Photosales
niJobfinder
niCarfinder
Home Delivery
Propertynews
Eamon McCann: Bishops need a lesson on benefits of integrated education
Thursday, 2 April 2009
Why should a bunch of bachelors with neither chick nor child be allowed influence over the education of children? Why should the support of Catholic Bishops be regarded as vital when it comes to deciding on a post-primary system?
How come the argument against separate schooling for children of different religions is hardly heard these days, even as politicians and commentators ramble endlessly on about the need to ‘end division’ and ‘abolish sectarianism’ and usher in a ‘new era’ in which ‘the hatreds of the past’ will be ‘put behind us’?
Is it not strange that at the end of television programmes highlighting the hostility of the young people of one community for the young people of the other there is no mention that each group has been given to believe by the temporal and spiritual leaders of the land that it would be damaging and wrong for them to learn multiplication tables in the same room?
Why the silence about the reasons this anomaly is allowed to persist? Why no discussion of what needs to be done to speed its end? We have to listen to the point of terminal tedium to one-community politicians congratulating themselves along the lines, “If I had said five years ago that five years on we’d be as far on as we are, people would have laughed.”
Some of us would have laughed had we been told 50 years ago that the occasion of all the major parties agreeing a settlement would be marked by avoidance of the issue of the educational divide. A generation ago, talk of the need to free the classrooms from clerical control was commonplace in political debate. But there they still are, unblinking on the news, bishops and spokespersons for bishops confidently explaining what they will or will not tolerate with respect to the schooling of children.
True, the divide in education isn’t the cause of sectarianism. But it reflects and is an important mechanism for perpetuating sectarianism. It’s not that hatred of ‘the other side’ is taught in the classrooms — it isn’t — but that it’s presented as perfectly natural and not to be questioned that there is nobody from ‘the other side’ present in the classroom.
The Catholic bishops have always understood that control of the formation of the minds of children is a necessary condition for the survival of their Church as a powerful institution.
They may also be generally, genuinely concerned for the welfare of the children entrusted to their care. Or, as suggested by the incidence of cover-up of physical and sexual abuse, not. Either way, canon law doesn’t insist and common sense doesn’t suggest that the interests of the children be taken as paramount. There is some truth in the talk of how far we have come. But in relation to the divide in education we have gone backwards. The heat and spite of the debate over Caitriona Ruane’s modest proposals for reform has obscured the fact that no member of any Executive party is willing to advocate as modern a measure as was vigorously advanced by Charles Stewart Vane-Tempest-Stewart, 7th Marquess of Londonderry, in the earliest days of the State.
James Craig chose Londonderry as Minister of Education specifically because, as Joseph Lee puts it in Ireland 1912-1885, “He was the least sectarian and least provincial member of his cabinet”.
Londonderry invited a wide range of interests to participate in a committee to examine the options for education in the new State. The Catholic bishops refused either to nominate a representative or to give evidence.
Londonderry went ahead anyway. Lee describes the Education Act brought forward in 1923 as “the most ambitious legislative measure ever undertaken in Irish education,” and ascribes its rapid failure to the fact that Londonderry “had proceeded under the illusion that the Catholic and Protestant clergy were more concerned with education than with power.”
Londonderry tried to increase parental power by giving local representatives a role in running elementary schools. This, says Lee, “sent a thrill of terror through all clergies”. The Act also envisaged children of any background enrolling in any elementary school, its teachers appointed on merit. Again, clergy of all denominations swooned in horror. The Catholic bishops took the lead in the dance of the denominations, while their Protestant partners kept nimbly in step.
“The refusal of the Catholic hierarchy to participate made it simpler for the Protestant churches to capture the system and mould it to their taste,” says Lee. “This suited the Catholic clergy who might have had to manufacture further complaints if they weren’t so generously supplied by their Protestant brethren. Londonderry, unable to shrivel his mind yet further to accommodate local standards, resigned as Minister in 1925.”
By 1930, the tribal shamans had the children of the land divvied up satisfactorily between them. Since then, some ideas in education have come into fashion, others have gone out of style. But all that’s changed with regard to the religious divide is that fewer people than ever in politics are willing to take it on. Charles Stewart Vane-Tempest-Stewart, 7th Marquess of Londonderry, was not only ahead of his time, but, sad to say, ahead of our time too.
- Text Size
Comments
25 Comments
Your socalled public schools are nothing but privated schools payed by the tax payer. In the USA, a public school is for all students with NO relegion taught period. We have the seperation of church & state.
