Sir, – Education Equality has procured a legal opinion from senior counsel that states that, where a child opts out of attending religious instruction, the child is expressly excused from attending the classroom. The right to opt out is not met by insisting that the child remain in attendance during religious instruction, even where the child is excused from active participation. It states that a court would not accept that the opt-out is effective in circumstances where the presence of the child in the class remains compulsory. It would not accept a defence from a school that it was unable to make arrangements for a child to be moved temporarily to another room during religious instruction.
Parents who protest to the Department of Education that their children’s constitutional right is being breached are advised that it is up to each individual school to decide how it facilitates the protection of this right.
When parents complain to schools on this issue, they are advised that they do not have the resources to provide a real and effective opt out. And who provides the resources? The Department of Education.
Advocates for religious education fought tooth and nail against the repeal of the “baptism barrier”, a clearly discriminatory provision. Schools can still discriminate against children seeking admission if they are of the view that they might undermine their ethos.
Alan Hynes (Letters, May 5th) complains that Education Equality’s “vision is often for a uniform education system”. He is aware, I presume, that 95 per cent of our publicly funded primary schools are under religious patronage?
He bemoans “the Admission to Schools Act 2018, by which Catholic schools alone are forbidden to prioritise the enrolment of children of our faith”. He is arguing that Catholic schools are being discriminated against (presumably on religious grounds?) because they cannot discriminate against children on religious grounds, whereas other State-funded minority faith schools can.
The 2018 Act introduced a requirement for schools’ admission policies to provide details of their arrangements in respect of students who do not want to attend religious instruction. Most schools fail in this obligation. Instead of providing such details, policies typically merely direct parents to make an appointment with the school principal to discuss the matter.
The State and schools are complicit in breaching children’s clearly enshrined constitutional right. – Yours, etc,
ROB SADLIER,
Human Rights Officer,
Education Equality,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 16.
A chara, – In response to my letter of last Thursday (May 4th) regarding inclusivity in our school, Tricia Cusack (Letters, May 8th) points to our mission statement as if it were proof of the opposite of what I stated in the letter. Our mission statement or schedule is a standard one that is a requirement for all schools under Catholic patronage in our diocese. However, having that mission statement and an ethos of inclusivity are not mutually exclusive positions. We continue to be a school with a Catholic ethos without proselytising or discriminating.
Second, in regards to her accusation of discrimination on the basis of being a boys-only school, we are currently undergoing a process of reconfiguration for diversity led by our patron and involving the relevant partners in education in the wider community. In consultation with our neighbouring all-girls’ school and junior boys’ feeder school, a decision will be made on the future provision of education in our schools, including how we address co-education. – Is mise,
JOHN KELLY,
Principal,
Bishop Foley
National School,
Carlow.