Conference 2000Ireland
Parents: Partnership in Irish Education?
1.1
Introduction
Article
forty-two of the Irish Constitution (1937) states
that:
The
State acknowledges that the primary and natural
educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to
respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to
provide, according to their means, for the religious
and moral, intellectual, physical and social
education of their children (pp. 139-40).
To
enable parents to fulfil their obligations to their
children the State undertakes to provide for a
certain minimum education (article 42, 3) and to
provide other educational facilities or institutions
with due regard, however, for the rights of parents,
especially in the matter of religious and moral
formation (article 42, 4).
Despite
these constitutional guarantees, parents, until very
recently, provided their children more as fodder for
the educational system and they generally went along
with an attitude of ‘teacher knows best’.
Consequently, the active participation of parents in
educational and school related matters is a
comparatively recent phenomenon in Irish education;
an emerging and evolving process as part of the
democratisation of education. To appreciate both the
relatively recent emergence of parent power in Irish
education and the important gains that have been made
in recent years, it is necessary to locate the system
of primary and secondary education in historical
perspective.
2.1 Some
Benchmarks in Irish Education: Primary
In
post-independent Ireland (1922) the vast majority of
children completed their education in primary
schools. These schools were overwhelmingly Catholic
and based on a parish system with a consequent
proliferation (in a predominantly rural and
agricultural society) of small rural schools. While
many of these small schools have been closed and/or
amalgamated, out of a total of 3,200 primary schools
there continues to be a significant number of smaller
schools. There are approximately 1,300 schools with
three teachers or less while at the other end of the
continuum there are more than ninety schools with
more than twenty teachers (Department of Education
1996/7, p.28). As part of the process of re-creating
an Irish Ireland, Nationalist, Gaelic and Catholic,
the Government made it compulsory for all children to
learn the Irish language from the beginning of
primary schooling (the legal age of entry is six, but
a majority begin at four and virtually all five year
olds are in formal schooling) and this policy
continues to exist, though perhaps it is less
rigorously pursued both by teachers and primary
schools inspectors.
During
the past twenty years the monolith of the parish
school system has been broken by the advent of
all-Irish medium primary schools numbering
approximately 120 and continuing to grow. More
recently, multi-denominational schools, currently
numbering sixteen, have mushroomed primarily in urban
areas and recent changes in funding by the Minister
for Education and Science will make it significantly
easier for such schools to be established in the
future. The growth in both of these sectors has
enabled parents in particular to become much more
involved in the shaping of their children’s
education through selecting the kind of schooling
they wish for them and, in many instances, becoming
politicised in the process of establishing
alternative schools.
Management
of parish schools was traditionally vested in the
parish priest (or clergyman) as manager - with the
local Bishop as patron and trustee. Funding was
provided by the State but there was little
accountability and local participation in decision
making was the exception rather than the rule.
Despite the sentiment expressed in the Irish
Constitution, parents were, at best, passive
participants in or mere spectators of their
children’s education.
This
situation changed dramatically when Boards of
Management were established for primary schools in
1976. These new structures were welcomed by parents,
resisted by teachers and treated with suspicion by
the Churches. However, though these new Boards
represented a significant advance, the patron,
through a number of reserved places, continued to
hold a majority on such boards despite the presence
of school principal, an elected staff representative
and two elected parents whose children were attending
the particular schools. A local clergyman continued
to be the chairperson of every board. Very recently,
these structures which remained in existence for
approximately twenty years, were democratised further
to include greater community and parental
participation. These changes are described in more
detail under the sub-heading Policy and Legislation.
3.1 Some
Benchmarks: Secondary Schooling
Virtually
all of secondary education at the foundation of the
state was provided by religious run and privately
owned schools. Though school fees were, in many
instances, very modest, they continued to be a
significant barrier to access for the vast majority
of families. With one of the few pieces of
educational legislation enacted since independence
the Irish Government sought, with the Vocational
Education Act (1930), to make alternative State
provided secondary education available but, through
the intervention of influential members of the
Catholic hierarchy, the legislation did not enable
vocational schools to provide state examinations at
Leaving Certificate level. As a result these schools
(focused on practical subjects) came to be regarded
as suitable for those who were good with their hands.
