Parents have taught the Church a leson in North Mon amalgamation spat

THE future of the Church, its power, and its position in Irish society have been glimpsed over the last three weeks in a spat about education. The location was the northside of Cork City, but unfolding events spoke volumes of how the Catholic Church at large intends to shape a future to serve its needs and retain as much power as possible.

Last Monday, the Edmund Rice Schools Trust (ERST) waved a white flag over a proposal it had forwarded to amalgamate Scoil Mhuire Fatima boys’ school, at the North Monastery, with nearby St Vincent’s girls’ school. The proposal, made public on February 11 by the trustee body, had outraged parents, teachers and past pupils. None of the stakeholders had been consulted about the proposal, which would have involved the boys’ school vacating the North Mon campus and moving down the road to St Vincent’s.

The proposal was dressed up as a response to falling numbers, but many saw it as a cynical move, completely at odds with the kind of ethos ERST, and the three other Catholic trustee bodies involved, claim to represent.

Apart from effectively shutting a school that has a long and distinguished history, the move would have packed two schools into a smaller campus. Vitally, the new location would have robbed boys of the playing facilities enjoyed at the North Mon. The importance of hurling to the school can’t be overstated, its lineage stretching from Sean Óg Ó hAilpín back to Jack Lynch, and beyond.

Both the North Mon primary and St Vincent’s are Deis schools, which means that they are in areas designated as disadvantaged.

So what was to become of the vacated, prime North Mon site? That was to be the new home for Gaelscoil Pheig Sayers, which was to move from its location, in Farrenferris.

The excellent reputations of gaelscoileanna have ensured that they have been much sought-after, by middle-class parents in particular.

So if one were to view the proposal solely in socio-economic terms, it involved two schools with disadvantaged status being packed into one premises, while moving a gaelscoil onto the prime North Mon site.

What would Edmund Rice, whose vocation was informed by a desire to educate poor boys, have thought of this proposal, from those who act in his name?

The manner in which the proposal was undertaken was instructive. The principals were called to a meeting in the bishop’s house. The meeting was presided over by a diocesan official.

The four trustee bodies, led by ERST, told the teachers how it was going to be. The proposal was apparently presented as a fait accompli.

Cue outrage. Opposition was mobilised. Meetings were called, including a public meeting to which ERST was invited, but no representative from the trustee body showed up. More than 6,000 signatures were gathered in a petition to stop the move. A march held last Saturday, in Cork City centre, attracted more than 600 people.

Having failed to get ERST to come to them, a group of parents had intended marching on the body’s HQ, in Dublin, yesterday, the closing date for submissions on the proposal.

Those parents were headed-off at the pass by ERST, which issued a release last Monday saying the proposal was being withdrawn “for now”. To wave the white flag ahead of even the closing date for submissions spoke of complete shock at the reaction the proposal had elicited. The parents and teachers in the Deis schools did not lie down and accept their fate, as they were supposed to do.

What does the whole affair say about ERST, in particular, and the Church, in general, in their approach to the future of education? ERST was set up in 2008, as a charitable body of lay people taking control of the schools owned by the Christian Brothers. The move was sold as a response to the collapse of vocations, and the requirement for a new model of trusteeship. The transfer of assets from the Brothers insulated the school properties from any claims by the survivors of clerical sex abuse, and from the State in pursuit of same. At a time when a more pluralist society ensures that the Church will no longer be the near-exclusive provider of primary school education, holding onto the assets is no small matter.

This column has previously posited the theory that in the retrenchment of education in our pluralist society, the Church is determined that it, rather than government or society at large, controls the change. Currently, a process is underway to examine how school patronage can be transferred from the Church to State, multi- or non-denominational bodies in order to better reflect society.

The Church bodies have insisted that divestment of patronage can only occur with the consent of parents. On the face of it, this is a fair and noble position.

However, in reality patronage is not the most important determinant for parents in choosing a school. Reputation for academic achievement, sports, cultural pursuits, and happy and well-adjusted children are the real issues for parents, irrespective of who has control of the school. Therefore, parents who have found a school that includes these positives, regardless of the patronage, will be slow to change anything.

This puts the Church in the driving seat. Thus, it will, to a large extent, be in a position to determine where divestment occurs and where it doesn’t. What is likely to emerge is a scenario similar to Britain, where a Catholic education is, to a large extent, an exclusive education.

Where does the North Mon proposal sit in this grander scheme of things? Quite obviously, there was a different attitude to parents’ considerations in this proposal. The wants and needs of the parents didn’t chime with those of the trustee body, and, therefore, the mantra of “parent-led change” was shoved into a dark corner.

Quite obviously, ERST saw the future in a particular light that best served its power and influence, and moved with those objectives to the fore. Somebody, somewhere, was under the impression that parents in a Deis school would suck it up and accept their fate, as handed down by their betters. Quite obviously, there was a serious miscalculation.

In this instance, the mobilisation of parent power, allied to the morally-sound case they invoked, ensured that the wider societal imperative for education won out.

Ominously, defeat was conceded with the rider that the proposal was being shelved “for now”.

On the whole, notwithstanding the scandals of recent years, the involvement of the Church in education in this country has been positive. That involvement also bestowed great power on the institution. Now that it is in retreat, the retention of as much power as possible is to the fore among those guiding the Church through these choppy waters. That reality demands that vigilance will continue to be required by all who have a stake in the future direction of education at a time of great change.