter (p. 73). The Vatican document reads: … in exercising their Rights, individual men and social groups are bound by the moral law to have regard for the rights of others, their own duties to others and the common good of all (p. 73).23

The insertion of the above quotation referring to the Catholic Church’s teaching on the common good at this point in the Forum Report reiterates the authors’ belief that the Church in Ireland is willing to be as inclusive as possible in respect of the Stand Alone School situation.24 In addition, although the Forum is very concerned as to how best to develop and promote diversity for all school-going children, the willingness to support denominational religious education and religious practice is evident from one of its key recommendations. The recommendation advises the Department of Education and Science to: issue a protocol which will give clarity to schools on their responsibility to protect the rights of the children enrolled in the [inclusive] school, with regard to denominational religious education and religious practice. Exemplars of good practice should accompany the protocol (p. 74).

70

Chapter Four

Challenges to Education in Religion (DRE) Given that denominational religious education (DRE) has received support specifically in relation to the Stand Alone School outlined in the previous section, it is now time to identify what the Forum Report reflects by way of a challenge to it. In reference to the Stand Alone School and for schools where pupils were from backgrounds with a range of beliefs, a protocol for diversity was generally agreed by the Forum (p. 74). In that context, the role of education in religion is, therefore, separated under two distinct categories: (i) Denominational Religious Education/Faith formation (ii) Education about Religion and Beliefs and also Ethics (p. 88). It is important to note once more that the authors of the document employ this modus operandi in the context of divestment of school patronage. They do not set out to offer a schematic approach to the complex meaning of education in religion; nor would it be expected in a report of this nature. This latter situation is a challenge and one which makes it incumbent on the stakeholders of denominationally managed schools such as managers, parents and teachers to proceed with caution when revising policies and practices related to the place of religion in their schools. Where schools are divested, denominational religious education moves out of the protective shelter, not only of ecclesial control, but also of ecclesial support. In this case, greater emphasis is placed on diversity and difference as defining characteristics, removing the individual somewhat from engagement in personal commitment to a given faith (or values) tradition. This is not to suggest that a focus on diversity and difference in denominational religious education is not an integral part of its educational remit. Equally, it is not to suggest that a pupil undertaking a programme focusing on diversity and difference is devoid of commitment to a belief or set of values. Rather, it is a matter of emphasis that, it may be argued, is central to a holistic understanding of education in religion. Greater consideration will be given to this approach in the next chapter. In the meantime, Anne Looney makes a succinct point regarding a holistic approach to education in religion when she writes: Passionate, engaged religious education for a globalised world is just one of the possibilities for religious education as a catalyst in the public space. Others are emerging. All will be contested. That the contestation will continue in the ecclesial and religious space is certain. The spaces are not mutually exclusive. That the contestation will also be public is beyond question.25

The Patronage Question

71

As has been the case so many times before, that reckoning has come to pass, this time in the form of severe criticism of the Advisory Group’s attempt to advise the Minister for Education on the practicalities of diversity in religions and beliefs in the school context.26 Some scholars have argued that the Forum’s recommendations on the divesting of schools and, in particular, its proposals about education in religion in the Stand Alone School, will mean the marginalisation of denominational religious education, with little or no role to play in the life of the individual, the community or the public square.27 Writing in The Irish Times on the same matter, journalist Breda O’Brien advises that: [f]aith communities need to make their voices heard … [and] … the proposed changes, if implemented clumsily, could reduce Irish education to a one-size-fits-all, secular model.28

Given that denominational religious education in schools is premised on religious ethos and pupils in denominationally managed schools, whose parents wish it, have a legitimate claim to this right, the Forum was confronted with the task of advising the Minister for Education on absolute but contrary rights. The historical difficulties and legacy pertaining to these rights were referred to in Chapter Two above, pointing to the contentious issues raised in respect of the diverse needs of Irish society. Again, among these issues are (i) the integrated curriculum (ii) the entitlement to opt out of religious education and (iii) the exposure to an ethos-based environment against the wishes of parents or older children.29 Once more, Williams reminds us of these differentiated but constitutional rights. On the one hand, he states that parents have the right to withdraw their children from religious education in the formative sense, particularly if the ethos of the school is based on an integrating religious principle.30 On the other hand, he refers to the Department of Education requirement to maintain a religious ethos in all primary schools. This requirement stands as integral to the Rules for National Schools (Rule 68, 1965) currently holding the position that “a religious spirit should inform and vivify the whole school”.31 Central to this principle is the obligatory relationship pertaining between religious education and other subjects in the primary school curriculum (1971 and 1999). This means that, if religion is the integrating principle of the entire curriculum, it is difficult to envisage a satisfactory system of withdrawal for children with diverse needs from (i) religion lessons and (ii) the religious ethos of the school.32 The Advisory Group’s specific recommendations around sacramental preparation, denominational religious education and the question of school ethos “vivifying” the entire school day has prompted one commentator,

72

Chapter Four

Conway, in critiquing the Forum Report, to refer to it as a “wake-up call for the Catholic Church and its role in the educational system”.33 The recommendation eliciting this reaction reads: The Advisory Group recommends that sacramental preparation, or education for religious rites of other belief systems, should not encroach on the time allocated for the general curriculum and recommends on-going discussion with parents and clergy with regard to the parish role in sacramental preparation (pp. 88, 111).

Conway claims that this recommendation inhibits the denominational school’s ability to contribute to the practice of faith.34 Furthermore, he criticises the Forum Report recommendation to remove Rule 68 as a first step in the review and updating of the Rules for National Schools (1965) (p. 110). If this rule is deleted, Conway warns that “there will be no underpinning to the patron’s legal responsibility and right to uphold and foster a denominational school ethos”,35 although it is questionable as to whether or not the removal of Rule 68 would have such an effect, given that the Education Act (1998) safeguards school ethos, education in religion and non-religious beliefs.36 Nonetheless, Conway’s concerns relating to the place of the sacraments and the legal implications of the recommendations outlined above are shared by others. Meehan and O’Connell make explicit certain aspects of theology pertaining to the importance of the sacraments as part of the Catholic school culture. They refer to what is sometimes termed the “sacramental imagination”, which understands the world as sacred rather than just secular. This sacramental imagination, they claim, needs to be nurtured and practised. The Catholic school does this through reference to God, the service of others and the education of children where everybody in the school is worthy of justice and respect. To remove the sacramental preparation, its prayer and emblems of the sacred is, they claim, to remove what is “fundamental to the daily rhythm of a Catholic school”.37 It must be stated, however, on reading the Forum Report in respect of the sacraments, that it does not appear to suggest that sacramental preparation should be removed from the school day, but rather that such preparation should take place only within the hours allocated to religion on the timetable. Certainly, this makes some sense, given the diversity of pupils in Catholic primary schools in which it is the responsibility of individual schools’ management systems to see to it that no single subject, religion or otherwise, be permitted to encroach on any other syllabus to the detriment of the overall curriculum. That is not to say that all subjects on the timetable should be strait-jacketed into their prescribed slots without the

The Patronage Question

73

possibility of some manoeuvrability as may be required. Indeed, this happens at regular intervals anyway, where some flexibility may be called for, such as the extra time taken for school plays or dramas, historical and geographical field trips and sundry special projects. Such educational practices encroach on all subjects and, in these instances, lessons in religion are also thereby affected (the Forum Report implies as much in its Protocol 7 outlined below). A further question is raised by Meehan and O’Connell, who again criticise the Forum for apparently working “from a limited, even misguided understanding of Catholic education”.38 Although Meehan and O’Connell praise the valuable contribution of the Forum on the issue of patronage in the primary sector, they claim that the Forum Report depicts a level of anxiety around denominational religious education and its corresponding ethos that cannot be ignored. They even go so far as to “wonder if the Forum slipped its moorings [particularly] when dealing with Stand Alone schools”.39 Furthermore, they argue that, in its recommendations, the Forum has “moved far from divestiture into the waters of dilution”.40 It has to be said that, if this is the case, it forewarns of future concerns for those who wish to see a continuation of the provision of denominational religious education in denominationally managed schools. Mindful of these viewpoints and concerns, it was incumbent on the Forum to find a set of alternative options to accommodate the needs of denominational religious education, ethos, timetabling issues and students of minority and non-religious beliefs. Therefore, the Forum offered a number of options, admitting that they may not altogether be ideal, through reference to its recommended “Proposed Framework of a Protocol for an Inclusive School”.41 These include (i) flexible timetabling for religion classes (ii) two and a half hours per week as opposed to the current one half-hour per day (iii) denominational religious education to take place at the beginning or end of the school day (but with advice from the Catholic hierarchy that it should not be at the end lest it undermines the importance of the subject) (iv) schools with minority belief pupils should explore with their parents and leaders “opt-out” provision (v) greater involvement of parents in consultation with the principal in the operation of the school and (vi) a blend of e- and live learning participation for minorities, particularly where their communities are dispersed (pp. 8384).42 These options pertain not just to the Stand Alone School but also to all schools under denominational managerial control.

74

Chapter Four

Conclusion Referring to Education in Religion and of great credit to the Forum is their research and the reporting of essentially contrasting perspectives expressed by the respective stakeholders, church authorities, parents, teachers and interested individuals. The Forum Report also recognises the good will of those involved in trying to accommodate each other’s perspectives of justice, the common good and humanity when understood in the context of their profoundly differing belief systems. Furthermore, the Advisory Group emphasised that there was considerable agreement during the Forum conference that all children should be able to gain access from the educational value of learning about religions and beliefs. This is not at odds either with the views of the Catholic Church, according to the Forum Report, or with those of the Humanist Association of Ireland and Atheist Ireland. These views sit side by side in the Forum document, where the Catholic Church is described as favouring education about other faiths and beliefs. In this instance, reference is made to the recently published National Directory for Catechesis of the Irish Episcopal Conference, which states that all students “should be encouraged to have a good knowledge of the Catholic faith and its traditions, and also of other faith communities”.43 Significantly, the Humanist members attending the Forum agreed that they would accept a “discussion-based subject concentrating on citizenship, religions, ethics and so forth …” (p. 89). In the same context, Atheist Ireland pointed out that they did not “have any problem with our children being taught about religion and beliefs if it is done consistently with the Toledo Guiding Principles” (p. 89).44 It might be claimed, therefore, that there is room for a spectrum of possibilities, particularly where representatives of Churches informed the Forum that, as well as faith formation and doctrinal issues in their own specific programmes, they also incorporate knowledge and respect about other religions (p. 92). The question remains, nonetheless, as to whether or not the Forum’s emphasis on Education about Religions and Beliefs is detrimental to an understanding of religion which is based on faith formation and doctrinal perspectives. Perhaps it may be claimed of ERB, as does Van Nieuwenhove, that it: displays a truncated understanding of what proper religious education is about, for it reduces it to nothing more than simply knowing a collection of facts and figures; it has no understanding of what religious formation is about. In general any education is never just about imparting information from a detached standpoint.45

The Patronage Question

75

This question is raised by way of genuine concern; yet the Forum Report clearly states among its recommendations that “the proposed ERB and Ethics programme are in no sense intended to supplant faith formation education in denominational schools” (p. 92). Furthermore, at the time of writing, the Minister for Education has reiterated this point in his response to the Forum Report. His strongly worded emphasis is as follows: I should point out that the Forum report also says unequivocally, that ERB and Ethics will be in addition to, and not in any way a replacement for faith formation in denominational schools [and as] many existing religious education programmes already provide for some ERB and ethics, the Group suggests that in those cases, any new programmes can be supplementary to what is already provided.46

That said, the aim of this chapter was fundamentally one of exploration. Its purpose was an attempt to examine some of the exceptionally complex issues raised by the Forum Report concerning education in religion, specifically in the primary school sector. In that context, it set out to consider briefly the rationale behind the setting up of the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism. Here the intention was to examine the possible challenges of its work relating to Denominational Religious Education and Education about Religions and Beliefs as a consequence of that rationale. The Forum Report is now all the more significant, since the Minister for Education has considered its findings to be of “great success [and is] pleased that its work has been completed and we can now move on to the next phase of implementation”.47 Given that a part of the next phase is for the Minister to ask the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, in consultation with education partners and those of religious, faith and non-faith interests, to explore the development of ERB and ethics programmes, the areas for consideration in the next chapter are timely. These will focus on denominational religious education, education for religions and beliefs and the relevance of such programmes for education in religion in Irish primary schools.