This legislation was amended in 1970.
The
Government introduced free universal secondary
education in 1967. A significant number of existing
secondary schools decided to opt into what has become
known as the free scheme. These schools undertook not
to charge fees from students in return for increased
state funding. There also continues to be
approximately fifty private secondary schools in the
country that levy fees on students and these schools
receive reduced capitation funding per student from
the state. Vocational education continues to be
organised and managed on a county basis with local
public representatives as part of Vocational
Education Committees (VECs). There are more than
thirty such committees nationally.
In the
wake of the report ‘Investment in
Education’ (1965) the government decided also to
augment and expand the network of second level
schools. As a consequence of greater state provision,
the number of second level schools is currently 763,
and these include 440 secondary, 243 vocational, 64
community and 16 comprehensive schools. In recent
years, religious run and vocational schools have
successfully amalgamated to re-emerge as community
schools or colleges with new facilities and a more
comprehensive range of subject provision, but there
continues to be one hundred and seventy seven schools
with enrolments of three hundred pupils or less so
that school closures and additional amalgamations
will be a necessity (Department of Education, 1996/7,
pp.42-3).
Because
of the variety of school types and their varying
historical origins, management structures vary
significantly from sector to sector, and these are
described in more detail in the next section. While
these various reforms were ongoing parents became
more active and vocal in seeking meaningful
participation in policy formulation and decision
making at national and school level. In this context,
the national parents council has emerged as a
significant stakeholder.
4.1
National Parents Council
In the
mid 1980s, the then Minister for Education provided
financial assistance to facilitate the establishment
of a National Parents Council. The council, with
separate tiers for primary and secondary sectors, has
been a major catalyst for encouraging parents at
individual school level to form parents councils and
the vast majority of these are affiliated to the
central council. The council has an intermediate
structure also at regional level. The council’s
annual meeting has become another conference for the
sitting Minister of Education and Science to visit
along with the annual conferences of the teachers
unions during Easter week. It is rapidly becoming the
norm that parents, as significant stakeholders in the
educational system, are granted representation on
various Ministerial groups that review aspects of the
education system. For example, at the time of writing
there are three Ministerial Working Parties reviewing
the role of the primary SCHOOL principal and initial
teacher education at primary and secondary levels.
Parents are represented on these review groups. The
increasing visibility of parents in such educational
fora and their influence as a national organisation
in a more free market approach to schooling has
enabled them to emerge as a powerful lobby group
whose influence is evident in more recent policy and
legislative pronouncements.
5.1
Policy and Legislative Frameworks
Due to
the accelerating pace of change, the 1990s generally
have witnessed a raft of new educational policies and
legislation and Ireland is no exception to this
general trend. However, in Ireland a consensual
approach to policy formulation has been pursued and
this was particularly evident in the organisation of
a National Education Convention that lasted for ten
days (1993-4). This unprecedented approach to policy
formulation was sandwiched between a ‘Green
Paper’, issued for discussion on ‘Education
For a Changing World’ (Government of Ireland,
1992) and the publication of a White Paper, Charting
Our Education Future (Government of Ireland, 1995).
It is particularly instructive to revisit these
documents in the present context to indicate the
manner in which parental influence and representation
have advanced through the process of negotiation,
culminating in very recent legislation.
The
Green Paper on education, as a discussion document,
was quite explicit about the emergence of the
national parents council and its significance for
policy formulation. It states:
‘The
National Parents Council (NPC) (Primary and
Post-Primary Tiers) has developed into a strong and
active body, articulating the needs and concerns of
parents. The councils contribution to policy issues
is very much welcomed and will continue to be an
important part of policy formulation (Government of
Ireland, 1992, p.155).’
Arising
from this perspective, the document asserts that
representation on school Boards of Management is
axiomatic to ensure that they [parents] are directly
involved in the decision-making process of primary
and secondary schools (p.155). In addition, parents
should have a close relationship with schools, in
support of their children’s education (p.155).
