Sir, – Dermot Stanley (Letters, January 21st) says that the Department of Education has placed school boards in an impossible position by using them as a kind of buffer between itself and the complicated world of Irish education.
This position has not arisen overnight and was clearly indicated when Richard Mulcahy, speaking in the Dáil in 1956, said: “You have your teachers, your managers and your churches and I regard the position as Minister in the Department of Education as that of a dungaree man, the plumber who will make the satisfactory communications and streamline the forces and potentialities of the educational workers and educational management in this country. He will take the knock out of the pipes and will link up everything.”
Nearly 67 years later, it is not altogether clear that the plumber is continuing to take the knock out of the pipes but it is certain that the plumber has not replaced the whole creaking system which is long overdue for replacement. – Yours, etc,
LOUIS O’FLAHERTY,
Dublin riots left north inner city youth ‘traumatised’ by the stigma of violence
A helping hand with the cost of caring: what supports are available?
Matt Williams: Take a deep breath and see how Sam Prendergast copes with big Fiji test
New Irish citizens: ‘I hear the racist and xenophobic slurs on the streets. Everything is blamed on immigrants’
Santry,
Dublin 9.
Sir, – Perhaps the biggest weakness in Dermot Stanley’s proposal for school management is that it would enable the State to impose itself on even the minutest affairs of every school, stretching its claws into every nook and cranny of each. Mr Stanley’s proposal imagines a restrictive definition of school experience conducted under a sole value system akin to the operational patterns of a semi-State body, each of whose units mirror each other’s procedures entirely.
Mr Stanley’s proposition contradicts the whole notion of cultural diversity that still characterises the Irish Republic. Mr Stanley attests to this contradiction with his proposal to “relieve the religious bodies of their agenda”. We are invited to trade the current cultural variety of school experience for a stifling cultural uniformity imposed by the State.
Apart from the occasional very serious incidents, school boards are rarely charged with dealing with issues beyond their competence to address. In the voluntary sector, the boards concerned have very good support services, both legal and advisory. The boards are well served by the quality of management exhibited by school principals.
Mr Stanley is correct to advert to the fact that when critically serious issues arise the buck stops with the chairperson of a board. Nowadays most chairpersons are aware of such possibilities. Nobody likes the hassle of making the necessary decisions which are unlikely to please everyone. But the necessary supports and indemnifications are there provided the chairperson follows the required procedures. The chairperson is free from the infiltration of political interference, and the system benefits from its freedom from possible inefficient practices of State bureaucracy.
No managerial system is free from flaws, but the voluntary service of individuals on boards of management of schools has enabled citizens other than those in the employ of the State to serve the citizens well, including the promotion of cultural diversity to the advantage of the State. – Yours, etc,
NEIL BRAY,
Cappamore,
Co Limerick.