The Joint Committee met at 10 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Deputy Ulick Burke,  | Senator Fidelma Healy Eames, | | Deputy Margaret Conlon, | Senator Cecilia Keaveney, | | Deputy Frank Feighan, | Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill. | | Deputy Brian Hayes, | | | Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl, | | | Deputy John O’Mahony, | | | Deputy Ruairí Quinn, | |
DEPUTY PAUL GOGARTY IN THE CHAIR. The joint committee met in private session until 10.15 a.m.  Education Issues: Discussion with Department of Education and Science.
Chairman: We will now hear a presentation by officials from the Department of Education and Science on a number of issues, including the proposed changes in the regulations to establish a primary school, an update on progress made in developing and rolling out the model of VEC patronage at primary level and the current position regarding a proposal by Educate Together to become a patron body for secondary schools. I welcome Ms Carmody, the assistant secretary, Ms Catríona O’Brien, the principal officer of the central policy unit, Mr. Richard Dolan, the assistant principal officer, Mr. Frank Murray, chair of the commission on school accommodation, and Mr. Pat MacSitric, the assistant chief inspector of the Department of Education and Science. I draw witnesses’ attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing practice that we should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or an official by name, or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. There is much interest in today’s presentation and therefore without any further recourse I ask Ms Carmody to commence the presentation. Ms Ruth Carmody: The presentation relates to three discrete but interrelated areas. We propose that Mr. Murray will address the first item, which is the changes in the regulations to establish a primary school. I will deal with the update on the new patron model and Mr. Dolan will deal with the current position regarding the proposal by Educate Together to become a patron body. Mr. Frank Murray: This submission will focus on outlining proposed changes in the regulations to establish a primary school, providing an update on progress made in developing and rolling out the new model of VEC patronage of primary schools, and stating the current position regarding the proposal by Educate Together to become the patron body for secondary schools. On the proposed changes in the regulations to establish a primary school, a full review of the criteria and procedures for the recognition and establishment of new primary schools is currently being undertaken by the Commission on school accommodation. This review was announced by the Minister in September of last year. It is expected that the review will be completed and recommendations made to the Minister by the commission before the end of 2009. The Minister is also giving consideration to a range of issues concerning the establishment of new schools at post-primary level. I will deal with that in more detail later in my submission to the committee. In the interim, it is not the Minister’s intention to recognise new schools, except in areas where the increase in pupil numbers cannot be catered for by extending existing schools and where new schools are therefore warranted. This means that new schools will not be established for reasons unrelated to demographic growth in areas where there is already sufficient school accommodation or where increases in pupil numbers can be catered for by extending existing school accommodation. While the review is ongoing, it is proposed that the Department will identify the areas where new schools are required based on detailed examination and analysis of the demographics of each area. These details will be circulated to all existing patron bodies and it will be open to those patrons to put themselves forward as patrons for any such new school. This process is already under way. The patron bodies were notified of these details in the past two weeks and there will be further discussions between the patrons and the Department on this matter in respect of specific areas of the country in the coming weeks and months. This review does not mean there will be a complete cessation of the school building programme outside areas of rapid growth. In addition to the establishment of new schools in areas of rapid population growth, the normal building programme of modernising, replacing or extending existing schools will continue. The steering group of the commission consists of representatives of all the partners in education and officials from the Department of Education and Science. The technical working group is a small expert group appointed to undertake the full review of the criteria and procedures for the recognition of new schools. The technical working group will prepare reports and recommendations for consideration by the overall steering group, which will then submit a final report and recommendations of the commission to the Minister. The first meeting of the groups took place in December 2008 and a number of meetings have been held since. It is timely to review the criteria and procedures for the recognition of primary schools, given the changes that have taken place since the commission on school accommodation first began its work in 1998, in particular, changes in population growth and demands on the Exchequer. There also must be a correlation between the start-up of a new school and the capacity to provide appropriate accommodation. The term of office of the new schools advisory committee, NSAC, expired in August 2008. It is important that the policies and procedures for establishing new schools are brought fully