The answer to school patronage model?

Sir, – I refer to Carl O'Brien's article in relation to the Community National Schools, "Is this the answer to the school patronage model?" (Education, January 19th). As a parent in the process of applying for a school place for my five-year-old son, my answer to your reporter's question is an emphatic "No".

From the limited information available on the Community National School model, children are segregated into four groups for what is referred to as “faith nurturing”. These groups are Catholic, other Christian, Muslim and a group comprising Hindus, Buddhists and humanists.

Too many questions come to mind to include in this letter in relation to how these groups work in practice, particularly the fourth grouping.

In addition, it is important to note that not all non-religious people identify themselves as humanists.

READ MORE

How are children of these families facilitated? In any event, I do not want my children labelled and segregated from their classmates on religious grounds.

In our adult lives, we do not segregate on religious grounds at work, socially or otherwise. Why should we do this to our children?

In the debate on school patronage, much is made of parental choice and demand. A significant number of Educate Together schools are heavily oversubscribed. In addition, there are parent groups across the country campaigning for new Educate Together schools. Our campaign in Dublin 6W has identified the demand for three such schools, yet we await confirmation from the Department of Education if even one will be provided.

Where are the parents giving up their evenings and weekends to campaign for Community National Schools?

Educate Together provides equality-based, child-centred education where no child is segregated from their classmates based on the religious beliefs of their parents. The Educate Together model is the answer to the patronage question. The demand for these schools from parents is being voiced loud and clear. It is time for the politicians to start listening. – Yours, etc,

CLEM BRENNAN,

Dublin 6W.

Sir, – In relation to Carl O’Brien’s article, I would like to address serious questions about policy, human rights and parental choice in Community National Schools.

First, serious human rights questions remain about the “Goodness Me, Goodness You” programme in these pilot schools. These schools purport to provide religious instruction to children of “main faith groups”.

In practice, this means separating children according to their religious background during a school day. Catholic children remain with their class teachers for religious instruction, as in Catholic schools, and “others” are removed for some alternative provision. This may or may not involve religious instruction, depending on whether or not the child in question happens to be identified as being in a “main faith group”.

No matter how carefully teachers try to manage this at local level, the model is founded on flawed principles – more focussed on the rights of religious organisations than those of individual children (or teachers). These divisive practices should not be permitted, never mind promoted, in State schools.

Second, the roll-out of further Community National Schools ignores the expressed preferences of parents. In surveys run by the Department of Education in 2011 and 2012, parents were asked to indicate their preferred primary school model. Educate Together was selected by parents in 25 out of 28 areas.

Rather than seeking to promote further a model that already enjoys generous State funding and support, the Minister should invest greater energy in delivering on commitments made to parents in the 19 areas that are still waiting for Educate Together schools. – Yours, etc,

CATHERINE O’BRIEN,

Saggart,

Co Dublin.