Posted by phl | 28.04.09, 00:15 GMT
i trully enjoyed your piece. I have never understood why we cannot be taught in a classroom together plain and simple
I do know the wealthy send their kids to the best schools no matter what their beliefs. i guess, keep the masses in their place.
Keep the hatred alive somenone is making money Thanks
Posted by ellen | 16.04.09, 15:45 GMT
parental alliance for choice in education
"John McMahon's attack on TJ McClean is sectarian".
If a Catholic speaks in support of integrated education, what could be wrong with inviting him to explain why he does not send his child to a non-Catholic school? If a non-Catholic speaks in support of integrated education, what could be wrong with inviting him to explain why he does not send his child to a Catholic school?
Posted by John McMahon | 09.04.09, 11:57 GMT
Michael
Why are you so arrogant? Why should church influence be removed from ALL schools when there are parents who WANT church influence in the schools to which they send their children?
Posted by John McMahon | 09.04.09, 09:50 GMT
I find it strange that people, who do not know the basic facts about our educational system, feel free to pontificate about Catholic
schools.
A non-Catholic CAN send his child to a Catholic school - except where the school is over-subscribed and few (if any) Catholic primary or secondary schools ARE over-subscribed. And there is one Catholic grammar school which has a student body maqinly non-Catholic - the sons and daughters of English academics employed at the University of Ulster.
Posted by John McMahon | 07.04.09, 17:53 GMT
Simple - protestants cannot attend catholic schools - end of.
My daughter's grammar school has plenty of catholics and quite a few other religions, the education she gains by mixing in this environment can't be provided by ANY catholic school.
Posted by sheila | 06.04.09, 22:45 GMT
Interesting comment from Spot on regarding Australian schooling...
I too am from Northern Ireland but my girlfriends family are from the Orange culture but have been living in Australia for years.
Her brother attended a Catholic School, where as she and her sister went to the local state school..
Why??
They wanted to go to a school with better funding for the son.
IT IS AN INTEGRATED SOCIETY.
He knows nothing of the bible, though attending.
He's now a pilot. Her and her sister, though successful too did not have the opportunities... It seems Catholic schooling, with private funding as well as state assitance helps...
Funny that Bishops dont want an integrated society here...
I guess that may be due to output...
Posted by Ricardo79 | 06.04.09, 22:25 GMT
Good to see the general form is for non-sectarian education. However, where are angry letters to MLAs? the parents pressure groups etc etc? Everyone talks the talk and yet it still seems lacking.
Good article.
Posted by M S | 06.04.09, 19:13 GMT
Geat article.
Church influence needs to be removed from all schools and a plan should be implemented to have all schools mixed even if it means busing children otherwise you will never have a normal society in N.Ireland
Posted by Michael | 06.04.09, 18:26 GMT
I totally agree with the article. I've raised my children in Ontario, Canada where we have a seperate school system for catholics. The same applied here - you would have to be a brave person to suggest integration. However, the Greater Toronto Area is one of the msot diverse in the world and other groups Jewish, Muslim etc are now becoming numerous enough to question why they too should not have their own schools funded by the province.
We have seperate bus systems for each school system, kids from all religions looking to get into seperate schools if the particular school is perceived to be the best in the neighbourhood - and vice versa.
Why oh why can they not have one school system with seperate religion classes - of course it would not suit the powerful clergy.
Posted by Mick | 06.04.09, 15:05 GMT
Spud
"John McM, don't you think it's a bit mean-spirited, and indeed sectarian, to ask what the benefits of integrated education are for catholic children?"
NO, not in the least. Catholics must defend themselves from Protestant aggresssion. No doubt, integrated education would benefit Protestants as it would increase their power over Catholics.
John
Posted by John McMahon | 05.04.09, 13:11 GMT
No one should be surprised at Mc Canns attitude to schooling. He takes the side he always takes, and that is which side is opposite to the Catholic veiw point. He does this on all topics.
I lived in Australia for some years, and found out that the schooling is much the same there as is here. Catholic children go to Catholic schools, and others go to State schools. However the big difference is that when school is over they all go home where they all live in what we would call a mixed area.
There are no Catholic areas, and no Protestant areas. This shows that going to a Catholic school or going to a State school is not the reason for a sectarian State.
But Heaven forbid McCann might take other reasons rather than his own anti Catholic reasons into consideration.