CHAPTER FIVE EDUCATION IN RELIGION

Against the backdrop of some of the issues raised by the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the previous chapter and the Irish Human Rights Commission in Chapter Three, two approaches concerning education in religion are the focus of this chapter. In particular, reference is made to denominationally managed schools and whether it is appropriate for them to continue to provide denominational religious education (DRE) during the school day. In the same context, account is taken of a more phenomenological approach to religion in schools such as education about religions, beliefs and ethics (ERB). Questions thus arise around expectations that denominationally managed schools may lose their prerogative to teach DRE and practise religious rites in deference to the ERB approach. Some commentators, as we shall see below, signal that, if an ERB programme were to be introduced into denominationally managed schools, replacing a DRE programme, religions and beliefs would become little more than interesting phenomena, neither expecting nor requiring dedicated personal or community commitment to a given faith tradition. This chapter, therefore, takes some account of both the DRE and ERB approaches to education in religion. In the first section, areas relevant to DRE, such as the home-parish relationship in reference to the role of the school, are considered. Pedagogies relating to learning about and from religion are also referred to in the school context. In the second section, the role of ERB and its contribution is examined from both a multidenominational and a denominational perspective. The outcome of the chapter is to suggest that DRE and ERB, when taught together in a denominational school setting, would enhance the role and place of education in religion, doing greater justice to the ethos of these schools and their raison d’etre. Most importantly, however, focused attention to an inclusive DRE and ERB approach would contribute significantly to an improved overall inclusive and holistic educational approach to the primary school children who attend them.

78

Chapter Five

Denominational Religious Education Authors such as Cavanagh and Grace claim that those who are involved in educating children in religion are fully aware of the overall milieu within which denominational religious education is expected to function, that is, as an integrative and ongoing process throughout the life of the child.1 Griffin, chief executive of the multi-denominational County Dublin Vocational Education Committee, also agrees with this position, as does the Irish Episcopal Conference. Griffin’s informative article in the national press maintains that all belief communities recognise that responsibility for denominational religious education “must be a three-way approach from family, faith community and school”.2 The Irish Episcopal Conference, expressing a similar viewpoint from their perspective, states that: wherever the religious education of Catholic students takes place, it should be within a context that supports and informs the Catholic faith of these students.3

They name the loci as the home, the school and the parish.

The Home-Parish The home-parish rationale is intended as the foundation upon which denominational religious education and its encompassing ethos is expected to stand. Parents in particular are understood to be committed to the religious formation of their children as their initial educators. According to Kieran, evidence on the subject of religious education and children in Irish families is sparse. Nevertheless, she claims that the greater part of education: for and about religion occurs in a spontaneous, often implicit, organic and unstructured manner … and is as flexible and diverse … as the multiplicity of idiosyncratic styles of parenting.4

This interesting observation is an explosion of the myth that parents and those living with children together in family life are of one mind when it comes to the education of their children in religion. In these circumstances, it would not be unreasonable to believe in the agreement of religious ideals and practices within the family unit. Kieran goes on to explain that, although one parent may favour a more faith formational approach, the other may profess a preference for their children to learn

Education in Religion

79

about religions and beliefs.5 These, of course, are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as we shall see below. Furthermore, as the child develops in the home, each of these approaches to education in religion, that is the transmissive and the phenomenological, may interact, leading the child to a more critical and independent way of thinking about religion and her or his own eventual orientation either towards or against it. The part played by the faith community of the parish is also understood to be fundamental to the child’s religious formation. Emphasis on the role of the parish in this respect is one recommended by the Forum on Patronage in their advisement that discussions should take place between parents and parish clergy for children approaching the sacraments of initiation catered for by the school.6 This suggests that the more likely place for such preparation is in the parish and not during the school day. Van Nieuwenhove, however, in his critique of the Forum Report, is concerned that removing sacramental preparation from the course of the school day is detrimental to the faith formation of children and their overall religious education. His expression of reproach to the Forum is one of its not doing “justice to its subject. Catholicism”.7 Based on Van Nieuwenhove’s concern, it is not unreasonable to accept that the possible withdrawal of faith-based programmes and religious rites from schools would result in the elimination of one significant aspect of the home, school and parish working partnership.

The School Vermeer is convinced that initial religious socialisation in the home is vitally important in conjunction with continuous (or secondary) religious socialisation both in church and in school.8 As to the appropriateness of denominational religious education in the school context, Vermeer examines it in the light of parents who at one time believed denominational schools to be a necessary source of religious socialisation but now do not. Parents holding this view would render such schools obsolete because the primary motivation for their existence, the faith formation of children, no longer applies. It may be taken as a given, therefore, that if parents are not interested in promoting religious belief at home, then there is little point in their expecting that belief to be advanced in school. In contesting that view, Vermeer claims that it is a popular criticism among some parents based on a “traditional understanding of religious socialisation as the transmission of faith”.9 Vermeer develops this understanding by pointing out that “transmission” and “socialisation” are not the same. Accordingly, he proposes the more modern idea of socialisation based on personality

80

Chapter Five

development. From this perspective, he maintains that the denominational school today is charged with a pedagogical task which is not so much the transmission of faith but rather the facilitation of the “formation of personal identity as a core aspect of contemporary socialisation processes”.10 If one follows Vermeer’s theory by putting emphasis on personality development in school rather than on faith transmission, it might be argued that this would run the risk of “losing” the child to another faith tradition or to a non-belief system. The openness demanded by the socialisation process may “expose” the pupils to embrace alternative ways of being in the world. Nonetheless, it is the responsibility of denominational schools, as it is of all schools, to enter into the challenges posed, not only by the values and beliefs they profess, but also to explore the religions, values and cultures of a world wherein they are themselves situated. In this sense, Vermeer is convinced that denominational schools should not shy away from the challenges they may encounter and should fairly acknowledge that a sizeable number of young people may not eventually embrace a religious way of life in their search for their own authentic personal identity. Hence, he draws the conclusion that the transmission of “religiocultural elements” will not necessarily result in a “transformative, personal appropriation of religious contents”.11 Where the emphasis is on the personal identity of the child rather than on the transmission of faith, denominational religious education has the capacity to adapt and adopt various approaches to the teaching of religion.12 Hella and Wright refer us to other cognate pedagogical approaches such as the “acquisition of knowledge” (learning about religion) and the development of skills for “personal development” (learning from religion).13 The idea behind these pedagogies originated with Michael Grimmitt and has been open to discussion, debate and disagreement throughout many decades.14 At the risk of simplifying their account, Hella and Wright inform us that, not only do learners and the curriculum share a common world view between them in a denominational or confessional environment, but the contrast between the about and from approaches can be very effective educationally. Notably, they explain, this is because the pupils are attempting to live the life of the world view presented to them by the curriculum.15 It is of interest to note at this point that confessional approaches may apply to contexts other than religious. Hella and Wright, taking the UK and Finland as the focus of their study, explain that both these countries subscribe to different confessional approaches where “the former adopts a confessional Christian framework [and] the latter a confessional humanistic framework”.16 Here, they draw our attention to the twin tasks of the

Education in Religion

81

learning about religion and the learning from approaches as pedagogically advantageous to various kinds of school learning environments. In this sense, there is no shortage of evidence presenting a range of inter-related pedagogies at play in denominational (or confessional) religious education.17

Education about Religions and Beliefs We now turn to the second focus of this chapter, concerning the teaching of religions and beliefs from a phenomenological perspective as an alternative to denominational religious education in denominationally managed schools. The Forum on Patronage and Pluralism uses a cognate term, “Education about Religions and Beliefs” (ERB). As we saw in the previous chapter, the Forum recommended the use of such a programme in the interests of diversity and to help pupils to understand what religions and beliefs are about. The rationale behind the recommendation for this programme is that parents who do not wish their children to be educated in denominationally managed schools have the right to send their children to alternative school systems. The fact that approximately 96% of Irish primary schools are under denominational patronage makes it unreasonably difficult for parents to do so. It is unjust and untenable for this situation to be permitted to continue. According to the Forum on Patronage Report, their consultations with stakeholders have shown “an acceptance by all agencies involved that a greater diversity of primary schooling is necessary in Irish society”.18

ERB in a Multi-Denominational Setting In schools where a denominational ethos does not pertain, the ERB programme would prohibit any reference to truth claims either on the part of the teacher or from other quarters of the school environment. Furthermore, it was recommended that policies be drawn up so that the display of religious artefacts, celebrations and other non-taught issues, exclusive to any one faith or tradition, should be discontinued regardless of the ethos of the school.19 An ERB programme would focus singularly on teaching about religion. At the risk of oversimplifying its meaning, learning about religion can be understood as being descriptive and historical. Hull describes this approach as one that is often motivated by the desire to create a purely educational form of religious education. Learning about religion in this sense is unlikely to be laid open to the charge of indoctrination or of favouring any particular religion, giving it

82

Chapter Five

an unfair advantage. Another advantage of this approach is the significant role it has to play in the prevention of religious intolerance, since it tends to release students from previously unexamined values, helping them to break down possible stereotypical opinions of religious traditions and beliefs.20 There can be little doubt that a school curriculum based on this process has the capacity to make a valuable contribution to the education of children in a formal learning environment. This is not to suggest that an ERB programme teaching about religions and beliefs is completely neutral; nor would it be likely that any school policy would make such a claim. There is an opinion, however, that some may perceive an ERB programme as the only one among many with the capacity to be conveyed in an objective, critical or pluralistic manner, because it is not taught from a given faith tradition. Conway, for example, is concerned that a programme about religions and beliefs set in a multidenominational institution will appeal to Catholic parents. He criticises the Forum on Patronage for giving the impression that the: operative principle seems to be that enlightened Catholic parents will want their children educated in a multidenominational setting [where] future citizens will belong to the “no religion” category.21

It is hardly necessary to point out that all programmes, regardless of their content, the personal commitment of the teacher or the ethos within which they teach should be as objective, critical and pluralistic as possible. For this reason, those who are teaching an ERB programme are expected, like all teachers, to be aware of their own personal convictions and refrain from transmitting these to their pupils. As Bruner once put it, “[p]edagogy is never innocent”.22 Not only are teachers expected to consider the content matter of their teaching on ERB programmes but, like all teachers, the pedagogies employed require reflective, personal monitoring.

ERB in a Denominational Setting Given the phenomenological nature of ERB, a question arises as to the appropriateness of its being taught in denominationally managed schools to the exclusion of DRE during the school day. Some commentators on the Forum Report, as we have seen in the previous chapter, are concerned that this practice may undermine the mission of the denominational school to educate in its given faith tradition. This final sub-section, therefore, focuses on the appropriateness or otherwise of preserving faith-based education in Irish primary schools. Sullivan is useful here, although

Education in Religion

83

writing from a UK perspective, when he asks whether or not it is helpful or harmful to a liberal democracy to restrict the role of religious groups in education. Looking back on its UK history, Sullivan recounts that, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the relationship between the state and religious groups in education was often neuralgic. Initially, the democratic state made attempts to balance its influence with the churches, but eventually began a process to reduce their influence.23 Sullivan claims that renewed tensions are again arising since the beginning of the twenty-first century. He writes: Religion remains an area around which educational controversy revolves. Concerns for parental rights to bring up their children according to their own philosophy of life jostle with the needs of a pluralistic liberal democratic society to promote key values such as tolerance, equality, liberty and respect for different beliefs and ways of life.24

It is being argued, therefore, that to educate children about religions and beliefs is essential in all schools and to include ERB in denominationally managed schools is not necessarily detrimental to DRE.25 ERB has the capacity to function within a denominational context by acknowledging the inter-cultural, inter-religious and inter-ethical issues pertaining to Irish society as the context within which religious education takes place. Provided that ERB is taken within the context of DRE, it is not out of keeping with Catholic Church teaching.26 Acknowledgement of other religions and beliefs, dialogue, understanding and the academic study of them only present a quandary if the singular focus permitted in denominational schools is none other than a set of academic propositions about religions. Therein remains the weakness of an ERB programme based solely on education about religions and beliefs in a denominationally managed school or faith school. If it fails, as it does, to promote a personalised commitment to knowledge of religious faith, liturgical education, moral formation, obligation to ecumenism and interreligious dialogue, missionary initiation or invitation to pray for those who want it, then such a programme is exclusive.27 In this sense, any programme simply teaching about religions and beliefs is not inclusive enough to satisfy the educational requirements of denominational religious education, the necessity for the faith element and the related, cognate academic element.28 Taken in this context, education in religion can also be referred to as religious education, where the latter contains a broad and inclusive understanding. Kieran, for example, offers a comprehensive definition of the meaning of religious education worthy of quote where she states that it “is understood as a broad category which includes education

84

Chapter Five

about religion and which has a strong transmissive and faith formational element”.29 Other pertinent issues also need to be mentioned relating to any expectation that asks a denominational school to provide an exclusively phenomenological programme of religion. The rationale behind ERB per se is not in question, since a programme of this kind is necessary in any society where there is a plurality of belief systems. Reference has already been made to the Forum on Patronage’s recommendation for an introduction to the curriculum of “Education about Religions and Beliefs”.30 The proposal for this programme is based on a document from the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights entitled The Toledo Guiding Principles on Teaching about Religions and Beliefs in Public Schools.31 The authors of these Guidelines state that they did not set out to meet with the requirements of any given faith tradition: While decisions about matters of faith must be protected as personal choices, no educational system can afford to ignore the role of religions and beliefs in history and culture.32

The document then underlines its particular set of aims based on two core principles: (i) “there is a positive value in teaching that emphasizes respect for everyone’s right to freedom of religion and belief” and (ii) “teaching about religions and beliefs can reduce harmful misunderstandings and stereotypes”.33 In relation to the first aim, there can be little argument with the main human rights tenets contained within it. The second aim, although commendable, is a negatively expressed one and open to comment. Undoubtedly, reference to that aim is based on governments’ and politicians’ concerns around political upheaval and the destructive forces of religious extremism. Lane refers us to one well-known example of devastation caused by such extremism in the US at the beginning of this century, while at the same time expressing the positive forces of religion to the good. He writes: [i]n the light of 9/11, governments and politicians have begun to take religion more seriously, realising that it is as much a source of peace and reconciliation as it is a source of conflict and violence.34

Lane is making a realistic claim and it is one that can be paralleled with an exclusively phenomenological programme of religion. Education about religions and beliefs from a human rights perspective is pragmatic and essential, but it is not one based on shared faith, which is the remit of

Education in Religion

85

denominational religious education. In this sense, ERB based on a human rights premise does not promote personal belief in a given set of religious values, it does not open the individual (the pupil) to the possibility of a life dedicated to a faith-understanding and it does not foster any religious or belief system. ERB of its own does not take account of the relationship between living out one’s life and a given faith tradition. Sullivan expresses this point in another way when he says that “any attempt to separate out the religious from the rest of life is artificial”.35 Citing relevant research in reference to this standpoint, the Forum on Patronage would appear to respect this position. Towards the end of the Forum Report, they claim that: inter-faith and inter-cultural initiatives work best in schools where the Catholic students and parents are most committed to their own religious practice.36

Or to put it another way, it is important that the community should, through its living faith (in this case the school), provide the space for the interpretation of belief and the practice of ritual. For people of religious faith, belief is not an optional extra, it is not just something simply to be studied and which can be taken or left. Rather, according to Conway’s perspective, “[i]t is everything”.37

Conclusion At the outset of this chapter, two inter-related issues were raised. The first focused on the appropriateness of the teaching of denominational religious education in denominationally managed schools. The focus of the second issue related to the appropriateness of the removal of denominational religious education (DRE) from schools during the day and replacing it with a programme about education in religions and beliefs (ERB). In raising these issues, the term “appropriate” was purposefully utilised. Collin’s English Dictionary describes that term as “particularly suitable” or “compatible”. Suitability and compatibility of programmes as they relate to the needs of any child are at the core of every subject in school curricula. Firstly, it may be claimed that it is appropriate for denominationally managed schools to continue to provide denominational religious education. This is because, although initial faith formation is to be expected from parents who wish to rear their children in a given faith

86

Chapter Five

tradition, it is not reasonable to expect that the majority of parents hold the same qualifications in the field as academically trained teachers. To presume that faith formation does not require academic development is to misunderstand what denominational religious education is about. It is to presume incorrectly that a child’s faith begins and ends with parents teaching their children how to pray, encouraging them to attend religious services, telling them stories about the love of the Creator-God and other relevant, consequential and intermittent discussions throughout the years the child remains at home. It can be argued that this practice, where it takes place in the home, is reflected in many ways in the ethos of the denominational school. In this sense, the school provides faith formation, but it is the classroom, through its academic learning environment, that challenges the faith of the pupil. The teacher as educator, the one who is learned in the field of religious education, is the one who provides the challenge to children in their formative years of education in their faith, while at the same time consciously paying attention to the pedagogic demands of his/her profession. Secondly, as well as the academic challenge to the given faith tradition, there should be the incorporation of that challenge in the denominationally managed school in learning about religions and beliefs. The educational focus in denominationally managed schools must, of its nature, be preferentially orientated towards the faith tradition it professes. This does not mean that the challenges and belief systems encountered and taught through an ERB programme should be neglected, ignored or discouraged. Rather, teachers teaching DRE programmes should inform themselves of all relevant documents relating to ERB coming from educational authorities in this country, including the plethora of academic resources available in international journals, edited works and publications to preservice and in-service teachers. The presumption is of course that teachers, in pursuit of their continuing professional development, apprise and appraise themselves of their academic studies in religious education as is required of them in any other subject. Thirdly, it is not defensible to claim that either Education about Religion and Beliefs or Denominational Religious Education can be taught from a neutral perspective. Any such claim is little more than a popular misconception. Rather it is being argued here that teachers must exercise procedural neutrality in the classroom and ensure that appropriate balance pertains between empathetic engagement with religious beliefs on the one hand and the maintenance of critical distance from them on the other hand. This is not to deny the rights of parents and their children who wish to learn about religions and beliefs. They have a basic human right to forms

Education in Religion

87

of patronage other than denominational where the more exclusive nature of simply learning about religions and beliefs is promoted. On the other hand, the inclusive nature of denominational religious education is the business of the denominationally managed school. To deny this in such schools is not only to do damage to the integrity of the nature of religious education as an academic subject, but to encourage epistemological separatism. It is also to undermine the school community in its mission to teach children to take a firm stance in believing in what they belong to through self-awareness, self-development and ultimately self-fulfilment. Certainly every good school is capable of instilling in its pupils these essential qualities, but only denominational religious education can measure itself against the yardstick of personal engagement in a community where all children and their traditions are respected, but where one is characterised by personal and communal commitment.

CONCLUSION

It may be claimed that there is no wholly comparable situation in other countries to illuminate our understanding of the many distinctive features pertaining to the role of religion in Ireland’s educational history. It may also be stated that, subsequent to its British colonial-type dependence, Ireland, firstly as a Free State and secondly as a Republic, succumbed to a cultural dependence rooted in religious belief and practice. In that context, primary schools became and remain important tools of religious socialisation for the Churches and in particular for the Catholic Church. Catholic children attending denominationally managed schools are prepared for the sacraments, they are involved in liturgical celebrations and their teachers consult with diocesan advisers about religious education programmes (although it is difficult to assess in reality just how many teachers throughout the country would actually conduct these programmes across the entire primary school cycle). This socialisation is partially due to the inherited legitimacy of the enormous influence of the Catholic Church and its central role in Irish primary education. Given Ireland’s greater religious, non-religious and cultural diversity today, it is no longer tenable that over 90% of the country’s schools should remain largely under the management of denominational patronage. On the one hand, it is the business of the State to provide for diverse forms of school management in order to cater for the educational needs of Irish school children. On the other hand, it is the duty of the Catholic Church to realise its moral responsibility towards those who do not wish that their children be educated in or witness celebrations of that faith tradition during lessons whilst attending Catholic schools. Therein, however, is the kernel of the problem. The complexity of the situation centres not on the unwillingness of either the State or the Catholic Church to work towards accommodation of parents who do not wish that their children attend denominational schools. Rather, it has more to do with the changing circumstances of Irish society as it moves into the second decade of the twenty-first century. In Chapter Three, we saw how the Irish Human Rights Commission attempted to wrestle with the country’s changing cultural and religious landscapes through the launch of a consultation process by visiting the prominent role played, in particular, by the Catholic Church in primary education. One

90

Conclusion

aim of that organisation was to open a debate which focused on the validity of the current patronage model in question and to suggest recommendations to the government from a human rights perspective. Reference to some of those recommendations was made by the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector as outlined in Chapter Four. The Forum was established, subsequent to a directive from the Minister for Education, to investigate the divestment of certain Catholic primary schools and to report their findings to him. The Forum, therefore, provided a substantial number of recommendations to that end. At the time of writing, the Minister for Education has made a response to the Forum Report and has agreed that a process of divestment should commence forthwith. This process has recently begun and a pilot project survey of five schools has been undertaken. We also saw that various stakeholders and interested parties did not disagree in principle with divestment as one means of attempting to resolve the over-supply of schools within the denominational system. Furthermore, the Catholic Church stated not only its willingness to transfer a select number of its schools, but it had previously called on the government to examine the prospect of divestment as an alternative to their own managerial system for those who wished it. The Church, nonetheless, held some reservations, particularly in respect of parents who may be opposed to divestment if or when their respective Boards of Management are called upon to do so. At this time in Ireland’s educational history, it is imperative that the research taken by the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Forum Report comes to fruition by way of justice, human rights and moral obligation to all the children of this country, regardless of creed, belief or culture. The Forum Report, and in particular some of its more pertinent recommendations, have proven invaluable in providing up-to-date information for further engagement regarding the role and place of religion in primary schools. That said, the Forum Report on divestment per se was not the rationale behind the writing of this book. Rather, it was about the attention the Forum Report drew to two long-standing issues, both of which may, if not monitored carefully, prove detrimental to education in religion in schools. Each of these issues was of particular relevance to the work undertaken here. The first related to a possible, although not probable, removal of denominational religious education (DRE) from denominationally managed schools at some time in the future. The schools most likely to be affected are the so-called Stand Alone Schools. The second issue focused on the possibility of replacing DRE with a programme based solely on education about religions and beliefs (ERB) in the denominational school system. Despite assurances from the Minister

Openness with Roots: Education in Religion in Irish Primary Schools

91

for Education that faith formation programmes will remain and that ERB programmes will be complementary to those already existing in denominationally managed schools, there appears to be some lack of clarity. For example, denominational religious education, the preparation for sacraments and faith-based celebrations may remain in denominational schools, but that may mean they will be conducted on school premises outside of school hours. If parents and the managers of denominationally managed schools wish to retain their ethos and mission to have their children educated in the values and principles of their respective faith traditions, then it is incumbent on them to be mindful of any implications that would prove detrimental to those requirements. In this case, it is appropriate to expect denominational schools to continue to provide denominational religious education during the school day. If the said parents and management wish that their children avail of education about religions and beliefs, there is no reason why significant elements of such a programme cannot be incorporated into existing DRE programmes (where that is not already the practice). Teaching children about religions, beliefs and values other than their own has been an inclusive part of denominational religious education for a long time in Irish education, particularly at second level.1 At the time of writing, a new primary curriculum for religious education, taking account of Ireland’s changing diversity and culture, is being drawn up, and the draft is well advanced for use in Catholic primary schools.2 The expectation that a purely phenomenological approach to the teaching of religion should replace denominational religious education, it must be said, is questionable. Such practice would be very likely to undermine the mission of a denominationally managed school and indeed its reason for existence. Arguing that any belief system should omit its raison d’etre is to deny the belief system the right to embrace its custodial promise to uphold the principles of that belief. To deny a school the opportunity to continue with the provision of DRE and expect it to be replaced solely with a phenomenological programme such as ERB that disallows its inclusive faith formation and development commitment is, arguably, an exclusive approach and therefore inappropriate for a denominationally managed school. Equally, it is neither reasonable nor acceptable to expect that parents who do not wish for their children to receive denominational religious education in school should have little choice but to send their children to a denominationally managed school. Furthermore, of course, parents who espouse a given faith tradition may, as a matter of preference, wish to send their children to multidenominationally managed schools.