Participation of the NPC as partners in the
consultative process represented an important coming
of age and this is reflected in the comments of the
secretary general of the national education Forum
when he states:
‘I
think that the Convention represents a distinctive
landmark in relation to them [parents and
communities], I believe that their central-stage
place has become more assured and that many
productive linkages can be forged which will give new
emphases to the education system (Coolahan, 1994,
p.239).’
As a
precursor to providing a new legislative framework
for the educational system, the White Paper, (which
relied to a significant degree on the consensus
arrived at dialogue between the various partners at
the national convention), foreshadowed legislation by
speaking in the terms of parental rights in the
context of their children’s education.
‘The
Parent’s role confers on them the right to
active participation in the child’s education.
This includes their right as individuals to be
consulted and informed on all aspects of their
child’s education at school level, and their
right as a group to actively participate in the
education system at school, regional and national
levels.
Parents
are integral in the education of their children. They
will be consulted, as other recognised key interests
are, and will have an opportunity to influence
national educational policy and it's local
implementation. (Government of Ireland, 1995,
p.139)’.
Clear
commitment was thus provided that such rights would
be given statutory recognition when new educational
legislation would be framed. This legislation would
formally recognise parents as partners in the
national consultative process, their representation
on Boards of Management would be guaranteed and these
boards would be obliged to promote the establishment
of a parents council in their particular school. In
formal terms, at least, these guarantees represent a
significant advance.
The
education No.2 Bill (1997) has just recently been
published in its final form having been subjected to
numerous amendments on its passage through both
houses of Oireachtas (Parliament). The Bill was
formally passed by both houses on December 16th 1998.
Suffice to say that this bill meets the commitments
outlined above and a general overview of what it
seeks to achieve is indicated in the following
extract:
‘An
act to make provision in the interests of the common
good for the education of every person in the State,
to ensure that the educational system is accountable
to students, their parents and the State for the
education provided, respects the diversity of values,
beliefs, languages and traditions in Irish society
and is conducted in a spirit of partnership between
schools, patrons, students, parents, teachers, and
other school staff, the community served by the
school and the State; (Education No.2 Bill, final
page).
Parents
are therefore formally recognised as partners in
education but the extent to which this legislative
framework actually creates greater equality in these
relationships is more difficult and complex to
decipher. For example, if parents are the primary
educators (and this is a principle of the Irish
constitution), then making them partners in the
education enterprise may be a diminution of their
status while seeking to increase their participation.
Real participation varies from one country to the
next depending on the general political climate and
traditions of schooling. For example, in a UK
context, MacBeath Moos and Riley (1998, p.27) argue
that so long as a partnership remained a matter of
good practice rather than legal requirement it stood
to veil the inequalities of power under a gauze of
good intentions. They comment also on the Danish
Folkeskole Act of 1993 and suggest that such new
aspects of government policy are seen variously as
strengthening the unequal parental end of partnership
or as a political kiss of death for genuine
collaboration (p.27). In an Irish context, it is
probably too early to assess recent development but
current realities on the ground at Board of
Management level provides a means of determining the
extent to which parents are genuinely part of the
decision-making process or are being seduced into
unequal partnerships.
For
historical reasons, the structures of management are
different at primary and secondary levels.
Consequently, each sector is examined separately.
6.1
Boards of Management: Primary Schools
In
November 1997, the Department of Education and
Science in a publication that reflected the outcomes
of protracted negotiations and foreshadowed the
subsequent legislative framework, indicated more
democratic structures for Boards of Management (BoMs)
of all primary schools. This publication, Boards of
Management of National Schools: Constitution
of Boards and Rules of procedure, indicates in the
Foreword the underlying principles on which boards
are henceforth to be constituted. These include
specific mention of parents: Board practice should
facilitate and promote commitment by parents to the
affairs of the school and functioning of and
effective parentis associationi.
The
number of nominees of the Patron on Boards of
Management has been reduced from three to two, and
community representatives have been added to their
composition. The membership is as follows:
Two
direct nominees of the Patron
Two
parents (one male, one female) of children
enrolled in the school
The
Principal Teacher of the school
One
other teacher on the staff of the school,
elected by vote of the teaching staff
Two
extra members proposed by other board members
(Department of Education, 1997, p. 2).
