Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 18 October 2018
58. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Education and Skills the reason the circular of February 2018 from his Department to State-run non-religious schools run by local education and training boards and community schools which outlined that alternative subject choices should be offered to students who did not wish to study religion seems to have been reversed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42051/18]
View answerOn 19 February, the Department of Education and Skills issued a circular to State second-level schools stating that they must offer alternative subject choices to students who do not want to study religion. This instruction applied to State-run non-religious schools run by local education and training boards and community schools. It was a very good instruction and was welcomed by those who want to see a separation of church and State and choice for people who do not hold certain religious views in terms of the education system and those who want to end discrimination and stigma. Incredibly, at the beginning of this month, the Department issued a new circular essentially capitulating on all this. In the intervening period, there was clearly a lot of lobbying by the Catholic Church and its representatives, and now the alternative choice subject is not to be offered to people who choose to opt out of religion. Can the Minister explain this?
I know that we are tight on time and that Deputy Catherine Martin wants to get in but I wish to take this opportunity, as a former member of the Business Committee, to thank Deputy Boyd Barrett for his collegiality and co-operation at that committee and the Ceann Comhairle and his team for a wonderful experience in how consensus politics can work in getting things done. I just wanted to put that on the public record.
In February 2018, my Department published Circular 0013/2018, which set out an approach to the arrangements that were to be made for religious instruction and worship in education and training board and post-primary community schools. This arose as a result of concerns that multidenominational education and training board, ETB, schools were requiring attendance at classes with Catholic religious instruction.
Section 4 of the circular provided that the school is required to ascertain parental wishes in respect of the child's attendance at such religious instruction. Where a parent did not want his or her child to receive religious instruction, the school was required to provide an alternative subject. Where there was any practice of combining or including religious instruction and formation or worship in the same class time as the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, religious education syllabus, parents were made aware of this fact in order that they could make an informed decision to withdraw their children from that class if this was their wish.
The newly published circular to which the Deputy referred clarifies in section 3 that withdrawal with an offer of an alternative subject does not arise in respect of the NCCA religious syllabus where there is no religious instruction or faith formation.
Religious education is an examinable subject just like history or geography, for example. It aims to develop students' ability to examine questions of meaning, purpose and relationships, to help students understand, respect and appreciate people's expression of their beliefs and to facilitate dialogue and reflection on the diversity of beliefs and values that inform responsible decision-making and ways of living. Crucially, it is not delivered from any one religious perspective.
The second important clarification is that where a school intends to provide religious instruction classes, parents must give consent before admission to the class. This means that the issue of opting out does not arise because the parent has requested a place in the religious instruction class.
This circular has no impact on the right of parents under the Education Act or the Constitution to opt out of any subject for reason of conscience.
We need clarification here. I am aware, on foot of a report by Emma O'Kelly of RTÉ and freedom of information, FOI, requests that were submitted in respect of this matter, that there was very considerable lobbying by the Catholic bishops, the Association of Trustees of Catholic Schools, former heads of County Dublin vocational education committees, VECs. These bodies were clearly unhappy with the initial circular, a positive document which stated that people have the right to opt out of religious education and have alternative subject choices.
It is not clear from the Minister's reply whether that still stands. Do people have the right to opt out and have alternative subject choices in line with what was stated in the first circular? I absolutely believe that they should have such a right. People should not be forced to have religious education or instruction imposed on them. To be honest, the sort of distinction that is being drawn between religious education and religious instruction is a bit bogus. Can we get clarity on this matter?
Yes, we can try if the Deputy will let the Minister answer.
I will. By the way, I thank the Minister for his words. I share the sentiments he expressed about the Business Committee. I wish him good luck with his new portfolio.
I forced the Deputy to wish me good luck.
I had to reciprocate.
I will ensure that I get proper clarification. I will direct my officials to do that.
I have some additional information that I hope will be helpful. As a former philosophy student at Maynooth University, I agree with the idea that space should be provided within the curriculum for people to address many of the difficult questions we all face on a day-to-day basis. That does not mean instruction. There is no religious-specific instruction within the religious education syllabus. As part of its normal inspection processes, the Department's inspectorate will inspect whether the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment's religious education subject is being delivered in schools in accordance with the requirements of the circular that was published recently. Schools have discretion in the context of religious education. They may choose not to offer the subject at all. If religious education is to be mandatory or optional in any particular class, group or year, it is to be treated the same as all other subjects, such as history or geography, for these purposes. It is subject to inspection. I reiterate that religious education is a separate subject. It does not involve instruction in any one faith or another. It probably provides an opportunity to broaden the discussion regarding well-being at a time when children and young people have different anxieties and pressures that teachers are dealing with. At this morning's meeting of the joint committee, we discussed how to make progress in the area of well-being. I certainly think there is value in this approach.
To be honest, the Minister has not provided the clarity I am seeking. Do people still have the right to opt out of religious education in favour of alternative subject choices? The Minister's failure to give me a clear answer suggests they do not have that right in some instances. I was also a philosophy student. At my first philosophy lecture in UCD, a priest who was a member of Opus Dei - there were many of them in the UCD philosophy department - said that before he and his colleagues started to teach us about all the great philosophers, he wanted us to know that Karl Marx, Nietzsche and a whole load of other secular radical philosophers were not philosophers. He said that St. Thomas Aquinas was a philosopher. That was the start of our philosophical education. It was informed by the Catholic religion through and through and that is how it followed. We cannot have that.
It must not have worked on the Deputy.
It absolutely did not work on me. That kind of approach is not acceptable. The approach we are advocating needs to be absolutely clear. This subject should be changed from religious education to philosophy and should include other world views that have nothing to do with religion. We should look at religious views in the context of all views of the world, but that is not what we are getting. People should have the right to opt out of religious education.
I repeat that it is the prerogative of each school to decide whether to offer this subject. My information tells me that instruction from the perspective of any individual religion is not part of this. I am happy to continue the conversation on philosophy because I think young people need space to reflect. As a convent boy who was educated in a Loreto secondary school, I value the philosophy and the caring and compassionate ethos that is espoused by the Loreto order. That is my perspective. It is not coming from the Department of Education and Skills.
One can get that from Karl Marx as well, by the way.
I was more of a Descartes fan in philosophy. We have to be very clear about what happens when schools make decisions. My philosophy and vision for my new job is that schools should be empowered to make their own choices.