92

Conclusion

Some mention was also made of multi-denominationally managed schools and their relationship with education in religion. Where a solely phenomenological approach to the teaching of religion takes place, teaching about religions and beliefs perhaps emphasises better the secular nature of the teacher’s commitment and the commitment of the school’s management authorities to that approach. A secular approach to teaching about religions and beliefs provides a contrastable choice for parents who prefer to have their children educated together from the perspective of a specific non-faith based ethos. There is also, however, a promising new project for the teaching of religion currently being piloted through the recently established Community National Schools.3 These schools intend, not only to provide a programme about religions and beliefs, but also to include some faith formational approaches pertinent to a number of the respective denominations. These will take place during the school day, at the request of parents, for about a three to four week period. As yet, the programme is based on developing an action research consultative process, but it is completely innovative in its aim to nurture children in the living out of their faith in the context of their belief traditions, while at the same time educating together children from all faiths and none. It will be very interesting to watch how the promise of this new venture develops for education in religion.

NOTES

Foreword 1

See the introductory “Epistle to the Reader” in John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (London: Fontana/Collins, 1964), 58. 2 Loren Lomasky, Persons, Rights and the Moral Community (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 8. 3 From his poem “The Dilemma,” in The Oxford Book of Ireland, ed. Patricia Craig (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 300.

Chapter One 1

Laurence Ginnell, The Brehon laws: a legal handbook (London: T.F. Unwin, 1894). 2 Ginnell, The Brehon laws. 3 J. J. Auchmuty, Irish Education: a Historical Study (London: Hoggis Figgis, 1937); See P. J. Dowling, A History of Irish Education (Cork: Mercier Press, 1971). 4 J. J. Auchmuty, Irish Education, 10-11. 5 Eugene O’Curry, On the Manners and Customs of the Native Irish (Dublin: Williams and Norgate, 1873). 6 Vincent Salafia, “Law, Literature and Legend.” http://ua_tuathal.tripod.com/lawintro.htm. 7 Deirdre Raftery, “The Legacy of Legislation and the Pragmatics of Policy: Historical Perspectives on Schooling for Irish Children,” in Education in Ireland: Challenge and Change, ed. S. Drudy (Dublin: Gill & Macmillan, 2009), 9-23. 8 Raftery, “The Legacy of Legislation,” 9. 9 Áine Hyland and Kenneth Milne, Irish Educational Documents, Vol. 1 (Dublin: Church of Ireland College of Education, 1987). 10 Ken Follett, The Pillars of the Earth (London: Pan Books, 2010). 11 Follett, The Pillars of the Earth, 96. 12 Seamus Dunn, “Education, religion and cultural change in the Republic of Ireland,” in Christianity and Educational Provision in International Perspective, ed. W. Tulasiewicz and C. Brock (London: Routledge, 1988), 95. 13 Dympna Glendenning, Education and the Law (West Sussex: Tottel, 2007). 14 Colm Lennon, Sixteenth Century Ireland: The Incomplete Conquest (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1994), 117. 15 Lennon, Sixteenth Century Ireland, 118.

94

16

Notes

Lennon, Sixteenth Century Ireland, 307. Lennon, Sixteenth Century Ireland, 307. 18 Lennon, Sixteenth Century Ireland, 307. 19 Steven Ellis, Tudor Ireland: Crown, Community and the Conflict of Cultures (London: Longman, 1985), 217-218. 20 Ellis, Tudor Ireland, 218. 21 Daniel O’Connell, A Memoir on Ireland, Native and Saxon (Dublin: James Duffy, 1844), 2-4. 22 Glendenning, Education and the Law, 13. 23 Glendenning, Education and the Law. 24 Antonia McManus, The Irish Hedge School and Its Books, 1695-1831 (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2002). 25 Raftery, “The Legacy of Legislation and the Pragmatics of Policy,” 11. 26 Hyland and Milne, Irish Educational Documents, Vol. 1, 47. 27 J. C. Beckett, The Making of Modern Ireland 1603-1923 (London: Faber and Faber, 1966), 157. Although Catholics were severely treated for disobeying the laws of the Act, Protestant dissenters were also kept in an inferior position. 28 Sean T O’Ceallaigh, “Memorandum by Sean T. O’Ceallaigh to Pope Benedict XV (Copy) ROME, 18 May 1920.” http://www.difp.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=35. 29 O’Ceallaigh, “Memorandum”. 30 William Carleton, Traits and Stories of the Irish Peasantry (Dublin: W.F. Wakeman, 1834). 31 McManus, The Irish Hedge School and Its Books, 17. 32 W. P. Burke, Irish priests in the penal times 1600-1700 (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 1914). 33 Timothy Corcoran, Selected texts on education systems in Ireland from the close of the middle ages (Dublin: University College, 1928). 34 P. J. Dowling, The Hedge Schools of Ireland (Dublin: The Phoenix Publishing Company Ltd., 1998), 17-18. 35 J. L. McCracken, “The ecclesiastical structure, 1714-1760,” in A New History of Ireland. Eighteenth Century Ireland 1691-1800, ed. T.W. Moody and W.E. Vaughan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 95. 36 P. J. Corish, The Catholic community in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Dublin: Catholic Historical Society of Ireland, 1981), 102. 37 D. Glendenning, Education and the Law. 38 Fergus O’Ferrall, Catholic Emancipation: Daniel O'Connell and the Birth of Irish Democracy 1820-30 (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1985). 39 John Mescal, Religion in the Irish System of Education (London: Burns Oates and Washbourne Ltd., 1957), 161. 40 Mescal, Religion in the Irish System of Education, 159. 41 Mescal, Religion in the Irish System of Education. 42 Glendenning, Education and the Law, 14. 43 Desmond Bowen, The Protestant Crusade in Ireland 1800-70 (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1978). 17

Openness with Roots: Education in Religion in Irish Primary Schools

95

44 John Coolahan, Irish Education: Its History and Structure (Dublin: Institute of Public Administration, 1985). 45 Glendenning, Education and the Law. 46 Edward Smith Stanley, “Stanley Letter” http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Stanley_Letter [2011]. 47 Stanley, “Stanley Letter”. 48 Kevin Williams, Faith and the Nation (Dublin: Dominican Publications, 2005), 37-38. 49 See also Coolahan http://www.education.ie/servlet/blobservlet/fpp_prof_coolahan_address_november _2011.pdf?language=EN. 50 Coolahan, Irish Education: Its History and Structure. 51 Glendenning, Education and the Law. 52 Raftery, “The Legacy of Legislation,” 9-23. 53 Raftery, “The Legacy of Legislation,” 19. 54 Glendenning, Education and the Law. 55 W. N. Osborough, “Irish Law and the Rights of the National Schoolteacher.” http://www.legalperiodicals.org/disp.php?pub=Irish+Jurist&yr=1979. 56 Dympna Glendenning, Religion, Education and the Law (West Sussex: Tottel, 2008), 304-305. 57 Glendenning, Religion, Education and the Law, 305. 58 Séamas Ó Buachalla, Education Policy in Twentieth Century Ireland (Dublin: Wolfhound Press, 1988), 22. 59 Donald H. Akenson, The Irish Education Experiment: The National System of Education in Ireland in the Nineteenth Century (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1970). 60 Coolahan, Irish Education, 24. 61 Coolahan, Irish Education. 62 Coolahan, Irish Education, 25-26. 63 Raftery, “The Legacy of Legislation,” 20. 64 Raftery, “The Legacy of Legislation”. 65 Commissioners of National Education, “Annual Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, 1850” in Reports of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, 1834-1851, Vol. 1 (Dublin: HMSO, 1865). 66 Akenson, The Irish Education Experiment. 67 Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, Rules and Regulations of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, 1834-1851, Vol. 1 (Dublin: HMSO, 1898).

Chapter Two 1

Pádraig Pearse, “The Murder Machine.” http://publish.ucc.ie/celt/docs/E900007001. 2 Glendenning, Education and the Law, 25-26.

96

3

Notes

Glendenning, Education and the Law, 24-26. Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Éireann) Act, 1922. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1922/en/act/pub/0001/print.html. 5 Mescal, Religion in the Irish System of Education, 24. 6 Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) Act, 1922. Article 10 of the Constitution states: “All citizens of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) have the right to free elementary education”. 7 See for various interpretations of the term “Endow”, Gerry Whyte, “Education and the Constitution,” in Religion, Education and the Constitution (Dublin: The Columba Press, 1992), 84-117; See also D. A. Lane, “Education and the Constitution,” in Religion, Education and the Constitution, 4-14. 8 Glendenning, Education and the Law, 26-27. 9 Glendenning, Education and the Law, 26. 10 Kevin Griffin, “Whither the Fourth R? A Perspective on the Future of Religion in Primary Schools,” in The Future of Religion in Irish Education, ed. P. Hogan and K. Williams (Dublin: Veritas, 1997), 78. 11 Tom O’Donoghue and Judith Harford, “A Comparative History of Church-State Relations in Irish Education,” Comparative Education Review, 55/3 (2010), 323. 12 Seamus Dunn, “Education, religion and cultural change in the Republic of Ireland,” 101. 13 Irish Catholic Bishops, “Pastoral Address,” Irish Ecclesiastical Record 57/8 (1927), 526-544. 14 Tom Inglis, Moral Monopoly: The Rise and Fall of the Catholic Church in Modern Ireland (Dublin: University College Dublin Press, 1998). 15 Williams, Faith and the Nation (Dublin: Dominican Publications, 2005), 38. 16 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 38. 17 Glendenning, Education and the Law, 27. 18 W. N. Osborough, “MacNeill Guidelines for an Educational Policy,” Irish Jurist 14/378 (1979), 380. 19 Áine Hyland and Kenneth Milne, Irish Educational Documents, Vol. II (Dublin: Church of Ireland College of Education, 1992), 106. 20 Mescal, Religion in the Irish System of Education, 24. 21 Mescal, Religion in the Irish System of Education, 75. 22 Government of Ireland, Bunreacht Na hÉireann (Dublin: Government Publications, 1937). 23 A Teachta Dála is a member of Dáil Éireann which is the lower house of the Oireachtas or the Irish Parliament. Its equivalent term is "Member of Parliament" (MP) or "Deputy". 24 Alfred O’Rahilly, “The Republic of Ireland” in European Yearbook 1951, cited in Glendenning, Education and the Law, 28. 25 Glendenning, Education and the Law, 54. 26 Government of Ireland, Bunreacht Na hÉireann. http://www.constitution.ie/constitution-of-ireland/default.asp. 27 Mescal, Religion in the Irish System of Education, 55. Note that clauses in Article 44 of the Constitution referring to the special position of the Catholic 4