Posted by Spot_On | 03.04.09, 16:23 GMT
About time this flat stone was lifted again to expose the power-hungry clergy scurrying & scrabbling to maintain grip on their victims.
Thanks for an excellent article.
Posted by Sam Hood | 03.04.09, 12:29 GMT
John McMahon's attack on TJ McClean is sectarian.
The obvious answer to the question of why non-Catholics do not attend Catholic schools is that of the requirement of adherence to a "Catholic ethos". You are either Catholic or not. The concept of a "Catholic ethos" as opposed to a catholic Christian ethos is nonsensical. Substitute the word Catholic with Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Church of Ireland or any other religious denomination of Christianity and the distinction is immediately blurred and irrelevant.
The state schools, primary, secondary and grammar are open to all. The refusal of the Catholic hierarchy to support the State schools is evidence of a anti-integration stance. The question arises then of the State's obligation to support one denomination of Christianity in preference over others.
None of this of course addresses the issue of academic selection and the choice of a grammar school currently denied parents by the Catholic hierarchy.
Posted by parental alliance for choice in education | 03.04.09, 11:03 GMT
Excellent piece Mr McCann.
We have a four year old who began school this year in south Belfast- and it has opened my eyes to how weird this place is.
We have sent our kid to the maintained primary (100 yards from our front door!) although we'd be considered a nominally 'catholic' family. On one side our neighbourhoods have sent theirs to the catholic primary which is half a mile away. While on the other side - they have sent their kid to the local integrated - which is also about half a mile away.
I'm all for choice - but frankly this is madness.
In a country plagued by sectarianism - this situation means that already our children are no longer playing together (at four!) and already sense that there is some difference between them (where there, of course, is none.)
Until this situation is reversed Northern Ireland will remain at its core - a messed up place. (And yes, the clergy have to take most of the blame.)
Posted by Perky Pat | 03.04.09, 09:18 GMT
In the USA, a public school is a public school for all. No relegion in our public schools. UK public schools are like a private religious school but you even have a state relegion. In the USA, we are for the seperation of church & state. Some have a hard time with that. With UK has many different type of people, why have they not change their public schools as one for all? I see room for people in the UK to be more active in your goverment instead of setting on your hands and mopeing. Hello.
Posted by phl | 02.04.09, 23:34 GMT
You can't send a Protestant child to a maintained (Catholic) school - secondary or grammar- as they will fail one of the selection criteria - they will not belong to a parish.
You can send a Catholic child to controlled or voluntary schools which are non-denominational and many Catholic parents do send children to voluntary grammar schools, despite criticism from the pulpit for doing so.
Many voluntary grammar schools are actually more integrated than some 'integrated' schools.
Schools should be secular and co-educational, with no interference from any branch of religion.
Posted by Peter | 02.04.09, 21:41 GMT
John McM, don't you think it's a bit mean-spirited, and indeed sectarian, to ask what the benefits of integrated education are for catholic children? Surely we are considering what the benefits of being educated together are for all children, regardless of religion.
My own children attend a school (not GMI) which has a 75%/25% split and the benefit I see is that they make friends based on mutual interests (music, sport etc) with no reference to religion.
By the way, integrated education does not have to be on the basis of the current integrated model which some may feel focuses on and emphasises perceived cross-community differences.
Posted by spud | 02.04.09, 19:39 GMT
This is the same sort of mentality that has for too long permitted the inexperienced clergy of certain religions, (not named here) in counseling married couples and families about their problems when they (the clergy) have no idea of the challenges involved in raising, feeding and clothing a family, paying the bills, worrying about the futures of one's children; and, all in all, what it means to do a hard, honest day's work. A University Degree does not equip one for the sights, sounds, smells and reality of real life, be it the counseling of families or the education of children. And, before anyone asks, I have been a Roman Catholic for 62 years. However, I was lucky enough to be taught by the Good Sisters of The Immaculate Heart of Mary; and the most important things I learned from these wonderful teachers were that the words, "I CAN'T" do not exist.
Posted by Victoria Martin | 02.04.09, 19:25 GMT
Very well said - this is an issue which I hope is properly address as it is one of the key factors to ending division here. Next, if we could stop showing our child that - generally- Catholics and Protestants should (by default or otherwise) live and play/ watch sport separately then we could be looking at real progress. Scratch the surface, though, and few few political parties here seem to be too interested in genuinely ending division.
Posted by C Johnston | 02.04.09, 17:19 GMT
25 Comments