up to date and that they are appropriate to meet the significant increase in the number of primary school pupils which we expect in the next five to ten years. The NSAC’s terms of reference were originally drafted in 1998 and now need to be overhauled and updated to reflect current demographics. We must ensure we have a transparent and robust system for recognising new primary schools that will be appropriate for the changing circumstances. Matters such as the minimum numbers of pupils required for the commencement of new schools, as well as a wide range of broad policy issues on school patronage and the approach to diversity of provision, must be carefully considered. There is no question, however, as has been suggested, that the review is intended to examine the number of small schools with a view to closures. The issue relating to numbers in so far as the review is concerned relates solely to the number of pupils required to establish a new school. Ms Ruth Carmody: As members have our written submission, I will focus on the summary we have provided also. Since representatives of the Department last appeared before the committee, the new model of community national school is being piloted in two locations in Dublin 15 since September 2008 under the temporary patronage of the Minister for Education and Science. The joint Department-VEC steering group set up to oversee the development of the new schools is continuing its work. The schools are being directly managed by a single manager as an interim measure pending the enactment of necessary legislation. Scoil Choilm has two classes, with 160 pupils, while Scoil Grainne has 70 pupils. The two schools are operating successfully in a spirit of partnership involving patrons, teachers, students, parents and the wider communities served by the schools. Links are being made to the broader community. The school aims to provide for religious education and faith formation during the school day for each of the main faith groups represented in accordance with the wishes of parents. The delivery of religious education is being developed on an action research basis which is being facilitated by County Dublin Vocational Education Committee. Primary legislation is required to facilitate VEC involvement in the provision of primary education. The education patronage Bill is included in the Government’s legislative programme. The heads of the Bill have been finalised and we hope it will go to the Government shortly. A framework of evaluation criteria is being developed to assess the project, from its inception through to the ongoing operational stages. We expect it will provide a great deal of valuable information for the future. Chairman: Members should have received a copy of the full submission and will be in a position to ask questions arising from it. That is the reason I asked for a copy of the executive summary. Mr. Richard Dolan: I will go through the executive summary on the proposal made by Educate Together to become a patron body for secondary schools. Its application to become a patron body at second level will be examined in the context of the consideration of wider issues relating to the recognition process for second level schools. The Educate Together movement has formally applied to the Department for recognition as a patron body for post-primary schools which it proposes to operate on a multidenominational basis and with an ethos similar to that followed in its existing primary schools. Traditionally, the VEC sector has been the provider of multidenominational post-primary education. The application by Educate Together for recognition as a patron body at second level raises many issues concerning the provision of multidenominational education at post-primary level. Chairman: The delegates will get an opportunity to deal with members’ queries in more detail. Deputy Ulick Burke: I welcome the departmental officials. My question is to Mr. Murray. How does the new model of community national school differ from the old ones in terms of patronage? In the pilot scheme I presume the Minister is the overall patron on a temporary basis. I am sure that in certain areas provision has been made in the curriculum for the customary religious education. I want to ask about two aspects that are tied together which Mr. Murray might be able to sort out for me. As regards the minimum numbers required, is a number envisaged? Mr. Murray has said a school will not be provided other than in new growth areas. It has been stated by departmental officials and the Minister in written responses to representations made that there is an option for small national schools to be amalgamated and considered for the provision of new facilities. That runs contrary to the long-held view that the rural national school, small though it may be, is the central focus of any rural community. The matter must be seen also in the light of the fact that religious management of national schools, as we have known it heretofore, will decline on the basis that the personnel required will no longer be available. In any sprawling rural parish there could be three or four national schools. Some Catholic bishops have indicated a desire to opt out of patronage of schools in certain cases and transfer responsibility to management. Following the first pilot schemes, will consideration be given by the Department, where there is such a desire and requests are made to the Department, to the VEC assuming patronage of many schools that probably will lose their existing structures, particularly when the local parish priest decides to opt out of the process? How does this gel with the position of Educate Together, which does not seem to apply the same restrictions as regards where