Openness with Roots: Education in Religion in Irish Primary Schools

97

Church and the state’s recognition of the other religions in Irish life were deleted following the Fifth Amendment to the referendum of 1972. 28 See Gerry Whyte, “Education and the Constitution”. 29 Mescal, Religion in the Irish System of Education, 55. 30 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 40. 31 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 40. 32 Government of Ireland, http://www.constitution.ie/constitution-of-ireland/default.asp 33 INTO, The Place of Religious Education in the National School System (Dublin: Irish National Teachers’ Organisation, 1991), 11. 34 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 42. 35 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 42. 36 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 42. 37 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 45-51. 38 Hyland and Milne, Irish Educational Documents, Vol. II, 119-125. 39 Hyland and Milne, Irish Educational Documents, Vol. II, 124. 40 Hyland and Milne, Irish Educational Documents, Vol. II, 124. 41 Hyland and Milne, Irish Educational Documents, Vol. II, 124. 42 Government Publications, Rules for National Schools (Dublin: The Stationery Office, 1965). 43 Government Publications, Rules for National Schools, 38. 44 Government Publications, Rules for National Schools, 38. 45 O’Donoghue and Harford, “A Comparative History of Church-State Relations,” 328. 46 Patrick Duffy, The Lay Teacher (Dublin: Fallon, 1967), 79. 47 Pádraig Hogan, “Foreword,” in The Future of Religion in Irish Education, 5. 48 Hogan, “Foreword,” 6-7. 49 Hyland and Milne, Irish Educational Documents, Vol. II. The Second National Programme Conference (1925-26) included a lengthy paragraph which was adopted by the Department of Education as policy for primary schools. 50 Department of Education, Curraclam na Bunscoile: Lámhleabhar an Oide/Primary School Curriculum: Teachers’ Handbook: Parts One and Two, Part One (Dublin: The Stationery Office, 1971), 23. 51 Department of Education, Curraclam na Bunscoile: Parts One and Two, Part One, 23. 52 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 48. 53 Department of Education, Curraclam na Bunscoile: Parts One and Two, Part One, 19. 54 Hyland and Milne, Irish Educational Documents, Vol. II, 124. 55 Brenda Watson, “Why religious education matters,” in Debates in Religious Education, ed. L. P. Barnes (London: Routledge, 2012), 13. 56 Watson, “Why religious education matters,” 13. 57 Watson, “Why religious education matters,” 13. 58 Central Statistics Office, “Census of Population.” http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/Prelim%20complete.pdf

98

Notes

Roman Catholic: 3,861,000; Church of Ireland: 129,000; Muslim: 49,200; Orthodox: 45,200; Other Christian: 41,299; Presbyterian: 24,600; Apostolic or Pentecostal: 14,000; Other: 81,000; No religion: 269,000; Not stated: 72,900. 59 O’Donoghue and Harford, “A Comparative History of Church-State Relations,” 328. 60 Dermot A Lane, “Introduction,” in Vatican II: Facing the 21st Century (Dublin: Veritas, 2006), 10. 61 Ó Buachalla, Education Policy in Twentieth Century Ireland, 236. 62 Tom O’Donoghue, “Catholic Influence and the Secondary School Curriculum in Ireland, 1922-1962,” in The Routledge Falmer Reader in History of Education, ed. G. McCulloch (London: Routledge Falmer, 2005). 63 Government of Ireland, Education for a Changing World: Green Paper on Education, (Dublin: The Stationery Office, 1992). 64 INTO, Among School Children: The INTO Response to the Green Paper Education for a Changing World (Dublin: INTO, 1993), 10. 65 O’Donoghue and Harford, “A Comparative History of Church-State Relations,” 329. 66 Williams, Faith and the Nation. 67 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 61. 68 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 61. 69 Government of Ireland, Charting our Education Future: White Paper on Education (Dublin: The Stationery Office, 1995). 70 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 61. 71 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 61. 72 Government of Ireland, The Green Paper, 33. 73 Government of Ireland, The White Paper, 87. 74 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 61. 75 Government of Ireland, The Green Paper, 96. 76 Government of Ireland, The White Paper, 46-47. 77 Government of Ireland, The White Paper, 48. 78 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 62. 79 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 62. 80 Government of Ireland, Education Act 1998 (Dublin: The Stationery Office, 1998). 81 Government of Ireland, Education Act 1998, “Preamble”. 82 Government of Ireland, Education Act 1998, Section 9 (d). 83 John Coolahan, Report on the National Education Convention (Dublin: The Stationery Office, 1994). 84 James Norman, Ethos and Education in Ireland (New York: Peter Lang, 2003), 23. 85 Glendenning, Religion, Education and the Law, 327-328. 86 National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA), Revised Curriculum for Primary Schools (Dublin: Government Publications, 1999). 87 NCCA, Revised Primary Curriculum, (1999), 58. 88 NCCA, Revised Primary Curriculum, (1999), 58.

Openness with Roots: Education in Religion in Irish Primary Schools

99

89

NCCA, Revised Primary Curriculum, (1999), 58. See Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Art. 6 (i), (1994), 396-397; Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae 1965, par. 2, (1975), pp. 799-182. Official Catholic Church documents also concur with the right of the individual either to profess or not to profess to a religious faith tradition according to personal conscience. 91 Glendenning, Education and the Law, 100. 90

Chapter Three 1

Irish Human Rights Commission, Religion & Education: A Human Rights Perspective (Dublin: Irish Human Rights Commission, 2011). Specific reference is made to Chapter Two of the document. For convenience, page numbers are inserted into the body of the text. 2 Irish Human Rights Commission, Religion & Education. 3 Irish Human Rights Commission, “Human Rights Commission Act 2000.” http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0009/index.html. 4 The Joint Conference between the Irish Human Rights Commission–Trinity College Dublin School of Law took place on 27th November, 2010 in Trinity College, Dublin. 5 Irish Human Rights Commission, “Discussion Paper.” http://www.ihrc.ie/download/pdf/ihrc_discussion_paper_religion_and_education_f inal__6_dec__arial.pdf. 6 Irish Human Rights Commission, Religion & Education, 39. 7 Irish Human Rights Commission, Religion & Education, 8. 8 The IHRC Report cited the 2006 census as follows: Total population 4,239,828. 3,681,466 were Catholic, 125,585 were Church of Ireland, 23,546 were Presbyterian and 12,160 were Methodist. 1,930 were Jewish and 138,541 were “other religions”. 186,318 considered themselves as “no religion” and 70,322 left that question unanswered. 9 Central Statistics Office, “Census of Population.” http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/Prelim%20complete.pdf. 10 Glendenning, Religion, Education and the Law; Glendenning, Education and the Law. 11 Williams, Faith and the Nation; Coolahan, Irish Education: Its History and Structure. 12 See Thomas R. Black, Doing Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences (London: Sage Publications, 2005); Michael Crotty, The Foundations of Social Research (London: Sage, 1998); Norman K Denzin and Yvonna S Lincoln, Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials (London: Sage Publications, 1998); Daniel Muijs, Doing Quantitative Research in Education with SPSS (London: Sage, 2008). 13 See Michael Huberman and Matthew Miles, “Data Management and Analysis Methods,” in Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials (London: Sage,

100

Notes

1998), 179-210; Colin Robson, Real World Research (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003). 14 Crotty, The Foundations of Social Research, 64. 15 Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in psychology,” Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2006), 77-101. They provide guidelines consisting of six phases that are flexible for analysing qualitative data, (i) Familiarisation of the data (ii) Generating initial codes (iii) Searching for themes (iv) Reviewing themes (v) Defining and naming themes (vi) Producing the report. Note that, for clarity, this is changed to “Producing the Commentary” in this text, given that “The Report” refers to the Irish Human Rights Commission document. 16 Irish Human Rights Commission, Religion & Education, 41-62. 17 Catholic Schools’ Partnership. http://www.catholicschools.ie/2011/09/28/launch-of-catholic-schools-partnership/. 18 Catholic Primary School Management Association. http://www.ippn.ie/index.php?option=com_mtree&task=att_download&link_id=2 663&cf_id=24. 19 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 12-14. 20 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 13-14. 21 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 13-15. 22 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 13. 23 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 13. 24 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 14. See also Norman, Ethos and Education in Ireland. 25 Kevin Williams, “Understanding Ethos–a Philosophical and Literary Exploration,” in School Culture and Ethos: Cracking the Code, ed. C. Furlong and L. Monaghan (Dublin: Marino Institute of Education, 2000), 76. 26 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 14. 27 Alison Mawhinney, Freedom of Religion and Schools: the Case of Ireland (Saarbrucken: VDM Verlag, 2009). Mawhinney is a lecturer in academic law in Queen’s University Belfast. 28 Patricia Kieran and Daniel O’Connell are both lecturers in Religious Education in Mary Immaculate College, Limerick. 29 John Sullivan, “The Church as a Learning Community,” in Learning the Language of Faith, ed. John Sullivan (Essex: Matthew James Publishing, 2010), 100-121. 30 Michael Grimmitt, “Constructivist Pedagogies of Religious Education Project: Rethinking Knowledge, Teaching and Learning in Religious Education,” in Pedagogies of Religious Education, ed. Michael Grimmitt (Great Wakering: McCrimmon Publishing Co. Ltd., 2000), 207-227. 31 Braun and Clarke, “Using thematic analysis,” p. 93. 32 Department of Education and Science, Junior Certificate Religious Education Syllabus (Government Publications Office, 2000), 3. 33 John Coolahan et al, The Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector (Dublin: Report of the Forum’s Advisory Group, 2012). 34 Coolahan, Forum on Patronage, 2-3.

Openness with Roots: Education in Religion in Irish Primary Schools

101

35 Michael Grimmitt, “The Captivity and Liberation of Religious Education and the Meaning and Significance of Pedagogy,” in Pedagogies of Religious Education, ed. Michael Grimmit (Great Wakering: McCrimmon Publishing Company Ltd., 2000), 7-23; Patricia Kieran and Anne Hession, Children, Catholicism & Religious Education (Dublin: Veritas, 2005); Mark A. Pike, “Citizenship and human rights,” in Debates in Religious Education, ed. L.P. Barnes (London: Routledge, 2012), 109-119; John Sullivan, Catholic Schools in Contention (Dublin: Veritas, 2000). 36 See also from the same respondent, D. A. Lane, Stepping Stones to Other Religions (Dublin: Veritas, 2011), 36, 39-42, 50-54, 91. 37 Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Toledo Guiding Principles on Teaching About Religions and Beliefs in Public Schools (Warsaw: ESCE/ODHIR, 2007), 69. 38 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 107. 39 INTO Education Committee, The Place of Religious Education in the National School System, 2. 40 Coolahan, Forum on Patronage, v. 41 Coolahan, Forum on Patronage, v. 42 See Wanda Jackson, “The academic study of religions and integrative religious education in Europe,” The British Journal of Religious Education, 32/3 (2010), 275-290; Tasos Kazepides, Education in Dialogue: Its Prerequisites and its Enemies (Montreal: McGill Queen’s University Press, 2010). 43 For example: Liberal Christian Theological, Experiential Implicit Models; A Phenomenological, Undogmatic Explicit Model; Integrative Experiential and Phenomenological Models; Human Development, Instrumental, Learning About, Learning From Models; An Ethnographic, Interpretive, Multi-Faith Model; A Revelation-Centred, Concept-Cracking Trinitarian Christian Realist Model; A Literacy-Centred, Critical Realist Model and Constructivist Models of Learning and Teaching. See Michael Grimmitt, “Contemporary Pedagogies of Religious Education: What Are They,” in Pedagogies of Religious Education, 24-25. 44 Coolahan, Forum on Patronage, v. 45 Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Toledo Guiding Principles. 46 Coolahan, Forum on Patronage. 47 Kazepides, Education in Dialogue, 121. 48 Jeff Astley, The Philosophy of Christian Religious Education (Alabama: Religious Education Press, 1994); See also I. A. Snook, Indoctrination and Education (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., 1972). 49 Association of Catholic Priests, “Contemporary Catholic Perspectives,” http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2012/04/Contemporary-Catholic-Perspectives.pdf. 50 Central Statistics Office, “Census of Population.” http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/Prelim%20complete.pdf. 51 See also Editorial, “The Vatican and the Faithful.” http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0414/1224314727754.html. 52 For example, the response made by the Department of Religious Studies and Religious Education, St Patrick’s College, Drumcondra, Dublin.

