Why we’re losing faith in state education

TWO years ago, a friend of mine moved house. She and her husband are living in south-east London. Their son was three years of age, and another son was on the way.

They wanted to buy within reach of a Catholic school. Research, through friends, led them to conclude that Catholic schools were best. Neither my friend nor her husband are religious. They don’t attend mass regularly. Their choice was a belief that Catholic schools were better than state schools.

Catholic schools in England represent an elite form of education. It’s different in this country, because the Catholic Church has a near-monopoly on primary education. The Church controls 92% of Ireland’s 3,200 primary schools.

That will change over the coming years, but the danger is that a two-tiered system will emerge, with Catholic schools representing the upper tier. It’s difficult to believe that Jesus Christ would have approved of such a societal shift.

That the Church still retains its near-monopoly of education is an anomaly in a democracy. Religious observance in this country has gone through the floor over the past 30 years. Aggregate polls put the level of weekly attendance at mass at 40%. In urban areas, it is lower. Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has said that attendance in some parts of Dublin dips below 5%.

Both the Church and the Government acknowledge that the landscape of school patronage must change.

Education Minister Ruairi Quinn has set up a Forum of Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector. The forum met for the first time 10 days ago.

Quinn has said that he would like to see the Church divested of 50% of schools.

Earlier this month, the Catholic Schools Partnership (CSP), a body set up by the bishops and religious orders, expressed “concern” at such a target, saying it was “way over the top.” The CSP’s chairman, Fr Michael Drumm, suggested a figure of 10%.

How exactly the Church divests itself of patronage will be vital. One might reasonably imagine that if Jesus Christ was running the show, he would concentrate his energies on those whose need is greatest. If the model in England is followed, the Church might do the opposite and concentrate on retaining control in more affluent areas, where most power in society resides.

A Catholic education would then become exclusive, much sought-after, particularly as the school could shape enrolment policy. In a speech last May on the future of the Church, Diarmuid Martin acknowledged that this attitude pertains among parents.

“Many people send their children to what is today a Catholic school, not primarily because it is a Catholic school, but because it is a good school,” he said.

“I am not sure that parents would change their children from that school if it were to become simply a national school. The level of parents’ interest in Catholic education will only be objectively measured when they have real choice.”

Only time will tell whether the Church will shape that choice by concentrating on retention of the “good schools” [when divesting itself of patronage.]

One matter that has so far got lost in any debate over patronage is the question of what exactly constitutes a Catholic education today.

There are precious few religious in teaching positions any more. Lay teachers have little choice but to be trained through the religion, but how many of them could claim to represent Catholicism? The teaching of religion is similarly affected.

How does the education received in 92% of schools differ from that in the other 8%?

The ethos of a Catholic school is summed up in a definition used by the Diocese of Kerry.

“The Catholic school is a faith school that expresses a set of core values that can be described as human, religious, Christian and Catholic. The educational vision which flows from these values is one which promotes the dignity, self-esteem and full development of each pupil as a human person.”

Sterling stuff, but how does the vision as espoused differ from that in schools under any other patronage?

Promoting the dignity, self-esteem and full development of pupils is the focus of practically all schools this side of the militant Madras system in Pakistan.

Apart from the Church’s traditional obsession with matters sexual and reproductive, is there any other way in which it approaches differently the development of the young?

Archbishop Martin, in the same speech referenced above, said the ethos is not being applied rigorously.

“We are also deluding ourselves if we think that what is in fact presented as a curriculum for religious education and formation in faith is actually being applied everywhere,” he said.

So to what end does the Church wish to retain patronage at all? Is it all about power?

The third leg in the education stool is the most important — parents. As the archbishop said, parents naturally want the best education for their children.

But do they want a Catholic education, or is that just a default position?

Presumably, the large minority who attend mass regularly would want a Catholic education for their children. But how many simply find it handy that the school takes the major role in religious instruction?

This, in turn, can have major effects on a child’s religious development. In Ireland today, the dilemma of many mothers on the occasion of a child’s Holy Communion is not what is the body of Christ, but what in the name of God will I wear?

Other Christian faiths, as well as Islam, insist on parents taking a major role, outside of school hours, in the religious instruction of children.

This is also the case in Catholicism in other countries where it isn’t the dominant religion. Educate Together, the schools under a non-denominational patronage, offers instruction in the sacraments outside school hours.

In all these cases, religious instruction is seen as something requiring serious will and effort from parents, effectively a declaration that they are living their religion.

The Catholic Church in Ireland has a more laid back approach to these matters, as if insisting on genuine and regular engagement from parents may act as a disincentive to send their kids to the school, and that, rather than taking religion seriously, is the main preoccupation. Church figures quoting “parental choice” as their main focus is all very well, but sometimes it may just be a matter of parental laziness.

There is a case to be made for the Catholic Church to take itself seriously by backing off from education. Religious instruction could then be provided exclusively outside school hours, to those who genuinely want it.

That won’t happen. But it is imperative that the shifting landscape of school patronage is not dominated by a grab for power.

The Church may well focus on holding onto as many “good schools” as possible, but that would hardly be the way of Christ.