One of
the patron’s nominees continues to be a local
clergyman but it no longer axiomatic that this
individual will be the chairperson of the board.
Increasingly, younger clergymen regard the position
as being particularly onerous; it is not a priority
with them as it frequently interferes with their
pastoral responsibilities. In practice many
parent’s representatives on boards are elected
by acclamation rather than by ballot and particular
individuals are frequently encouraged to put their
names forward by the school principal. The two
community representatives have to be agreed by all of
the other board members and some reports suggest that
agreement is sometimes difficult to achieve. Contacts
with school principals suggest that with a
significant increase in the number of single parent
families, both parents working outside the home, and
the responsibilities of BoMs becoming more onerous,
it is increasingly difficult to secure parents
participation. Other evidence suggests that - because
parents have been excluded from active participation
until very recently - it will take time,
(particularly in rural areas where the status and
power of teachers continues to be more significant
than in urban areas), for parents to exercise their
democratic rights in relation to greater involvement
in their children’s education. Nevertheless, in
relation to recent curricular innovations in the
areas of Sexuality and Relationships and initiatives
in relation to Substance Misuse, it is necessary for
BoMs to consult with parents prior to the
introduction of such programmes As parents councils
find their collective voice locally, principals too
are being asked to justify both the allocation of
teachers and the range of educational decisions that
impact directly and indirectly on children’s
education.
7.1
Management Structures: Second Level Schools
The
nature and composition of management in second level
schools is broadly similar to those that operate at
primary level, with some important differences that
have been shaped significantly by history. Schools
directly under state control (Community and
Comprehensive) have clear management structures with
some important nuances that reflect the dominance of
religious owned schools in this sector.
Community
and Comprehensive schools were established primarily
in the 1970s and early 1980s sometimes on new
green-field sites and, on other occasions,
represented a new alliance between a religious
community already involved in education and the
State. Additionally, the Churches were concerned not
to loose their distinctive ethos as the State became
more proactive in the provision of schools and
schooling. Consequently, after years of disagreement
and dissent these schools are governed by deeds of
trust. These deeds enabled religious
orders/communities, by making a contribution to the
total cost of the school, to secure reserved places
on the staff (usually no more than 2 or 3) as well as
three positions on the schools Board of Management.
Where schools such involve Vocational Education
Committees three places are reserved for VEC
representatives. In all instances there are two
elected parents and two elected teachers on such
management boards.
Comprehensive
schools have some slight differences in their
management structures. Religious communities do not
have reserved places on boards of management but one
member represents different Church bodies. Teachers
and parents have two representatives on these boards
also.
Community
Colleges, which have their origins within the VEC
structure, do not have specific guidelines for the
composition of boards of management. VECs are
statutory bodies so that individual boards of
management do not have the same degree of autonomy or
power as are vested in other boards.
Secondary
schools, which are privately owned but publicly
funded, cannot be obliged to have boards of
management though, in practice, many have actually
created board structures in recent years. With the
decline in the number of religious orders engaged in
teaching many secondary schools have appointed lay
principals for the first time in the last decade,
while religious continue to maintain a presence by
being represented on school boards.
Figures
indicate that (in 1996/97) less than five percent of
teaching staff in these schools belong to religious
communities. In a rapidly changing social and
economic climate, where traditional values and social
mores are being continuously changed and undermined,
religious communities have become acutely aware of
the need to define the denominational ethos of their
respective schools. It is understandable, in these
circumstances, that having the right lay people on
Boards of Management may appear to some to be of
greater importance than creating democratic
structures and facilitating democratic
decision-making.