102

Notes

53 It should be noted that the Irish Human Rights Commission have also published a substantial work on education and human rights. See Irish Human Rights Commission, Human Rights Education in Ireland (Dublin: Irish Human Rights Commission with The Atlantic Philanthropies, 2011). 54 Coolahan, Forum on Patronage, 26-27, 38, 83, 97. 55 Coolahan, Forum on Patronage, 27.

Chapter Four 1

Kim Bielenberg, “Is there a place for God in the Irish Classroom?” http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/features/is-there-a-place-for-god-inthe-irish-classroom-2542208.html. 2 John Coolahan et al, Forum on Patronage. http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0410/primaryschoolpatronage.pdf. Subsequent references to this document are taken from this online reference. Page references of same are inserted into the body of the text in the interests of expediency. 3 Ruairi Quinn, “Response to Report of the Advisory Group on the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector,” 20 June, 2012–Speech by Minister Ruairi Quinn TD. http://www.education.ie/home/home.jsp?maincat=&pcategory=10861&ecategory= 11469. 4 The pilot was published in December 2012. The areas were Arklow, Castlebar, Tramore, Trim and Whitehall (Dublin). DES, “Report on the pilot surveys regarding parental preferences on primary school patronage.” http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Education-Reports/Report-to-NewSchools-Establishment-Group-on-the-pilot-surveys-regarding-parentalpreferences-on-primary-school-patronage.pdf 5 Michael Drumm, “Government haste on school handover ‘questionable’,” The Irish Catholic, January 31, 2013, 1-2. 6 Drumm, “Government haste–questionable,” 1-2 7 Coolahan, The Forum on Patronage. http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0410/primaryschoolpatronage.pdf. See Forum Report for stakeholders involved in the working sessions (June 2011) and the list of others consulted, 115-116. 8 The Advisory Group consisted of Prof John Coolahan, Dr Caroline Hussey and Ms Fionnuala Kilfeather. 9 Government of Ireland, Government for National Recovery 2011-2016 (6 March, 2011), 42. 10 Coolahan, The Forum on Patronage. These were to consist of a maximum of five thousand words on establishing parental and community demand for diversity, managing the transfer/divesting of patronage and diversity within a school or small number of schools (4, 5). The submissions are available on www.education.ie.

Openness with Roots: Education in Religion in Irish Primary Schools

103

11 Phase one would include work to be undertaken by the Department of Education and Skills in 47 towns and 4 Dublin areas. This would initially involve 18 dioceses containing 250 schools, of which 50 may be divested (105-106). However, at the time of writing, this figure has been reduced to 44 due to updated Census figures (2011). For current school and demographic profile see also the Forum Report, 2939. 12 The recommendations are presented as the final stage of the Forum Report but they are also interspersed throughout the document by way of summary subsequent to the analytical process adopted by the Advisory Group. They are categorised under the five major sub-headings of (i) Planning Towards Future Patronage Arrangements (ii) Divesting School Patronage (iii) Irish Medium Primary Schools (iv) The Stand Alone School and (v) Issues Underpinning Diversity in all Schools, 105-114. 13 The Minister is quoted as saying that the surveys will commence in “settled” areas where there appears to be an oversupply of Catholic primary schools but “no public meetings will be allowed”. Sean Flynn, “Parents to be polled over school patronage,” The Irish Times, June 21, 2012, 5; See Coolahan et al, The Forum on Patronage, 57. 14 See Dermot Lane, The Experience of God (Dublin: Veritas, 2003), 75-99. 15 Amalee Meehan and Daniel O’Connell, “The ‘Deeper Magic of Life’,” The Furrow 63/6 (2012), 287. 16 Robert Jackson, “Towards religious education for peace,” British Journal of Religious Education 29/1 (2007), 6. 17 Jackson, “Towards religious education for peace,” 6. 18 Jackson, “Towards religious education for peace,” 6. 19 Rik Van Nieuwenhove, “The End of Catholic Education in Ireland–Further Reflections on the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism,” The Furrow 63/6 (2012), 279. 20 See Coolahan, Report on the National Education Convention (Dublin: Stationery Office, 1994), (22 Sic), 28. 21 The statement inserted by the Forum and annotated may found in http://www.catholicschools.ie/2011/09/28/launch-of-catholic-schools-partnership/. Since the time of writing, the CSP school self-evaluation tool has been published: c/f http://www.catholicschools.ie/category/research/feed/ 22 Commission of School Accommodation, Revised Criteria and Procedures for Establishment of New Primary Schools (February 2011). 23 Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae, ed. Austin Flannery, (Delaware: Scholarly Resources Inc., 1975), 805; See also Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Catechism of the Catholic Church (Dublin: Veritas, 1994), 413-423. 24 See Williams, Faith and the Nation, 100-125. 25 A. Looney, “Religious Education in the Public Space: Challenges and Contestations,” in International Handbook of the Religious, Moral and Spiritual Dimensions in Education (Part two), ed. by Michael de Souza et al. (Dordrecht: Kluwer/Springer, 2006), 965.

104

Notes

26 Conway, “The Future of Catholic Schools–The Forum on Patronage and Pluralism: a cultural marker and wake-up call,” The Furrow 63/6 (2012), 269-277; Van Nieuwenhove, “The End of Catholic Education in Ireland”, 278-285. 27 Eamonn Conway, “The Future of Catholic Schools,” 269-277; Meehan and O’Connell, “The ‘Deeper Magic of Life’,” 286-294. Van Nieuwenhove, “The End of Catholic Education in Ireland,” 278-285. 28 Breda O’Brien, “Teaching from within religion is an influential force for good,” The Irish Times, June 30, 2012, p. 16. 29 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 56. 30 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 55. 31 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 55-56. 32 Williams, Faith and the Nation, 56. 33 Conway, “The Future of Catholic Schools,” 270. 34 Conway, “The Future of Catholic Schools,” 274. 35 Conway, “The Future of Catholic Schools,” 270. 36 Government of Ireland, Education Act 1998. See also Glendenning, Education and the Law, 100. 37 Meehan and O’Connell, “The ‘Deeper Magic of Life’,” 292. 38 Meehan and O’Connell, “The ‘Deeper Magic of Life’,” 293. 39 Meehan and O’Connell, “The ‘Deeper Magic of Life’,” 293. 40 Meehan and O’Connell, “The ‘Deeper Magic of Life’,” 293. 41 See Protocol 7, “Proposed Framework of a Protocol for an Inclusive School,” entitled “Opting-out of Denominational Religious Education/Faith Formation,” 74. Under this sub-category there are specific references to four related themes. These are, (i) 7.1 Constitution, Legislation and Rules for National Schools (ii) 7.2 Primary School Curriculum Guidelines (iii) 7.3 Considerations in Relation to Opting-Out (iv) 7.4 Practical Timetable Options. 42 See for (v) Williams, Faith and the Nation. Williams is not convinced that conferring all rights on parents is always in the best interests particularly of older children in terms of justice, given that they are capable of making their own decisions about religion. 43 Irish Episcopal Conference, (Compilation Gareth Byrne), Share the Good News – National Directory for Catechesis in Ireland (Dublin: Veritas, 2011). 44 See Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Toledo Guiding Principles. 45 Van Nieuwenhove, “The End of Catholic Education in Ireland,” 281. 46 Ruairi Quinn “Response to Report.” http://www.education.ie/home/home.jsp?maincat=&pcategory=10861&ecategory= 11469. 47 Ruairi Quinn, “Response to the Report.”

Openness with Roots: Education in Religion in Irish Primary Schools

105

Chapter Five 1 See for various accounts Kathleen Cavanagh, “Islam and the European Project,” Muslim World Journal of Human Rights 4 (2007), 10-18; Gerald Grace, Catholic Schools: Missions, Markets and Morality (London: Routledge Falmer, 2002). 2 Marie Griffin, “Multi-belief religious teaching may be way forward,” The Irish Times, April 9, 2012, 14. 3 Irish Episcopal Conference, Share the Good News, 58. 4 Patricia Kieran, “Children Negotiating Their Own Beliefs: The Religious Education of Young Children in Families in the Republic of Ireland,” Journal of Religious Education 59/3 (2011), 50, 54. 5 Kieran, “Children Negotiating Their Beliefs,” 53. 6 Coolahan, The Forum on Patronage, 111; See John Sullivan, “Faith in the Family,” in Learning the Language of Faith, ed. John Sullivan (Essex: Matthew James Publishing, 2010), 62-76. 7 Van Nieuwenhove, “The End of Catholic Education in Ireland?” See Michael Warren, “Catechesis and Religious Education: Respecting the Differences,” in Religion Education & the Arts 4 (2003), 88. 8 Paul Vermeer, “Denominational schools and the (religious) socialisation of youths,” British Journal of Religious Education, 31/3 (2009), 201. 9 Paul Vermeer, “Denominational schools,” 201. 10 Vermeer, “Denominational schools,” 201. 11 Vermeer, “Denominational schools,” 209. 12 See Julian Stern, “Research as pedagogy: building learning communities and religious understanding in RE,” British Journal of Religious Education 32/2 (2010), 137. 13 Hella and Wright, “Learning ‘about’ and ‘from’ religion,” British Journal of Religious Education 31/1 (2009), 55. 14 Michael Grimmitt, Religious Education and Human Development (Great Wakering: McCrimmon Publishing, 1987); See Hella and Wright, “Learning ‘about’ and ‘from’ religion,” 53-64; Geoff Teece, “Learning from religions as ‘skilful means’: a contribution to the debate about the identity of religious education,” British Journal of Religious Education 30/3 (2008), 187-198. 15 Hella and Wright, “Learning ‘about’ and ‘from’ religion,” 56. 16 Hella and Wright “Learning ‘about’ and ‘from’ religion,” 56. 17 Julian Stern, “Research as pedagogy,” British Journal of Religious Education, 133-146; see also Grimmitt, “Contemporary Pedagogies of Religious Education,” 24-52. 18 Coolahan et al, The Forum on Patronage, 2. 19 Coolahan et al, The Forum on Patronage, 111-112. 20 John Hull, “The Contribution of Religious Education to Religious Freedom: A Global Perspective.” http://www.iarf.net/REBooklet/Hull.htm. 21 Conway, “The Future of Catholic Schools,” 271.

