Rubbishing the British school league tables is now an annual event. They publish, we damn them. This year our damnation grew teeth with the publication in the Republic on exactly the same day of an ESRI report, "Do Schools Differ?", which confirmed what we already knew.
Wide gaps in exam performance between schools occur primarily because of economic and social factors rather than individual ability. It's not a matter of how schools differ but why.
Case closed. But for once so also is a large portion of the debate. Whereas last year we might have argued about the rights and wrongs of it, or suggested better models of performance indicators, this year's introduction of the 1998 Education Act means we cannot take things much further.
School league tables are to be banned by law so anyone who dares to publish relevant information for the public will face due process.
Why may we not know? Because the minister tells us so. In an unlikely contemporary parable of what curiosity does to cats, the minister has effectively validated the practice of using anecdotal evidence rather than fact as a basis for choosing your child's school, that is if you are in a financial or geographical position to exercise choice in the first place.
"Essentially," the Minister for Education, Mr Martin, told the Seanad, "the Bill provides . . . for refusals of access to certain information which might lead to the generation of school league tables."
Being "strongly of the view" that tables should not be introduced, he assured parents that their existing rights would not be compromised by his decision.
Presumably, the publicly expressed concerns of the teaching unions and of the 1994 National Education Convention have won precedence, i.e that schools could use league tables as a marketing ploy and that parents would fall for the trap.
But even if that were the case, the reverse could also be true. Why should parents in disadvantaged areas not be entitled to information which proves their case for increased resources.
Now that we are forbidden league tables they become all the more intriguing. Why is it that Irish barristers, for example, are drawn from the same handful of predominantly fee-paying schools? Mr Martin is obviously not going to proscribe wearing of emblems like the old school tie which allows feeder schools to be identified and encourages upwardly mobile parents to enrol children there.
WHAT makes this ban the more surprising are the findings of the Department of Education's own 1994 Strategic Management Initiative that "many departmental objectives as expressed have tended to be qualitative and generalised". The White Paper went on to note the need `to address as a priority the development of more appropriate performance indicators, even though this will in many instances be very difficult".
We can easily agree that the British system of performance indicators is too rough and ready to tell us much of value about quality education. It only stresses exam results so schools which operate strict entrance criteria start with an advantage. Thus, the more you have, the more you are likely to receive: wealth and parental involvement are key factors in determining a pupil's exam results, with others, such as sex and English language fluency, playing a lesser role.
Our education system is good but not great. The Republic remains below average EU and OECD educational attainment levels. Some 53 per cent of Irish people between 26 and 54 have not completed secondary education. The worse your socio-economic status the more likely you are to be failed by the system.
Dr Don Thornhill, a former secretary at the Department of Education, recently pointed out that unless action is directed towards disadvantaged communities the Republic will still lag behind in 2015.
There are excellent social and educational reasons why we should not use such a limited league system. Throughout this century, most Irish pupils left school without any formal qualifications. This was not because they lacked ability but because, for various reasons, they were neither entered for qualifying exams nor allowed the educational environment necessary to develop their potential.
Like the British model on which it was based, the system was structured to ensure that the majority "failed" within it. The significant difference now is that the system itself is considered to be at fault for failing disadvantaged pupils - and that's official, as Mr Martin's historic Act recognises.
The question is why Mr Martin, himself a former teacher, should find it necessary to deny public access to exam results as a matter of law rather than of culture and consensus? This in spite of a potential conflict of legal interests with the Ombudsman Act, if not with the Constitution.
It is certainly not in the best interests of the teaching profession to keep its work so secret. Parents are not stupid but they are human: the less transparent its contribution, the more parents will suspect the reasons why teaching unions lag behind in calling for specific public performance indicators.
Knowledge has always been recognised as the power it is and rationed inversely from the top down. As Eve knew, and Adam found out, what is restricted always becomes more desirable. And challenging it can pay off: Finn MacCumhail's power was founded on an act of disobedience when he tasted the salmon of knowledge.
DESPITE a growing sense of parent power, parents' rights remain uncertain whatever their socio-economic clout. Although the new Act officially identifies them as partners in the education system, along with educational institutions and trade unions, a parent's right to access information or co-determine policy is minimal.
Thus parents must continue to rely on anecdotal evidence which, arguably, makes it even more likely that school choice will continue to reflect existing social groupings.
We tend, after all, to listen more to people like us than to those who differ. We ask other parents to share their experience or hearsay about possible schools; we discover that people we know, respect, or wish to emulate, send their children to the same or similar schools. In other words, we confirm our assumptions. The status quo is maintained.
Educational inequality is intolerable and undemocratic. We can't feel strongly enough about it. But feeling is all we can do. Making rational arguments is not possible until and unless specific performance indicators are made available to everyone for open debate.
As things stand, we are prevented from forming proper judgements for lack of heavyweight evidence. That recipe must give prejudice the status of fact.