8.1
Emergent Issues
In the
context of a Celtic Tiger economy old verities are
rapidly giving way to new uncertainties in relation
to education and employment opportunities. In these
circumstances a new competitive and utilitarian
attitude towards education is becoming increasingly
manifest, spurred on by highly competitive State
examinations (Leaving Certificate) which are the
gateway to high status places in the professional
schools of the Universities. Some parents have
abandoned traditional schools for a newly emergent
private sector, known rather pejoratively as
‘grind school’ whose sole raison d’ê
tre appears to be maximising the points total of
their students while all pretence of a well rounded
education is abandoned in pursuit of the highest
grades. While the reasons for this emerging private
sector are complex one major reason frequently
articulated by parents is an inability on the part of
school management to deal with incompetence among
teachers. This is becoming more of an issue at
primary level also. During the past three years
attempts have been are being made to introduce a more
systematic inspection system at primary and some
positive signs are emerging as a consequence of pilot
projects on whole school evaluation (Department of
Education, 1998, 1996). If the middle classes
continue to abandon traditional forms of schooling
for the private sector, this augurs poorly for the
quality of teaching and learning generally. It may
well signal, as has happened in other jurisdictions,
that choice exercised by those who can afford such
discretion, restricts the educational opportunities
of those with less economic muscle and certainly for
the marginalised (Lawton, 1992, Ball, 1994).
A more
widely educated populace is more willing and able to
challenge the traditional power and status of
teachers. However, there continues to be a feeling
among parents that to seek redress at the level of
the school is to invite marginalisation and possible
victimisation of their children. Consequently, many
parents are reluctant to challenge perceived
inequities of their children while, as a consequence,
current inadequacies in the system remain largely
unchallenged. This difficulty is rendered more
fractious by teachers who increasingly recognise the
importance of and necessity for parental involvement
in schools but have not developed adequate
professional confidence and skills to be able to deal
with relationships between home and school now that
traditional boundaries have become blurred and
impermeable. Schools are encouraged to have policies
in relation to regular meetings with parents to
discuss their children’s progress. In reality,
however, these often amount to little more than
ritual without any serious engagement.
9.1
Conclusions
There is
little doubt that in terms of formal structures in
Irish education, parents have come of age in recent
years; they have been granted formal recognition as
partners in the education process at national and
local levels. Despite the rhetoric of parents'
constitutional position it is reasonable to suggest
that thus far this is an unequal partnership while
recognising the need for the professional autonomy of
teachers. There are some worrying trends in relation
to the emergence of a new private sector that is very
utilitarian and its continued growth may serve to
undermine traditional forms of schooling to the
detriment particularly at the level of the individual
school. This poses particular challenges to the
professionalism, expertise and autonomy of teachers.
It is too early to say whether these newly formed
partnerships will work to the educational advantage
of all pupils or towards a repositioning of more
traditional barriers and boundaries between parents,
the primary educators, and those in loco parentis.
Dr
Ciaran Sugrue
References
Ball, S.
(1994) Education Reform: A Critical and Postructural
Approach, Buckingham, Open University Press.
Coolahan, J.
(ed) (1994) Report on the National Education Convention,
Dublin, Government Publications.
Department
of Education (1965) Investment in Education: report of
the survey team appointed by the Minister for Education
in October 1962, Dublin, Stationery Office.
Department
of Education (1996) Whole School Inspection (WSI)
Consultative Conference, Dublin, Department of Education.
Department
of Education and Science (1997a) Statistical Report
1996/97, Dublin, Government Publications.
Department
of Education and Science (1997b) Boards of Management of
National Schools: Conception of Boards and Rules of
Procedure, Dublin, Government Publications.
Department
of Education and Science (1998) Whole School Evaluation:
Pilot Project Proposals, Dublin, Department of Education
and Science.
Government
of Ireland (no date provided) Bunreacht Na h...ireann
(Constitution of Ireland), Dublin, Government
Publications.
Government
of Ireland (1992) Education for a Changing World: Green
Paper on Education, Dublin, Government Publications.
Government
of Ireland (1995) Charting Our Education Future: White
Paper on Education, Dublin, Government Publications.
Government
of Ireland (1997) Education (No. 2) Bill, Dublin,
Government Publications.
Lawton, D.
(1992) Education and Politics in the 1990s: Conflict or
Consensus?, London, Falmer Press.
MacBeath,
J., Moos, L. and Riley, K. (1998) Time for Change, in
MacBeath, J. (ed) Effective School Leadership: Responding
to Change, London, Paul Chapman Publishing, pp. 20-31.
Back to 2000 Book Index
|