106

Notes

22 Jerome Seymour Bruner, The Culture of Education (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996), 63. 23 John Sullivan, “Religious Faith in Education: Enemy or Asset?” Unpublished, 1. 24 Sullivan, “Religious Faith in Education: Enemy or Asset?” 1. 25 See for a comprehensive list of such documents, Andrew McGrady, “The Religious Dimension of Education in Irish Second Level Schools at the start of the Third Millennium,” in Religion, Education & the Arts 4 (2003), 53-54. 26 Irish Episcopal Conference, Share the Good News, 57. 27 See for these terms the Irish Episcopal Conference, Share the Good News, 5556; See also Gavin D’Costa, The Catholic Church and the World Religions (London: T & T Clarke International, 2011), vi. 28 It is not within the remit of this book to offer an account of academic scholarship and its relationship to truth claims found in Catholic education. See Brendan Carmody, “Towards a contemporary Catholic philosophy of education,” International Studies in Catholic Education 3/2 (2011), 106-119; John Sullivan, Catholic Education Distinctive and Inclusive, (Dordrecht: Kluwer/Springer, 2001); Michael Himes, “Communicating the Faith,” in Handing on the Faith, ed. R. Imbelli (New York: Cross/Herder & Herder, 2006). 29 Kieran, “Children Negotiating Their Own Beliefs,” 54. 30 Coolahan, The Forum on Patronage, 92. 31 Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Toledo Guiding Principles. This largely consultative document contains a set of six chapters consisting of conclusions and recommendations for interested international stakeholders. 32 Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Toledo Guiding Principles, 18. 33 Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Toledo Guiding Principles, 12. 34 Lane, Stepping Stones, 26. 35 Sullivan, “Faith in the Family,” 62. 36 Cited in Coolahan, The Forum on Patronage, 92. The Forum is referring to research taken by the Joint Managerial Body and the Association of Management of Catholic Secondary Schools., “Guidelines on the Inclusion of Students of Other Faiths in Catholic Secondary Schools.” http//www.jmb.ie. 37 Conway, “The Future of Catholic Schools,” 275.

Conclusion 1

See for topics such as the “Phenomenon of Religion”, “Indifference/ Agnosticism/Atheism”, “World Religions”, “Contemporary Religious Movements”, “Sects”: Irish Episcopal Commission for Catechetics, A Syllabus for the Religious Education of Catholic Pupils in Post-Primary Schools (1982); Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference, (Compilation C. Renehan), Guidelines for the Faith

Openness with Roots: Education in Religion in Irish Primary Schools

107

Formation and Development of Catholic Students: Junior Certificate Religious Education Syllabus (Dublin: Veritas, 1999). 2 Irish Episcopal Conference, (Compilation A. Hession), Catholic Pre-School and Primary School Curriculum, (Dublin: Veritas, Forthcoming). 3 Community National Schools. http://cns.ie/about.shtm1 www.cns.ie

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Akenson, Donald H. The Irish Education Experiment: The National System of Education in Ireland in the Nineteenth Century. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970. Association of Catholic Priests. “Contemporary Catholic Perspectives.” http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2012/04/Contemporary-CatholicPerspectives.pdf. Accessed April 14, 2012. Astley, Jeff. The Philosophy of Christian Religious Education. Alabama: Religious Education Press, 1994. Auchmuty, J. J. Irish Education: a Historical Study. London: Hoggis Figgis, 1937. Beckett, J. C. The Making of Modern Ireland 1603-1923. London: Faber and Faber, 1966. Bielenberg, Kim. “Is there a place for God in the Irish Classroom?” http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/education/features/is-there-a-placefor-god-in-the-irish-classroom-2542208.html. Accessed February 16 2011. Black, Thomas, R. Doing Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. London: Sage Publications, 2005. Bowen, Desmond. The Protestant Crusade in Ireland, 1800-70. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1978. Braun, Virginia and Victoria Clarke. “Using thematic analysis in psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2006): 77-101. Bruner, Jerome Seymour. The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996. Burke, W. P. Irish priests in the penal times 1600-1700. Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 1914. Carleton, William. Traits and Stories of the Irish Peasantry. Dublin: W. F. Wakeman, 1834. Carmody, Brendan. “Towards a contemporary Catholic philosophy of education.” International Studies in Catholic Education 3/2 (2011): 106-119. Catholic Primary School Management Association. http://www.ippn.ie/index.php?option=com_mtree&task=att_download &link_id=2663&cf_id=24. Accessed April 6, 2012]. Catholic Schools’ Partnership.

110

Bibliography

http://www.catholicschools.ie/2011/09/28/launch-of-catholic-schoolspartnership/. Accessed April 6, 2012. Cavanagh, Kathleen. “Islam and the European Project.” Muslim World Journal of Human Rights 4 (2007):1-20. Central Statistics Office. “Census of Population.” http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/Prelim%20compl ete.pdf. Accessed 10 April 10, 2012. Commissioners of National Education. “Annual Report of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, 1850,” in Reports of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland Vol. 1, 1834 1851. Dublin: HMSO, 1865. Commissioners of National Education in Ireland. Rules and Regulations of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland with Appendix. Dublin: HMSO, 1898. Commission of School Accommodation. Revised Criteria and Procedures for Establishment of New Primary Schools. (February 2011). Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Dublin: Veritas, 1994. Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Eireann) Act, 1922. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1922/en/act/pub/0001/print.html. Accessed July 1, 2012. Conway, Eamonn. “The Future of Catholic Schools - The Forum on Patronage and Pluralism: a cultural marker and wake-up call.” The Furrow 63/6 (2012): 269-277. Coolahan, John. Irish Education: Its History and Structure. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration, 1985. —. Report on the National Education Convention. Dublin: Stationery Office, 1994. —. The Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector: Report of the Forum’s Advisory Group. http://www.education.ie/servlet/blobservlet/fpp_prof_coolahan_addres s_november_2011.pdf?language=EN. Accessed November 18, 2011. Coolahan et al. The Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector: Report of the Forum’s Advisory Group. http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0410/primaryschoolpatronage.pdf. Accessed 20 April 20, 2012. Coolahan, John et al. The Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector. Dublin: Report of the Forum’s Advisory Group, 2012. Corcoran, Timothy. Selected texts on education systems in Ireland from the close of the middle ages. Dublin: University College, 1928.

Openness with Roots: Education in Religion in Irish Primary Schools

111

Corish, P. J. The Catholic community in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Dublin: Catholic Historical Society of Ireland, 1981. Crotty, Michael. The Foundations of Social Research. London: SAGE Publications, 1998. D’Costa, Gavin. The Catholic Church and the World Religions, ed. London: T & T Clarke International, 2011. Denzin, Norman K. and Yvonna S. Lincoln. Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. London: SAGE, 1998. Department of Education. Curraclam na Bunscoile: Lamhleabhar an Oide/Primary School Curriculum: Teachers Handbook: Parts One and Two. Dublin: The Stationery Office, 1971. Department of Education and Science. Junior Certificate Religious Education Syllabus. Dublin: Government Publications Stationery Office, 2000. Dowling, P. J. A History of Irish Education . Cork: Mercier Press, 1971. —. The Hedge Schools of Ireland. Dublin: The Phoenix Publishing Company Ltd, 1998. Drumm, Michael. “Government haste on school handover “questionable.” The Irish Catholic, January 31, 2013. —. “Symposium The Future of Religion in Irish Education.” In The Future of Religion in Irish Education, edited by P. Hogan and K. Williams, 108-127. Dublin: Veritas, 1997. Duffy, Patrick. The Lay Teacher. Dublin: Fallon, 1967. Dunn, Seamus. “Education, religion and cultural change in the Republic of Ireland.” In Christianity and Educational Provision in International Perspective, edited by W. Tulasiewicz and C. Brock, 87-99. London: Routledge, 1988. Editorial. “The Vatican and the Faithful.” http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0414/1224314727 754.html. Accessed April 14 2012. Ellis, Steven. Tudor Ireland: Crown, Community and the Conflict of Cultures. London: Longman, 1985. Flynn, Sean. “Parents to be polled over school patronage.” The Irish Times, June 21, 2012. Follett, Ken. The Pillars of the Earth. London: Pan Books, 2010. Ginnell, Laurence. The Brehon laws: a legal handbook. London: T. F. Unwin, 1894. Glendenning, Dympna. Education and the Law. West Sussex: Tottel, 2007. —. Religion, Education and the Law. West Sussex: Tottel, 2008.

112

Bibliography

Government of Ireland. Bunreacht Na hEireann. Dublin: Government Publications, 1937. —. Bunreacht Na hEireann. http://www.constitution.ie/constitution-ofireland/default.asp. Accessed 20 February 20, 2012. —. Charting our Education Future: White Paper on Education. Dublin: The Stationery Office, 1995. —. Education for a Changing World: Green Paper on Education. Dublin: The Stationery Office, 1992. —. Education Act 1998. Dublin: The Stationery Office, 1998. —. “Irish Constitutional Referendums December 1972.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_constitutional_referendums,_Decem ber_1972. Accessed, February 25, 2012. —. Government for National Recovery 2011-2016. 6 March, 2011. Government Publications. Rules for National Schools. Dublin: The Stationery Office, 1965. Grace, Gerald. Catholic Schools: Missions, Markets and Morality. London: RoutledgeFalmer, 2002 Griffin, Kevin. “Whither the Fourth R? A Perspective on the Future of Religion in Primary Schools.” In The Future of Religion in Irish Education, edited by P. Hogan and K. Williams, 76-86. Veritas: Dublin, 1997. Griffin, Marie. “Multi-belief religious teaching may be way forward.” The Irish Times, April 9, 2012. Grimmitt, Michael. “Constructivist Pedagogies of Religious Education Project: Rethinking Knowledge, Teaching and Learning in Religious Education.” In Pedagogies of Religious Education, edited by M. Grimmitt, 207-227. Great Wakering: McCrimmon Publishing Co. Ltd, 2000). —. “Contemporary Pedagogies of Religious Education: What Are They.” In Pedagogies of Religious Education, edited by M. Grimmitt, 24-52. Great Wakering: McCrimmon Publishing Co. Ltd, 2000. —. Religious Education and Human Development. Great Wakering: McCrimmon Publishing, 1987. —. “The Captivity and Liberation of Religious Education and the Meaning and Significance of Pedagogy.” In Pedagogies of Religious Education, edited by M. Grimmitt, 7-23. Great Wakering: McCrimmon Publishing Co Ltd, 2000). Hella, Elina and Andrew Wright. “Learning ‘about’ and ‘from’ religion: phenomenography, the Variation Theory of Learning and religious education in Finland and the UK.” British Journal of Religious Education 31/1 (2009): 53-64.