it wants to establish second level schools? It is in potential growth centres where there might be one or two second level schools already in place. Some schools are on the list provided — Loughrea and Athenry are two examples of which I am aware. If Educate Together presumes there is a facility available for the development of a second level school, does that not run contrary to what Mr. Murray said in respect of what happens at primary level in so far as it is the numbers that will determine whether such a school will be established? We are splintering — if I can use that word — with regard to the provision of gaelscoileanna in such centres at primary and second level. There are the roots of a second level school in Athenry. The town has two traditional schools and a gaelscoil, and there is now the proposal from Educate Together to provide a fourth school. Chairman: We will take questions from other members because we do not want duplication. Deputy Ruairí Quinn: I welcome the delegation. I will be brief and to the point. I ask the delegates not to confuse this with simplicity. We have a new category of citizen whom I would describe as the compulsory Catholic. They have to get a baptismal certificate in order to get their child into the community school. I represent a constituency that is the least Catholic in the country and I am a member of the most rapidly growing denomination, i.e. atheist, agnostic or no religion. We are not recognised as citizens in this State. I know many people who, force majeure, have reluctantly and with great personal difficulty obtained a baptismal certificate for their child because there was no other way of getting that child into a school. That is a growing problem. Many of my friends in the Catholic Church and many priests are embarrassed that they have to go along with this. They feel very reluctant about participating in what is a fraudulent ceremony because the parents have no intention of bringing up their children in the Catholic faith. There is a crisis here which should be addressed first and foremost with the largest patron. Given the legal basis for the provision of primary education, the schools have no choice but to give first option to people who are members of the parish. Many people do not understand that this is the law of the land. I know this is political policy as much as administrative policy. Has Mr. Murray raised the matter of the new schools provision with the largest patron in Dublin, Archbishop Martin, who has said that he would like to divest patronage of a number of primary schools in the city? Has that matter been taken up with the patron? The second issue in relation to primary schools is not about supply but about service. The boards of management in many of the band one areas are not functioning. I do not know if the witnesses are aware of this. It may be a matter for people in another area of the Department of Education and Science. School principals are not getting the back-up and support that they require. In many cases the chairperson, representing the patron, is a very reluctant — and in some cases absent — person. The vocation that man has is not to run the primary school system and engage in battle with the Department. It is about saving souls. Many of these men are of an age where they are creeping away from the school system. There is also a decline in their numbers. This is a serious difficulty for the management of primary schools. What can an aggrieved parent do if a board of management is not appointed? In deference to the persons involved, I will not identify the cases of which we have been informed where there is a stand-off. The parents are powerless and the patron refuses to act. The Department of Education and Science washes its hands and says it is nothing to do with it. We have chosen democratically to have a confessional system of education delivery. The presumption that the VEC is a multidenominational provider of education at secondary level is merely that — a presumption. Practice on the ground is very different, particularly where a VEC college or community school has been created by a voluntary merger of several local schools run by religious congregations with an existing VEC. The quid pro quo, notwithstanding anything in the 1930s legislation, is that it is a de facto Catholic college. For that reason, Educate Together, which I support in relation to this, has sought to continue its ethos from the primary sector into second level. Since December 2007 there has been a request to become a patron. It is clear from the legislation that there is no prima facie reason as to why a patron at primary level should not be recognised as a patron at second level. That has been extended to An Foras Patrúnacha. The response to a parliamentary question in 2008 indicated that the matter is under consideration. When will the constitutional rights of parents who want multidenominational second level education be recognised? Will it require a court action to provoke a response? Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I welcome the breadth of quality provision in education, but there are sensitive local issues and questions about practicalities. There is a pilot scheme with the new VEC community model. On what statutory basis can a State school, such as a VEC community primary school, require children to be registered, labelled and separated according to their religious identity during the school day? A State school, as I understand it, has no exemption under the Equal Status Act. What are the practicalities of that? How will the main faiths be defined and by whom? Will there be a numerical limit to be reached by a faith community to be declared a main faith? Those are my questions regarding VEC schools. What are the barriers to Educate Together becoming a patron body at second level? Children have been educated for many years through this model at primary level. Has there been any research at second level on the pupils coming from the primary Educate Together model? Deputy Margaret Conlon: I share some of the concerns that Deputy Quinn has. Teachers have told me about the difficulty relating to baptismal certificates. There is pressure on priests to provide these certificates, knowing that in most cases the families are not practising the faith and attending regular church service. There has been a willingness in many schools in recent years to accept children from other denominations where the general intake has been falling. There is a difficulty in that such children in a Catholic school may not be willing to attend religion classses and they must be supervised elsewhere. They are not necessarily getting proper religious instruction in their own faith. There is an anomaly there. We have come some distance but there is a much longer road to travel. There must be a programme to cater for the needs of every child. Chairman: I welcome in principle the VEC model at primary level as giving increased choice for parents. I hope an evaluation of this model has already been carried out. When will the pilot phase end? When will the final evaluation be done? Has anything been learnt which would indicate a desirable change in the way schools are managed? It was useful to hear the religious breakdown of the two pilot schools. Is there an indication that religious education classes during school hours are right for a VEC primary school or would it work better outside school hours? I presume these issues have been considered. It is stated in the summary of the supplied document that the application by Educate Together seeking recognition raises many issues in relation to the provision of multi-denominational education at post-primary level. The full report does not state what those issues are, except that a type of multi-denomination system is already being delivered quite effectively by the VEC sector. If the choice factor for parents has already been recognised by establishing the VEC model at primary level, why is it taking so long to extend this model to second level, given that there is no constitutional barrier? There seems to be a territorial argument here. I know the witnesses cannot comment on certain issues, but I am aware from talking to people in the VECs that there is a great deal of resentment about Educate Together. There seems to be some grabbing of territory, which is wrong. In Lucan, in my constituency of Dublin Mid-West, there are five Educate Together schools — Lucan Educate Together, Esker, Lucan East, Adamstown and Griffeen Valley. This indicates that Lucan would be a prime candidate for a pilot school at second level. Two areas of land at Clonburris have been identified for school sites by vote of the council. Discussions are ongoing with the Lucan South Secondary School Action Group regarding a second level school and that is already earmarked as a community college. What would be the problem with piloting an Educate Together second level school in Lucan, given that there are five such primary schools in the area? Only through a pilot project can substantive issues be identified. I have seen the Educate Together ethos, which has been adopted by some primary denominational schools. There are differences at primary level between Educate Together and the VEC model and there are bound to be differences at second level as well. It is not a case of one multi-denominational model fitting all. Is there any valid reason not to find out whether Educate Together would provide a good model at second level by initiating a pilot project? Ms Ruth Carmody: On the question of broadening the range of people who can be patrons, the Minister can recognise anyone as a patron, depending on local needs. The purpose of the new legislation which we are progressing is to allow the VEC to become patron at primary level. Mr. Murray will deal with some other aspects of Deputy Burke’s queries. On Deputy Quinn’s questions, we are in the first year of a pilot project. The intention of the pilot, in accordance with the Government decision, is to develop structures that will allow for greater diversity. It will be seen from our submission that the pilot project is progressing quite satisfactorily, but it is early days. Over time, this will hopefully provide a basis for more diverse institutions where required. Senator Healy Eames referred to registration for religion. Obviously this is a voluntary system. Parents are not forced to declare any religion if they do not wish. From the point of view of the pilot project, it is of value to us to be aware of the various religions of the pupils in the school so that we can make adequate provision, where possible. On Deputy Conlon’s point, children are not being separated in the pilot schools. They are being taught together in so far as they can be. We are in the pilot phase but it is the intention to keep them all together for as long as possible. We are in the first year of the pilot and we have begun to set up the structures for evaluation. Mr. MacSitric might want to make some comments on that. We envisage it will take some time to be effective. Mr. Pat MacSitric: We have begun to develop a strategy to evaluate this new model. We have just two schools. One is ending its first year, the other its second year. Children are in the infant classes at this stage. The key issue in evaluating this pilot is engagement with those who are involved on a day-to-day basis — the teachers, the parents, the wider community, the religious