Who decides who belongs in our schools?
In Ireland, the right to appropriate education is not a matter of interpretation or opinion but a constitutionally protected entitlement. Capacity and resources must be planned for, but overcoming such challenges is part of the normal work of public provision planning. File photo
Few issues shape Irish society as deeply as education. Indeed, it has been a contentious issue even before the inception of the State.
Over a century ago, Pádraig Pearse warned that a system of education which standardises children and suppresses curiosity “kills the soul”. In his book of essays, , he described schooling as a living, communal practice that should foster cultural rootedness and social cohesion.
Pearse denounced the transplantation of England’s class-stratified system into Ireland, arguing that education should serve the nation rather than a privileged class, nurturing citizens rather than reproducing hierarchy.
His vision of learning as a collective act remains relevant today, as parents are again asked to consider what kind of education best reflects our shared values. The persistent tension between public funding and private control continues to shape who can access inclusion in our publicly-funded mainstream schools.
Pearse’s vision still speaks to the heart of what education should be; a shared public project that reflects the realities and diversity of Irish life. Today, that project is now delivered through a system largely governed by private patron bodies, but funded by the State.
While patronage remains part of the overall structure, its role raises important questions about accountability and public purpose. Boards of management are not independent fiefdoms but custodians of public funding and civic trust.
Their task is to translate shared democratic values (equality, participation, and respect for diversity) into the daily practices of schooling. Autonomy, in this sense, must carry accountability for the outcomes it creates.
Almost all primary schools (around 94%–95%) remain under religious patronage, and about half of post-primary schools are managed by religious organisations. This mix of public funding and private control has real consequences, especially for pupils with additional needs, whose access to support can depend more on local decisions than national policy.
Whether the debate is about parents choosing a school’s ethos or a school deciding whether to open a special class, both raise the same question: how much freedom should schools have when that freedom can blur accountability in a publicly funded system?
While debate has often centred on whether religious patronage should remain dominant, far less attention has been given to what this structure means in practice. What influence do patrons exert over governance, admissions, and specialist provision for autistic students or those with disabilities?
Some commentators have recently objected to government moves to impel schools to open special classes, or at least provide a rationale for why they would not. These objections adopt a narrow interpretation of school or patron autonomy and frame such moves by government as undermining boards of management or patron bodies.
However, when autonomy is interpreted too broadly, local discretion may override national policy, blurring accountability. If schools use “capacity” or “ethos” as grounds to defer provision, the effect is the same: access to education becomes conditional rather than guaranteed. That risk appears to exist regardless of who holds a school’s patronage.
In Ireland, the right to appropriate education is not a matter of interpretation or opinion but a constitutionally protected entitlement. Capacity and resources must be planned for, but overcoming such challenges is part of the normal work of public provision planning.
It goes without saying that resourcing matters in supporting any kind of educational provision, and particularly for those pupils whose needs are particularly complex. Schools cannot conjure sensory rooms or adapted toilets overnight but the test of reasonableness in the Education Act presumes constructive engagement with policy goals, irrespective of patronage autonomy.
When boards or patrons use self-assessed capacity as grounds to delay provision, they risk moving beyond the limits of that “reasonable” principle. Do they risk sustaining the very inequities and exclusions that Irish law was designed to remove?
This is a very real concern given that, as recently as 1993, the then-minister of education legally fought parents of children with disabilities on the basis that their children fell outside the scope of compulsory education, a position rejected by the High Court.
While much has changed within the education system, recent NCSE figures show persistent inequalities, such as there being no autism special classes hosted in fee-paying post-primary schools in Dublin.
By comparison, multi-denominational or non-fee-paying secondary schools are more likely to host special classes. All of these schools are publicly funded, yet the pattern of provision differs in significant ways.
This points to two realities. First, fee-paying schools are already among the most well-resourced in the country. Second, religious patronage alone does not explain why some schools provide special classes and others do not.
It raises an important question: should any school that receives public funding be free to invoke “autonomy” when deciding which local children (on the basis of their diagnosis or disability) it will or will not include?
Since the first patronage survey in 2012, Ireland’s schools have changed dramatically. One in five pupils now has a diagnosed learning difference, and autism class provision has grown by 400% in a decade.
This is the Ireland that our education system should be supporting and providing appropriate education to. The deeper question is how inclusion is understood and who ensures access for every child.
Who is accountable for how the State provides education, including to our most vulnerable children? Inclusion does not mean the creation of a special class in every school.
However, where there is a need for such classes, surely there is a shared responsibility to provide them. The landmark court cases of the 1990s handed down a clear judgment on this question; it is the responsibility of the State.
The need for special classes is no longer exceptional. Policy now sensibly holds that such classes (where required) should be available close to the pupils who need them. More than a century after Pearse’s vision, the challenge remains: to build a system that serves every child with fairness and accountability.
- Dr Neil Kenny is a lecturer at Dublin City University Centre for Inclusive Pedagogy
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
