Colette Kelleher (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for being here. I am delighted that his first day as Minister for Education and Skills is an interesting one. As a fellow community and youth worker in the past we have much in common already. The Minister spoke about the concerns raised by Senator Gallagher regarding the potential politicisation of the curriculum suggested in this Bill. I took on board these points when previously made inside and outside of this House and I received advice in this regard from Mr. James Kane, barrister, who helped with the drafting of the Bill. As the Minister mentioned that he may be bringing forth amendments on Report Stage, it might be useful if I share that advice with him.

The Bill does not envisage that the Minister would prescribe the syllabus in a vacuum. Under the Bill, as currently drafted, the Minister would take advice from only entities that he or she feels necessary, including parents' organisations and the NCCA, which the Minister's predecessor has already asked to do some work on this. As mentioned by the Minister I have met the NCCA and that work is already in train. The position envisaged by the Bill, as currently drafted, is clearly not that the curriculum would reflect a Minister's personal agenda or personal beliefs.Obviously none of us would wish that to happen. What I suggest through this Bill does not contravene that convention.

The Minister's role in this process does not render the process politicised. Rather, it ensures there is a person who is responsible and accountable for the content of the syllabus of recognised schools. This Bill is fully consistent with the existing state of affairs where the Minister prescribes the content of the syllabus of recognised schools. In that regard, as things stand currently in the Education Act 1998, the following provisions show that the role of the NCCA is advisory in nature only and that the Minister is responsible for prescribing the syllabus. Section 41(1) of the Education Act 1998 states: "The object of the Council shall be to advise the Minister on matters relating to - (a) the curriculum for early childhood education, primary and post-primary schools," and section 41(2) of the Act states: " ... it shall be a function of the Council: (a) from time to time to review the curriculum, or any part of the curriculum, for schools and the syllabuses taught and to advise the Minister;". Section 30(1) of the 1998 Act provides that: “The Minister may, from time to time, following such consultation with patrons of schools, national associations of parents, recognised school management organisations and recognised trade unions and staff associations representing teachers, as the Minister considers appropriate, prescribe the curriculum for recognised schools, namely - (a) the subjects to be offered in recognised schools, (b) the syllabus of each subject". Section 30(3) of the 1998 Act contains an express power for the Minister to “consult with the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment and such other persons or bodies of persons as the Minister considers appropriate on any matter relating to the curriculum for recognised schools.”

As appears from the provisions just mentioned, any amendment to this Bill that proposes that the Minister does not prescribe the curriculum is, in fact, a deviation from the present position as set out in the Education Act 1998. It does not appear to be justifiable to have one approach for the current curriculum, which the Minister prescribes in consultation with other bodies, and a different approach for Traveller culture and history. If the Minister is not to prescribe the syllabus, the question arises as to who is responsible for prescribing the content. The Bill would be toothless without stipulating that a particular person or entity is responsible for making this change to the syllabus.

In case there is any argument of floodgates whereby it is feared that other people, or groups, might want to initiate Bills to reflect further changes to the syllabus to reflect their own culture and history, a number of points can be made. Travellers are an ethnic minority and ,therefore, specific considerations arise from this. It should also be noted that there are numerous EU recommendations in existence dealing specifically with Traveller education. Any future Bill would have to be considered and debated on its merits in the normal way and it may well be found that the curriculum is lacking in other areas and requires amendments. If that turns out to be the case, so be it. This is no reason to hold back on this Bill. It is inconsistent with the provisions of Article 42(1) and 42(2) of the Constitution for the Oireachtas to foreclose on, or to express hostility towards, parental choice with respect to the education that their children receive. The Oireachtas must, if it is to act consistently with Article 42, remain open to the voice of parents in articulating important changes to the curriculum. Accordingly, the Bill should not be attacked on the basis of a floodgates argument. I hope this addresses some of the concerns voiced in this House today, or other concerns that might arise from the amendments. The barrister whose advice I quoted is available to meet with the Minister and his officials while we wait for the NCCA's approach, which I have been promised will be delivered by the end of March.