A chara, – Why does the The Irish Times ("Time for fair admissions to our primary schools is long overdue", Editorial, August 26th) persist in promoting fallacious arguments in relation to school admissions? Even if the particular provision of the Equal Status Act were repealed tomorrow, and if the State took over the running of every primary school in time for the school year about to start, the problem would remain of deciding on a way to prioritise admissions to schools where applications exceed places.
Your editorial states, “The current practice does not accord with a constitutional provision that prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religious profession, belief or status.” Much more important is the fact that Government practice does not accord with the constitutional provision at 42:4: “The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.”
The public good requires that the State provide the necessary educational facilities. Improvements are indeed necessary. Don’t scapegoat the patronage bodies. Put the blame squarely where it belongs – on the Government.
The Central Statistics Office reports that from April 2014 to April 2015, the population increased by 25,800. Since 2010 the increase is 80,600. The State has now 360,900 people between the ages of one and four – about 7.8 per cent of the population.
The Department of Education knows this, and has a good idea where the children are. It knows what it must do. How about an editorial on that?
Your editorial says: “The Department of Education should adopt a uniform approach to its admission policy for denominational and other national schools.” A uniform approach will not solve the problem unless the State carries out its constitutional obligation. If it does its duty, that particular problem will no longer exist. – Is mise,
PÁDRAIG McCARTHY,
Sandyford,
Dublin 16.
A chara, – Your editorial says our Government’s not changing the part of the Equal Status Act of 2000 which allows schools under religious patronage to give preference to children of the relevant denomination “represents a failure of political nerve”. Not so; it represents an understanding of what it is that the people want.
We were reminded in these pages recently that Department of Education studies show that there is very little demand for non-denominational education, despite all the hoopla that would like us to think otherwise.
That means changing the law equates to a great many parents who would be unhappy with it – not forgetting members of their family circles and also those in the wider community who would be equally displeased; an unhappiness that would undoubtedly be reflected in the ballot box come election time.
So even leaving aside the fact that there is nothing unfair about schools established to cater for a particular denomination prioritising those of that denomination, the lack of change is not indicative of a lack of nerve; it shows that our Government has its finger on the pulse. Of course, it may well represent a failure of our politicians to kowtow to pressure from the media and vested interests on this issue.
But that, I would suggest, is a good thing. – Is mise,
Rev PATRICK G BURKE,
Castlecomer,
Co Kilkenny.
Sir, – In a country with increasing numbers of different faiths, it is impractical for every child to have a local school matching a parent’s beliefs. Perhaps it is time to consider a model of education where every child has the equal right to access education, and to receive education which doesn’t exclude them or infringe their religious rights. And the only way to vindicate these rights is a secular education.
The good thing about a secular education is that it doesn’t discriminate against children of any belief or non-belief; all children are treated inclusively and equally. Surely that is the only consideration of importance in this debate. – Yours, etc,
JASON FITZHARRIS,
Swords,
Co Dublin.