A chara, – I cannot agree entirely with Susan Fitzgerald (September 5th) that "in every area of public service run by the State there are calls for regular and thorough systems of regulation" and that, therefore, Monica O'Connor was wrong to refuse to submit to such regulation regarding home schooling.
Article 42 of Bunreacht na hÉireann safeguards the right of parents to choose a school with an ethos they support, or alternatively to home school. The latter, far from being a public service provided by the State, is precisely a method of education outside State direction. Not all parents are happy with State education, or else simply believe that home schooling is a better alternative for their own children. Consider the tiny number of people who actually write the syllabus which is imposed on all State schoolchildren – it is in the dozens, for a nation of millions.
The family is the basic unit of society and of civilisation, and parents are the natural and primary educators of their children. The school – and the State – exists to support and protect the family, not the other way round.
What if parents do not agree with the criteria by which their children are to be “inspected” by the State? Home schooling groups made these points in the debate leading up to the Education (Welfare) Act 2000. The initial draft of this legislation had effectively equated home schooling with truancy. Some of our ideas were incorporated. We were willing to have our children present a portfolio of work at a neutral location, or present for State exams as external candidates, but objected to the intrusion of inspectors into private homes.
The question remains, who is the ultimate boss of our children – the parents or the State? There will always be “hard cases” that can be dealt with on an individual basis; but the basic fact remains – you cannot have two bosses. – Is mise,
MICHEÁL
Ó FEARGHAIL,
BSc, Dip Ed,
Sallybrook House,
Glanmire, Co Cork.