The High Court's decision to allow publication of school inspection reports is good news for parents - and a blow to the culture of secrecy in Irish education, writes Seán Flynn, Education Editor
In the corporate culture of the Department of Education, information - especially on schools - is jealously guarded and rarely released to the public.
This arrangement suits the wishes of the people who hold the real power in Irish education - the teachers' unions and management bodies.
It may not suit most parents who desperately want to make an informed choice before selecting a school for their child. But parents exert little clout within a system where they remain second-class citizens.
Against this background, it was no surprise when the Department of Education refused a request from The Irish Times for inspection reports. The request under the Freedom of Information Act has been primarily because of the failure of the Department to provide any information on literacy figures. Some external reports have suggested that 10 per cent of our children leave primary school with serious reading difficulties, but the Department has been reluctant to release any details.
An example of this was when The Irish Times sought internal reviews of a National Reading Initiative, launched with great fanfare by former minister, Dr Michael Woods, three years ago. Again, the information was refused - even though the review and any evaluation of it is probably gathering dust in some department filing cabinet.
Inspection reports would probably have followed the same route until the Information Commissioner backed The Irish Times appeal - and ordered their release. But this process was delayed when a Dublin principal - with the support of the INTO - went to the High Court in an attempt to halt publication.
On Thursday, the High Court ruled that the principal in question had failed to prove that publication would be damaging. The court also said it would be slow to inhibit the operation of the Freedom of Information Act, which had been passed by the Oireachtas.
A stay of 21 days has been placed on the publication of the reports, pending a possible appeal. The only party who can appeal the ruling is Mr Barney Sheedy, the principal who launched the High Court case. He must now decide whether there are sufficient grounds for an appeal.
Education sources say a broad appeal is unlikely, but an appeal on a point of law cannot be ruled out.
So what can we expect if and when the reports are finally published? In a statement last week, the Joint Management Body (JMB), which represents the majority of school managers, claimed the reports do not take into account such factors as the quality of school buildings or the resources available to teachers.
In fact, a report published by the Department two years ago spoke in great detail about dilapidated schools and crumbling buildings.
In an unusual move, the Department inspectors released details of what they had found in 50 primary schools visited during 2001/2. The decision to release the document was backed by the Chief Inspector, Mr Eamonn Stack, widely seen as one of the most progressive and forward-looking senior officials.
The report, issued in December 2002, found that crumbling buildings and tuition charges in schools that are supposed to be free are just some of the problems facing primary schools.
Teachers were generally praised on their performance, but the report said a minority did not make adequate preparation before class.
The report also highlighted the poor state of primary buildings throughout the State. Almost half of the schools visited operated from buildings which were either too small or dilapidated. There was a severe lack of toilet facilities and general-purpose rooms in many schools.
The report also accused some schools of ignoring Department guidelines on class size. In some cases, there were more than 30 pupils in one class.
The release of this information is good for individual schools, good for parents, and arguably very good for teachers.
The Minister for Education, Mr Dempsey, welcomed that report, which he said was part of his statutory function to evaluate the work of schools and to provide information, support and advice on a range of issues.
Publication was also welcomed by the INTO. It said "rarely have civil servants shown the courage to criticise their political masters as the inspectors have done in this report".