leaders, as well as the VEC in terms of patronage and management. Curriculum is not a major issue because these schools stand as any other primary schools in the system. Evaluation of educational quality does not really enter into this. The key issue is how religious education is managed within the school. That programme has its own built-in evaluative strategy. There is constant engagement between the academic who is developing that for us, the expert in religious education, the teachers, the parents and the management of the schools. There is an ongoing evaluation. We are in the foothills of this process, but we will develop the evaluation process as we go along. Mr. Frank Murray: In response to Deputy Quinn, in all my experience as a principal of a community school and as general secretary of all the community and comprehensive schools, I have never come across anybody in those schools asking for a baptismal certificate. Chairman: You would not deny that it is a possibility. Members have been told this. Mr. Frank Murray: I am not denying that at all. I want to make it clear that from my experience at second level —— Deputy Ruairí Quinn: It would not arise at second level. Holy Communion and Confirmation are at primary level. Chairman: Is Mr. Murray saying it has not come to his attention? Mr. Frank Murray: It has not come to my attention. In the Tallaght area where I was very involved, there was certainly a multi-faith and non-denominational base. I know the empathy with which principals went about their duty in relation to that was exemplary. I can stand over that from my experiences of 26 primary schools in the Tallaght area. There was great empathy, understanding and sensitivity. I was shocked to hear that such requests would be made, but I do not doubt the validity of the question. At second level, the VEC schools are multi-denominational. The worst job anyone can have is to be involved in the boards of management of primary and post-primary schools. I am chairperson of two at the moment. It is important that people, in identifying certain specifics, should not come to the conclusion that this is the norm. It is not. If I have learned anything from today’s exchange of views it is that there is a greater need to educate members and chairpersons of boards to ensure these practices do not prevail. I accept there is more to be done in that area of training boards of management in the conduct of their duties. Archbishop Martin was frank and open in expressing his views in Kilmainham. His wish to be considered and concerned about an individual group or groups that wish to develop schools was welcomed, and it clarified many issues pertaining to denominational education because he has opened the door to a more embracing attitude in that context. The vocational education committees are at the start of an exciting process in developing primary schools. The evaluation of those new schools must be carried out quickly in terms of what can be learned from their practical experience. There is much to be learned from the practices that have been established. I have known Deputy Burke for a long time. We have crossed paths—— Chairman: Mr. Murray can call him Ulick. Mr. Frank Murray: We call each other much more than that. On the issue of Ballinasloe and other areas, I did some work in the Galway area and my experience is that there is unanimity on a cross-sectoral and cross-community basis to embrace change and deal with this issue with empathy. For that reason the Department has always been open to welcoming new ideas. In some areas things can get a little hot under the collar. I have probably visited more places than most people in regard to conducting public meetings on that but in my experience it is possible to find solutions through patience and perseverance. To take Ballinasloe as an example, it has worked out there for all concerned. I am speaking on a broad sweep basis. Some of the points raised must be given every consideration but I am much more optimistic that the judgments made after that consideration will be more in keeping with the suggestions being made here. I have no doubt this is a learning curve, and Ireland is on the cusp of a change. I do not want to elaborate beyond that. Deputy Ruairí Quinn: Mr. Murray referred to the interesting speech given by Archbishop Martin, which I heard. I have a high regard for the man. The archbishop indicated in public that as the patron in the Archdiocese of Dublin, which I presume has the largest cluster of primary schools, he did not want to be patron of all of them and that he would be happy to divest that responsibility. Has the Department of Education and Science taken up that particular pronouncement privately or is it its intention to explore it because it seems to be an extraordinary statement to make? Ms Ruth Carmody: What we are working on is the piloting of an alternative model to the current model. To that extent we are responding. Is the Deputy referring to an alternative model to the Catholic provision? Deputy Ruairí Quinn: No. We have a situation where, and the Department is funding it, the biggest patron in the country — 93% — says it wants to divest of some of its responsibilities in the area. Somebody might say that the Department might pick up the phone to ask what the patron has in mind. The archbishop went further because he referred to the dilemma it poses for the archdiocese. We are speaking exclusively about Dublin, and they are all princes in their own diocese, notwithstanding what Bishop Leo O’Reilly says. In terms of the consequences for the archbishop, how does he make the choice? If he decides to keep a particular school in a particular area, what social and class signal does that send out? |