Openness with Roots: Education in Religion in Irish Primary Schools

113

Himes, Michael. “Communicating the Faith.” In Handing on the Faith, edited by R. Imbelli, New York: Cross/Herder & Herder, 2006. Hogan, Padraig. Foreword to The Future of Religion in Irish Education, edited. by P. Hogan and K. Williams, 5-9. Veritas: Dublin, 1997). —. “Religion in Education and the Integrity of Teaching as a Practice. The Experience of Irish National Schools in Changing Times.” In Teaching Religion in the Primary School, edited by D. Herron, 63-74. Dublin: INTO, 2003. Hull, John. “The Contribution of Religious Education to Religious Freedom: A Global Perspective.” http://www.iarf.net/REBooklet/Hull.htm. Accessed, June 22 2012. Huberman, Michael and Matthew Miles. “Data Management and Analysis Methods.” in Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, edited by N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, 179-210. London: SAGE, 1998. Hyland, Áine and Kenneth Milne eds. Irish Educational Documents, Vol. 1. Dublin: Church of Ireland College of Education, 1987. Hyland, Áine and Kenneth Milne, eds. Irish Educational Documents, Vol. II. Dublin: Church of Ireland College of Education, 1992. Inglis, Tom. Moral Monopoly: The Rise and Fall of the Catholic Church in Modern Ireland. Dublin: University College Dublin Press, 1998. INTO. Among School Children: The INTO Response to the Green Paper Education for a changing world. Dublin: INTO, 1993. INTO Education Committee. The Place of Religious Education in the National School System. Dublin: Irish National Teachers’ Organisation, 1991. Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference. Catholic Primary Schools: A Policy for Provision for the Future. Dublin: Veritas, 2007. —. Factors Determining School Choice: Report on a survey of the Attitudes of Parents of Children attending Catholic Primary Schools in Ireland. Dublin: Council for Research and Development, 2008. —. Guidelines for the Faith Formation and Development of Catholic Students: Junior Certificate Religious Education Syllabus. Dublin: Veritas, 1999. —. Guidelines for the Faith Formation and Development of Catholic Students: Leaving Certificate Religious Education Syllabus. Dublin: Veritas, 2004. Irish Catholic Bishops. “Pastoral Address.” Irish Ecclesiastical Record 57/8 (1927): 526-544. Irish Episcopal Commission for Catechetics. A Syllabus for the Religious Education of Catholic Pupils in Post-Primary Schools. Dublin: Veritas, 1982.

114

Bibliography

Irish Episcopal Conference. Catholic Pre-School and Primary School Curriculum. Dublin: Veritas, Forthcoming. —. Share the Good News – National Directory for Catechesis in Ireland. Dublin: Veritas, 2011. Irish Human Rights Commission. “Discussion Paper.” http://www.ihrc.ie/download/pdf/ihrc_discussion_paper_religion_and_ education_final__6_dec__arial.pdf. Accessed 28 December 28, 2010. —. Human Rights Education in Ireland. Dublin: Irish Human Rights Commission with The Atlantic Philanthropies, 2011. —. “Human Rights Commission Act 2000.” http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0009/index.html. Accessed March 29, 2012]. —. Religion & Education: A Human Rights Perspective. Dublin: Irish Human Rights Commission, 2011. Jackson, Robert. “Towards religious education for peace.” British Journal of Religious Education 29/1 (2007): 1-14 Jackson, Wanda. “The academic study of religions and integrative religious education in Europe.” British Journal of Religious Education 32/3 (2010): 275-290. Joint Managerial Body and the Association of Management of Catholic Secondary Schools. “Guidelines on the Inclusion of Students of Other Faiths in Catholic Secondary Schools.” http//www.jmb.ie. Accessed 11 November 11, 2010. Kazepides, Tasos., Education in Dialogue: Its Prerequisites and its Enemies. Montreal: McGill Queen’s University Press, 2010. Kieran, Patricia and Anne Hession. Children, Catholicism & Religious Education. Dublin: Veritas, 2005. Kieran, Patricia. “Children Negotiating Their Own beliefs: The Religious Education of Young Children in Families in the Republic of Ireland.” Journal of Religious Education 59/3 (2011): 50-60. Lane, D.A. “AFTERWORD The Expanding Horizons of Catholic Education.” In The Future of Religion in Irish Education, edited by P. Hogan and K. Williams, 128-137. Veritas: Dublin, 1997. —. Introduction to Religion, Education and the Constitution, edited by D. A. Lane, 4-14. Dublin: The Columba Press, 1992. —. Introduction to Vatican II Facing the 21st Century, edited by D. A. Lane, 9-12 Dublin: Veritas, 2006. —. Stepping Stones to Other Religions. Dublin: Veritas, 2011. —. The Experience of God. Dublin: Veritas, 2003.

Openness with Roots: Education in Religion in Irish Primary Schools

115

Larkin, T. “Subjects or Architects of Culture? Religious Education and Children’s Experience.” In The Future of Religion in Irish Education, edited by P. Hogan and K. Williams, 87-104. Veritas: Dublin, 1997. Lennon, Colm. Sixteenth Century Ireland; The Incomplete Conquest. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan, 1994. Looney, A. “Religious Education in the Public Space: Challenges and Contestations.” In International Handbook of the Religious, Moral and Spiritual Dimensions in Education (Part two), edited by M. de Souza et al., 949-965. Dordrecht: 2006. McCracken, J. L. “The ecclesiastical structure, 1714-1760.” In A New History of Ireland. Eighteenth-Century Ireland 1691-1800, edited by T. W. Moody and W. E. Vaughan, 95. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. McGarry, Patsy. “Bishops deny pushing school agenda.” http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0330/1224314098 034.html. Accessed March 30, 2012. —. “School provision a Catholic right, says cardinal.” http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0127/1224310809 343.html. Accessed January 27, 2012. McGrady, Andrew. “The Religious Dimension of Education in Irish Second Level Schools at the start of the Third Millennium.” REA 4 religion, education & the arts, (2003), edited by M. Hinds et al., 53-54. Dublin: Mater Dei Insitute, 2003). McManus, Antonia. The Irish Hedge School and Its Books, 1695-1831. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2002. Mawhinney, Alison. Freedom of Religion and Schools: the Case of Ireland. Saarbrucken: VDM Verlag, 2009. Meehan, Amalee and Daniel O’Connell. “The ‘Deeper Magic of Life’.” The Furrow 63/6 (2012): 286-294. Mescal, John. Religion in the Irish System of Education. London: Burns Oates and Washbourne Ltd, 1957. Moore, George Edward. Principia Ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1922. Muijs, Daniel. Doing quantitative research in Education with SPSS. London: Sage, 2008. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. Junior Certificate Religious Education Syllabus. Dublin: Government Publications Stationery Office, 2000. —. Leaving Certificate Religious Education Syllabus. Dublin: Government Publications Stationery Office, 2003.

116

Bibliography

—. Revised Curriculum for Primary Schools. Dublin: Government Publications, 1999. Nichols, Kevin. Refracting the Light: Learning the Languages of Faith. Dublin: Lindisfarne Books, 1997. Norman, James. Ethos and Education in Ireland. New York: Peter Lang, 2003. Ó Buachalla, Seamas. Education Policy in Twentieth Century Ireland. Dublin: Wolfhound Press, 1988. O’Brien, Breda. “Teaching from within religion is an influential force for good.” The Irish Times, June 30, 2012. O’Brien, Carl. “Census shows a country changed yet still rooted in tradition.” http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0330/12243141 02324.html. Accessed March 30, 2012. O’ Ceallaigh, Sean, T. “Memorandum by Sean T. O'Ceallaigh to Pope Benedict XV (Copy) ROME, 18 May 1920.” http://www.difp.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=35. Accessed November 20, 2011. O’ Connell, Daniel. A Memoir on Ireland, Native and Saxon. Dublin: James Duffy, 1844. O’Curry, Eugene. On the Manners and Customs of the Native Irish. Dublin: Williams and Norgate, 1873. O’Donoghue, Tom and Judith Harford. “A Comparative History of Church-State Relations in Irish Education.” Comparative Education Review 55/3 (2010): 315-341. —. “Catholic Influence and the Secondary School Curriculum in Ireland, 1922-1962.” In The Routledge Falmer Reader in History of Education, edited by G. McCulloch London: Routledge Falmer, 2005. O’Ferrall, Fergus. Catholic emancipation : Daniel O'Connell and the birth of Irish democracy 1820-30. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1985. Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. Toledo Guiding Principles on Teaching About Religions and Beliefs in Public Schools. Warsaw: ESCE/ODHIR, 2007. Osborough, W. N. “Irish Law and the Rights of the National Schoolteacher.” http://www.legalperiodicals.org/disp.php?pub=Irish+Jurist&yr=1979. Accessed November 26, 2011. —. “MacNeill Guidelines for an Educational Policy.” Irish Jurist 14/378 (1979): 380. Pearse, Padraig. “The Murder Machine.”

Openness with Roots: Education in Religion in Irish Primary Schools

117

http://publish.ucc.ie/celt/docs/E900007-001. Accessed February 17, 2012. Pike, Mark A. “Citizenship and human rights.” In Debates in Religious Education, edited by L. P. Barnes, 109-119. London: Routledge, 2012. Quinn, David. “This intolerant secularism is a threat to liberty.” http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-thisintolerant-secularism-is-a-threat-to-liberty-3009124.html. Accessed June 10, 2012. Quinn, Ruairi. “20 June, 2012 – Speech by Minister Ruairi Quinn TD – Response to Report of the Advisory Group on the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector.” http://www.education.ie/home/home.jsp?maincat=&pcategory=10861 &ecategory=11469. Accessed June 25, 2012. Raftery, Deirdre. “The Legacy of Legislation and the Pragmatics of Policy: Historical Perspectives on Schooling for Irish Children.” in Education in Ireland Challenge and Change, edited by S. Drudy, 9-23. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan, 2009. Robson, C. Real World Research. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 2003. Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. London: Bloomsbury, 1997. Salafia, Vincent. “Law, Literature and Legend.” http://ua_tuathal.tripod.com/lawintro.htm. Accessed November 11, 2011. Second Vatican Council. Dignitatis Humanae 1965, edited by A. Flannery, 799-812. Delaware: Scholarly Resources Inc., 1975. —. Gravissimum Educationis 1965, edited by A. Flannery, 725-737. Delaware: Scholarly Resources Inc., 1975. Snook, I. A., Indoctrination and Education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1972. Stanley Smith, Edward., “Stanley Letter.” http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Stanley_Letter. Accessed November 24, 2011. Stern, Julian. “Research as pedagogy: building learning communities and religious understanding in RE.” British Journal of Religious Education 32/2 (2010): 133-146. Stevenson, Leslie. Seven Theories of Human Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974. Sullivan, John. Catholic Education Distinctive and Inclusive. Dordrecht: Kluwer/Springer, 2001. —. Catholic Schools in Contention. Dublin: Veritas, 2000.

118

Bibliography

—. “Faith in the Family.” In Learning the Language of Faith, edited by J. Sullivan 62-76. Essex: Matthew James Publishing, 2010). —. “Religious Faith in Education: Enemy or Asset?” Unpublished. —. “Religious Speech in the Public Square.” In Learning the Language of Faith, edited by J. Sullivan, 202-223. Essex: Matthew James Publishing, 2010. —. “The Church as a Learning Community.” In Learning the Language of Faith, edited by J. Sullivan, 100-121. Essex: Matthew James Publishing, 2010. Teece, Geoff. “Learning from religions as ‘skilful means’: a contribution to the debate about the identity of religious education.” British Journal of Religious Education 30/3 (2008): 187-198. Van Nieuwenhove, Rik. “The End of Catholic Education in Ireland – Further Reflections on the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism.” The Furrow 63/6 (2012): 278-285. Vermeer, Paul. “Denominational schools and the (religious) socialisation of youths: a changing relationship.” British Journal of Religious Education 31/3 (2009): 201-211. Warren, Michael. “Catechesis and Religious Education: Respecting the Differences” in REA 4 religion, education & the arts, edited by M. Hinds et al., 88-104. Dublin: Mater Dei Institute, 2003. Watson, Brenda. “Why religious education matters.” In Debates in Religious Education, edited by L. P. Barnes, 13-21. London: Routledge, 2012). Whyte, Gerry. “Education and the Constitution.” In Religion, Education and the Constitution, edited by D.A. Lane, 84-117. Dublin: The Columba Press, 1992). Williams, Kevin. Faith and the Nation. Dublin: Dominican Publications, 2005. —. “Understanding Ethos-A Philosophical and Literary Exploration.” In School Culture and Ethos: Cracking the Code, edited by C. Furlong and L. Monahan, 73-82. Dublin: Marino Institute of Education, 2000.