Funding of 'institutions of privilege'

Madam, – Surely Sean Byrne in his piece on Protestant schools (Opinion, June 3rd) has got the wrong end of the stick? Instead…

Madam, – Surely Sean Byrne in his piece on Protestant schools (Opinion, June 3rd) has got the wrong end of the stick? Instead of berating them for the excellent management skills that have ensured that they are the best-resourced and most desirable schools for children of all beliefs, should he not have written to explain why the non-Protestant schools have singularly failed to reach the same standards?

As an ex Christian Brothers boy, I could make some suggestions, but perhaps a glance at your recent Letters pages might give him some thought. – Yours, etc,

TOM Mac MAHON,

Mount Auburn,

Killiney,

Co Dublin.

Madam, – Despite being a daily reader it is almost 30 years since I have been prompted to pen a letter to the Editor. However the article by Mr Sean Byrne regarding the funding of Protestant schools (June 3rd) deserves immediate rebuttal lest anyone not acquainted with the facts is influenced by it.

Those facts are simply that the State, in applying the O’Malley reforms to facilitate universal post-primary education in the late 1960s, recognised that due to the dispersal of the Protestant population, all Protestant schools served a broad spectrum of pupils from families of differing financial means. Outside Dublin it simply was not (and today is not) possible to promote schools with such an ethos without having a wide catchment area.

READ MORE

Consequently schools that provide a broader experience and boarding facilities were included in the grant scheme. This was a practical means of assuring universal access to post-primary education, within their ethos, for the largest minority community at the time and it has broadly succeeded in its objective.

Mr Byrne’s article, which assembles a series of arguments with no coherence except their superficial usefulness to his hypothesis, is misleading. Yes, the State does need to recognise the position of those with no religion and those with other minority faiths, but its tardiness in so doing is not a justification for discriminating against a minority that it has been at pains to protect. Justifying his opinions by referring to a folk memory of the behaviour of one Church of Ireland rector over 175 years ago amply illustrates the shallow foundation of his arguments and reminds me of the worst prejudices of some in the Ireland I experienced as a child. Arguing that some children at Protestant schools are not Irish or Protestant or not committed to their church is irrelevant. The purpose of the grant was to enable parents to expose their children to education within their ethos.

There is no comprehensive non-denominational school network available to all pupils. If such were available throughout the country the argument for the retention of the capitation fee for Protestant schools might be weakened.

To provide such a network would require a complete re-structuring of the post-primary school system and the usurpation of a great number of denominational schools, mainly Roman Catholic, unless the State were to duplicate many existing resources. Such is not on the agenda at present and, given the relative success and cost-effectiveness of our system when compared with the state system in Britain for example, one would hope that it will not be pursued.

The State has worked hard to nourish its biggest minority. Removing financial support for minority ethos schools without providing a real alternative will constitute a step along a path of cultural genocide that has been carefully avoided since the late 1920s. I sincerely hope that step will not be taken. – Yours, etc,

DAVID BEATTIE,

Ballymahon,

Co Longford.