Who really controls our primary schools?

THE Minister for Education and Skills, Ruairi Quinn, has sent an information leaflet to houses in the Tuam area. He wants to hear the views of parents on 'what type of primary school they would like their children to attend'. What this means, in practice, is hard to understand due to the way primary education is organised in Ireland. There are four parties involved. The Dept of Education determines what is taught in schools by setting the curricula and by inspecting the schools. It finances the schools through payment of wages and salaries and through capital and maintenance grants. The Dept pays most of the bills but not all, which explains why many schools have to fund-raise for building work, maintenance and educational equipment. However, despite having such an overwhelming commitment to primary education, the Dept of Education does not own the schools. More than 96 per cent of the country's 3,000 schools are 'owned and under the patronage' of the churches. The Catholic Church owns 90 per cent of the schools though it provides no funding and little material help in the running of Primary Schools.[private] It's a strange notion that an institution should own something yet not have to pay wages or salaries, not have to maintain the buildings or pay for new buildings. So apart from historical ownership of these schools and providing classes for Boards of Management it's hard to understand what the role of the Church is apart from ensuring that 'their schools' are used as agents of faith-formation. It is true that in the past the Church was a dominant force. It staffed many of the schools with priests, brothers and sisters at both Primary and Secondary level. Parish Priests and religious orders managed schools. Religious orders invested their money in schools. However that era is over because the Church no longer has the personnel or the resources. There are very few religious personnel left in any of the Tuam schools, for example, and most schools are managed and manned by the so-called 'laity'. In reality the people who do all the work in the management of our schools are groups of unpaid, voluntary amateurs called Boards of Management. Somehow these people have been burdened with the real work of employing staff, carrying out maintenance, building extensions and taking responsibility for all sorts of human issues while both the Dept of Education and the patrons distance themselves from the reality of day to day life in our schools. Boards of Management are accountable for everything and have no real say in anything. For example when a local school had to raise an overdraft of €10,000 to pay for heating and insurance, members of the Board had to give personal guarantees to the bank. Neither the Dept of Education with its billions nor the Archdiocese with its millions or even the school itself which must be worth hundreds of thousands was acceptable as guarantor for a potential overdraft. The overdraft was only available if two unpaid members of the Board were prepared to have their personal finances scrutinised by the bank and they signed personal guarantees that the money would be repaid. Likewise when certain allegations were brought to the attention of the Board, the Dept of Education washed their hands of the problem and the best the patron's office could offer was the name of a solicitor. After that it was up to the BoM to sort out the issue, regardless of the costs or troubles they might impose on themselves. Given the onus of responsibility placed on these boards it is amazing how well they operate and that people are prepared to work for them. In a democracy schools should be operated directly by the State, on behalf of the people, not by intermediary bodies whose motivations are unclear and whose commitment is uncertain. Who exactly is 'Educate Together' or 'An Foras Patrúnacha', for example? What is their agenda and who determines it? At least the Catholic Hierarchy have a public profile. In the current survey the only people being consulted are the parents of children under 12. But why should this group of people determine the future control of our schools? Once their children are through the system their interest will end. The real issue behind this survey is the question of religion and its place in our schools. The churches, naturally, see the schools as the simplest way of instilling their particular beliefs in children. Ultimately their purpose is indoctrination, something that many parents agree with. On the other hand are the humanists and secularists who reject religion and want it removed from our schools. At best they favour teaching children about all religions, reducing religion to just another subject. If parents want their children to have a religious education, the humanist would argue, it should be provided outside the school day and paid for by the parents. The final, and most important, component in our schools is the teaching staff and what goes on in a school greatly depends on them. Principals have some of the most important, and difficult, jobs in the country. They are involved in every aspect of school life and are crucial to the education of our children. Whatever patrons may think or do, whatever the Department and its inspectors may believe, it is the professionalism and integrity of the principal and teachers who determine the success of a school. As things stand the patronage of primary schools seems to be of little consequence. For most parents changing the patronage of the school will be like changing the Government â€â€ new bosses but the same agenda. The control of our national schools is important because it is the taxpayer who finances them â€â€ pays for the buildings and maintenance and pays for the staff. So why should our local schools be vested in any group, religious or secular, over which the taxpayer has no say? [/private]