The ETBI and Educate Together have just launched ‘Aitheantas’. This is a Framework for the Recognition of Certification to Teach Ethical, Multi-Belief and Values Education, in both ETB Community National schools and Educate Together schools.
These Patrons’ curricula are the Goodness Me Goodness you course in CNS schools, and the Learn Together course in Educate Together schools. Both courses are taught during the Patron’s time in the school day, and also integrated across the state curriculum.
We wish them well in this endeavour, and appreciate the work done to get their particular ideological position in relation to multi-denominational education recognised.
There are, however, key human rights principles for everybody involved to consider.
- Under the European Convention, all children have a right to an objective, critical and pluralistic education, and the state has a legal obligation to ensure that this happens. This comes up in every case in relation to education under Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the Convention.
- The Irish state does not legally oblige any Patron body to ensure that their Patron’s courses are objective, critical and pluralistic. This is a General Principle of the European Court, but the Department and Patron bodies do not respect it.
- Just like denominational schools, the Patron’s courses in the CNS and Educate Together schools are privately developed and not inspected by the School Inspectorate. This was a key issue in the recent case at the UK Supreme Court in relation to schools in Northern Ireland.
What is happening in these schools?
All Patron bodies claim their particular Patron’s programme is suitable for children from all backgrounds. Parents are expected to either just accept this, or else examine every lesson taught to their child to ensure it is suitable for their family.
Examining every lesson would be too much of a burden for parents, and there are no non-discriminatory exemptions in either type of school. So in practice, most parents just enrol their children into these privately-developed courses.
Neither the ETBI nor Educate Together have taken the right to an objective, critical and pluralistic into account when developing their Patron’s programmes. They are not legally obliged to do so because they have not ratified the European Convention.
However, if children have not got access to an objective, critical and pluralistic education then according to the European Court, the state is pursuing an aim of indoctrination by not respecting parents’ convictions.
We recognise that these Patron bodies reject the charge that their ethos/programme is indoctrination. So does the Catholic Church.
But under human rights law, if our children have not got access to an objective, critical and pluralistic education, then it is indoctrination, because it does not respect our philosophical convictions.
In recent correspondence, we have again raised these issues with the ETBI. They again said they would look into it, but they never do.
What has the UK Supreme Court said?
This is what the UK Supreme Court said about the state inspection of schools to ensure there is no indoctrination taking place. This case goes into detail regarding the understanding of the word ‘indoctrination’ in relation to Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
“Furthermore, the submission ignores the positive duty, under the major principle at (i) above, on the competent authorities to inspect schools “to see to it” that indoctrination does not occur and the concomitant duty on the competent authority to take action if on inspection it is found that it is occurring. In circumstances where indoctrination is occurring, the competent authority would also be in breach of its positive duties under major principle (i). Finally, the Strasbourg Court in Folgerø found that there was a breach of A2P1 and did so without making a finding that the State was pursuing the “aim” of indoctrination.
108. Thirdly, as I have indicated, the major principle at (i) above places positive duties on the competent authority to inspect and to take action if on inspection it is found that indoctrination is occurring. In this case one of the reasons advanced by JR87’s parents for not withdrawing her from religious education and collective worship at the School is that they wished her to receive religious education, provided it did not amount to indoctrination. If the Department had inspected and had taken positive action to prevent indoctrination, then there would be no substance in this reason advanced by JR87’s parents. However, the Department, as the competent authority, has conspicuously failed to comply with its duties to inspect and to take action so there is considerable substance in this reason as one of the factors to be taken into account in determining whether there has been a breach of A2P1.
109. Fourthly, there is another feature of the duty to take the utmost care identified in major principle (i) above. Utmost care requires the Department to provide some assistance to individual schools in relation to the difficult practical questions as to: (a) the alternative arrangements to be made for pupils who are withdrawn from religious education and/or collective worship; and (b) the procedures to be followed by the schools in conjunction with the parents when seeking to identify appropriate alternative arrangements.”
Conclusion
The Department and these Patron bodies should consider three questions.
- Why are we expected to just accept private Patron’s courses that are not inspected by the state?
- Why does the Department not comply with its duty under Article 2 of Protocol 1 to inspect Patron’s programmes to ensure they are objective, critical and pluralistic?
- Why are we still waiting on the ETBs and Educate Together to put in place non-discriminatory exemptions from their Patron’s programmes?
Atheist Ireland will continue to campaign on these issues.