Sir, – I must confess that I had never heard of rule 68 of the "Rules for National Schools" until it was reported by Joe Humphreys ("Change in 'archaic' rule on religious teaching sought", September 24th) but, now that you mention it, I quite like it. I checked the rule book and number 68 says that the teacher should "constantly inculcate the practice of charity, justice, truth, purity, patience, temperance, obedience to lawful authority, and all the other moral virtues".
Actually I think I’d like to live in that sort of country. – Yours, etc,
DAVID WILSON,
Clarinda Park North,
Dún Laoghaire, Co Dublin.
Sir, – In recent years it has been widely acknowledged that our public education system fails to respect the basic rights of those citizens, particularly non-Catholics, who may have little choice but to attend denominational schools. This raises questions concerning not only the divestment of schools from denominational control, but also concerning how, in the interim, citizens in this position should be accommodated within the school environment.
For the most part, this is now dealt with on an ad hoc basis by schools themselves. It is in this light that the Minister for Education has proposed to amend the controversial provision of the "Rules for National Schools", from 1968, which states that a religious spirit should "inform and vivify" the whole work of the school.
Certainly, this acknowledges a fundamental problem in the status quo – that the integration of a denominational ethos across the whole school environment may make it impossible, in practice, for non-coreligionists to exercise their right not to participate in religious exercises. However, the rules are not enforceable legal protections but merely a set of flexible ministerial guidelines. What is needed is legislation – and particularly, amendments to the Education Act and the Equal Status Act – that clearly defines how schools are to accommodate parents’ and children’s constitutional rights. Adjusting the rules seems like impotent gesture politics by comparison.
Moreover, it seems wrong to address issues of fundamental concern through a form of ministerial rule-making that bypasses parliamentary scrutiny and control. Only through comprehensive legislative reform can the State exercise its responsibility as a protector of rights. – Yours, etc,
EOIN DALY,
School of Law,
NUI Galway.