The dismissal of the principal of Dunboyne interdenominational gaelscoil will be seen as a chance not taken to develop richness and diversity in education and amissed opportunity to show we can agree to differ and still work together, writes John Carr
The unnecessary sacking of Tomás Ó Dúlaing as principal in Dunboyne has dominated the summer in primary education. This dismissal will be looked on for a long time as a shameful episode where power was exercised with more righteousness than right.
What will history make of a board of management and a State-funded patron body, An Foras Patrúnachta, whose main response to the raising of valid questions on interdenominational education was dismissal with immediate effect? The words disproportionate, sad, unreasonable and backward spring to mind.
An Foras Patrúnachta in its attempts to justify the dismissal has sought to assert that religion is not the central issue here. The fact is religion is central to this dispute.
Nobody believes that the Dunboyne dispute would have arisen over a row about the teaching of maths or geography any more than people will accept that the Gulf War would have been waged if Kuwait produced carrots and not oil. Attempts by An Foras Patrúnachta to portray the dispute as primarily a matter of industrial relations are unconvincing. Furthermore, this argument distract from the real issues.
The introduction of interdenominational education was a welcome development in primary education and indeed in Irish society. For this An Foras Patrúnachta is to be lauded.
However, moving from a laudable objective to workable reality requires more than vague aspiration and woolly thinking. It requires, in the first instance, sound theory from which workable policy can be developed. Even then, when theory and policy is in place, issues arise during implementation which must be considered. In this way theory and practice are intertwined and through discussion, debate, exploration and experimentation workable practices are found. The word partnership encapsulates what is involved.
It is clear from what happened in Dunboyne that from the outset there was no generally agreed definition of interdenominational education. Neither was there an agreed understanding of how it was to be put into practice. When problems arose the school community began a process of discussion and debate and arrived at an agreed position that respected the rights and sensitivities of all.
It must be said at this point there was never a question of not teaching religion. It was a case of searching for the best way to teach religion in an interdenominational setting. Neither was there any attempt by the principal and a majority of parents to change the ethos of the school.
However, the reaction of An Foras Patrúnachta was to unilaterally overturn the consensus of the school community, dispensing with all notions of partnership. Many parents and the teachers were dismayed at the heavy-handed casting aside of their hard- won consensus.
Mr Ó Dúlaing as the educational leader of the school community had to handle the fall-out. He wrote to the parents in March 2002 outlining his difficulties with An Foras's decision. For this he was sacked in spite of numerous expressions of regret and strenuous representations on his behalf. In the end power won the day. But the dignity of Mr Ó Dúlaing contrasted with the scramble to justify his removal by those who could not answer the questions of teachers and parents about practice in this new model of school.
And yet the questions will not go away. The woolly thinking of An Foras on children "being together" for religious education fudges the real issues raised by teachers.
How can teachers teach, as truth, a doctrine which is accepted as truth by only one religious denomination? How can the principle of full and equal partnership between denominations in an interdenominational setting be preserved when a minority are offered nothing more than they would be in a denominational school?
In search of a way forward the Irish National Teachers' Organisation (INTO) called for a forum on interdenominational education to address the complex questions of a definition of interdenominational education and appropriate practices in such schools. The INTO has written to the Minister seeking his support for this forum. The support of the churches is also being sought.
This dispute has also brought a new focus on the purpose of religious education where there appears to be widely differing views on the subject.
Within the Roman Catholic tradition Bishop Duffy has said the imparting of religious knowledge is not as important as faith formation. Cardinal Connell has argued that the "primary school can be a place not only for the evangelisation of pupils but also for the continuing religious formation of the pupils, parents and their families". These opinions are quite different to those expressed recently in this newspaper by Bishop Clarke of the Church of Ireland.
This debate must be continued and to that end the INTO has decided that the place of religious education in a changing Ireland will be a major topic for discussion at its annual education conference in November.
Sadly, Dunboyne school has lost a principal who sought solutions to problems with dialogue, grappling with diversity and building a real school community. He was not content to simply reproduce what has gone before but to recreate something better. It is in this context that the decision to dismiss him was heavy- handed and disproportionate.
It will be seen as a chance not taken to develop richness and diversity in Irish education. It will be seen as a missed opportunity to show that we can agree to differ and still work together in the interests of children. It will be seen in time as another failure to face a new and engaging reality.
John Carr is general secretary
of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation