Drawing on both your session material and your own additional reading, how has the nature of Church-State relations defined and challenged the changing landscape of Irish education in the twentieth century at primary level?
In this paper I will first explore how Church-State relations have defined our national school system through denominational patronage, where the state funds schools and salaries, but leaves management and appointments to a manager, a model which still exists today. I will then examine how it has challenged the changing landscape of education.
In Ireland 96% of Irish primary schools are controlled by religious bodies. (Department of Education and Skills, 2020) There are no non-denominational state primary schools (Coolahan et al. 2012). The Chief Secretary of Ireland, Lord Stanley, set up our national school system in 1831, with a vision for ‘combined moral and literary and separate religious instruction for children of all religious persuasions’ (Hyland et al. 1987). Relentless opposition from the Churches ensured that what emerged was clerically controlled, and while de jure non-denominational, became de facto denominational (Bourke, 2002).
The State’s Powis Commission Report, 1870, concluded that as 93% of schools were then under the control of the Catholic Church, the country was already well served (Hyland 1987, 1989). I believe this report was significant for having acknowledged the Catholic Church as a major stakeholder in education. Different conclusions might have facilitated a different educational inheritance.
After Independence in 1922, in the context of an ultranationalist people, where national identity was equated with Catholic identity, (Akenson, 1975), the State outsourced education to the Catholic Church and Timothy Corcoran, the Church spokesperson, served as adviser to the First and Second National Programme Conferences in 1922 and 1926 which defined the school curriculum until the 1970s. He was one of the most influential men in forming the modern Irish school system (Akenson, 1975). He believed that ‘folly is bound up in the heart of a child, and the rod of correction shall drive it away’. His views of pedagogy were traditional, supporting the mastery of a given body of unquestionable knowledge and he was openly hostile to emerging teaching methods (Titley, 1983). Although he had no expertise in languages his views were quoted to justify the full immersion of children in Irish at school. (Akenson, 1975). What followed was a narrow curriculum promoting the Irish language notwithstanding the need for broadening the curriculum and adopting new pedagogies being evident in the Belmore Commission,1897, and the Education Bill, 1919. (Akenson, 1970, 1975). That, combined with the summary dismissal of the Board of Commissioners of National Education after Independence (Akenson, 1975) meant that valuable expertise available was regrettably cast aside.
The Church-State union immediately presented challenges, in that the State’s response to the changing landscape was circumscribed by the Church. It was assumed the voice of parents was adequately mediated through the Churches (Hyland, 1996). There was no place for parents or the wider community and consequently, no dialogue to bring about change.
What could have been a transformative period in history, instead gave rise to fifty years of stagnation, with political and Church ideals prioritised over educational standards. The Church opposed the idea of compulsory attendance and blocked the INTO campaign to get more public funds into national schools (Titley, 1983). The three deficiencies, namely, lack of local involvement of Irish citizens, the small numbers in school and the unnecessarily low numbers who attended regularly were not tackled (ibid.). Clearly the State was reluctant to assert its authority in areas that would compromise the monopoly of its Catholic Church partner in all matters educational. When the parents attempted to assert rights that conflicted with the authority of the Church, the State generally sided with the latter (Daly, 2014).
I believe that the outcome of the Vatican II Council also shaped education as the National School Rules issued in 1965 gave explicit recognition to the denominational character of national schools and the new Primary School Curriculum published in 1971 also provided for the first time for religious integration in its subjects (Forum, 2012).
Burke (2002, p.41) refers in his book to Kincheloe who suggests that history can ‘highlight the extent to which education can be used as an instrument of oppression’. Kincheloe concludes that only when teachers:
‘Understand the way unconfronted ideology works to constrain our students, to keep the poor in their place, to limit women’s options, to perpetuate racial oppression, and to foster passive uncritical thinking, will history be overcome’. (Kincheloe, 1991 p.181)
These words really resonate with me as, being Catholic, I must confront any accepted ideology that to be Irish is to be Catholic and ensure I apply judicious methods in my classroom to ensure that each child’s unique cultural, religious and social identity is celebrated.
It is my view that the biggest challenge arising from Church-State relations is how we can provide for non-denominational schooling, so that the rights of non-Christians and non-believers are respected. While Coolahan et al. ( 2012 ) accept that the 1971 and 1999 Revised Curricula did introduce more scientific pedagogy, they also provide for an integrated curriculum, which leaves no space for non-Christians. The State has since enacted legislation which guarantees protection of religious ethos, allows discriminatory enrolment and employment practices and protects the patron’s powers, (ibid.). The State would have been better advised to follow the approach of the State in the late nineteenth century, who were most careful to avoid legitimising religious sectarianism in education. This leads me to wonder if the relationship between Church and State was one of true consensus and conformity or one of increasing domination and power at a time when Irish society was finally changing, becoming less homogenous and more questioning of authorities.
My research has forced me to consider Catholic patronage from the perspective of the minority citizen and acknowledge my own inherent bias towards Christian beliefs. Openness to religious diversity speaks loudly to my teacher identity, having spent large parts of my life in culturally alien cities, where I have had to struggle to fit in and re-define my identity. I will be bringing these experiences with me into the classroom and ensure that I create a culture of inclusion and genuine celebration of all religions and none.
The United Nations has advised that non-denominational schools should have an explicitly secular ethos where access to a neutral education is legitimately guaranteed (Forum, 2012). How that can be accommodated in a way that does not lead us into a two-tier education system of Catholics versus others, will be a major challenge and require courage on the part of the State. It must be achieved, as failure to do so would, in my view, be a retrograde step and demonstrate a failure to learn from our past.
Akenson, D.H. (1970) The Irish education experiment: the national system of education in the nineteenth century. London and Toronto: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Akenson, D.H. (1975) A Mirror to Kathleen’s Face. Education in independent Ireland 1922-1960. Montreal and London: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Burke, A. (2002) Teaching – retrospect and prospect. Dublin: Brunswick Press.
Coolahan, J., Hussey, C. and Kilfeather, F. (2012) The Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector: Report of the Forums’ Advisory Group, April 2012 [Online]. Available at: https://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Events/Patronage-and-Pluralism-in-the-Primary-Sector/Forum-on-Patronage-and-Pluralism-in-the-Primary-Sector.html (Accessed: 24 October 2020).
Daly, M.E. (2014) ‘The primary and natural educator? The role of parents in the education of their children in independent Ireland’, in Luddy, M. and Smith, J.M. Children, childhood and Irish Society: 1500 to the present. Dublin: Four Courts Press, pp, 65-82.
Hyland, Á. (1987) ‘National education’, in Hyland, Á. and Milne, K. Irish Education Documents Vol.1. Dublin: Church of Ireland College of Education.
Hyland, Á (1989) ‘The multi-denominational experience in the national school system in Ireland’, Irish Educational Studies, 8(1), pp. 89.114
Hyland, Á. (1996) ‘Multi-denominational schools in the Republic of Ireland 1975-1995, C.R.E.L.A. Education and Religion Conference. University of Nice [Online] Available at http://www.educatetogether.ie/reference_articles/Ref_Art_003.html (Accessed: 24 October 2020).
Ireland. Department of Education and Skills (DES) [Online] Available at: http://www.education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Information/Diversity-of-Patronage/ (Accessed: 25th October, 2020)
Titley, B.E. (1983) Church State and the control of schooling in Ireland 1900-1944. Ireland: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Orla Dennison's Digital Portfolio 