Primary school education failure

The statement issued by Government sources that the proposed children’s rights amendment to the Constitution will be a “strong, robust article designed to enhance the constitutional protection of children from abusive situations” is somewhat lacking in credibility.

Already we have two child-specific constitutional obligations in our Constitution, neither of which is implemented.

The first is the obligation on the State to provide for free primary education. It isn’t free and it is but a pious aspiration. The second issue that concerns us and many parents — including those who made their feelings known to the Irish Human Rights’ Commission in 2010 — is the obligation on the State to ensure that any child may attend any school which is in receipt of public money without being indoctrinated while in class (Article 44.4.2).

Under human rights’ conventions children whose parents don’t want them indoctrinated in a particular religion are entitled not to be marginalised, discriminated against and disadvantaged in the exercise of this right. The Whittaker Commission on the Constitution (1996) acknowledged that the treatment of such children now is unconstitutional. This was, at last, recognised by the Minister for Education, Ruairi Quinn, when he set up a Committee on Pluralism and Patronage. This body recommended that the arrangements for religious instruction and formation in our stand-alone national schools, ie, where there’s no inclusive school available locally, must be changed. This is to ensure that the children of non-religious and minority religion parents are not denied their constitutional rights in publicly-funded schools under the patronage of a particular Church. It is not good enough that youngsters be left twiddling their thumbs for at least two and a half hours at the back of the class while the rest learn their prayers in the same room.

The failure of the Government to move on Prof Coolahan’s Committee’s recommendations for stand-alone national schools is most disturbing, and one has to question whether their commitment to their constitutional obligations to children is a genuine one in the light of this. We hope that undue deference to the interests of institutional churches is not trumping the existing constitutional rights of parents and their children. The Government should act now to remove the appearance of insincerity by giving effect to their existing constitutional obligations to children before the referendum date. If time is too short, then defer the referendum until this is done and hold it with the next national elections.

John Colgan,

Michael McKillen,

Dick Spicer

3 Seaview Terrace

Dublin 4