United Dioceses of Dublin & Glendalough

19.10.2009

Archbishop Accuses Department of Education of Determined and Doctrinaire Strike on Protestant Schools

Delivering his Presidential Address to the Dublin and Glendalough Diocesan Synods in the Parish Centre of Christ Church, Taney, the Archbishop of Dublin, the Most Revd Dr John Neill accused the Department of Education of mounting a "very determined and doctrinaire effort...to strike at a sector which some officials totally failed to understand."

The text of the Archbishop's Address follows below.

Referring to the decision last year by the Minister for Education and Science, Batt O'Keefe TD to remove ancillary funding from voluntary Protestant secondary schools and increase their pupil teacher ratio, the Archbishop noted that the state has been dependent on religious communities to contribute to education "down the generations and still is to a large extent." "But", he continued "widespread dependence on schools of the majority religious ethos requires that alternatives are catered for. A minority is as entitled to schools under their own patronage as much as the majority."

The Archbishop continued, "the Protestant Community in Ireland is very mixed, ranging right across the sociological spectrum and in terms of income. This attempt by the Minister to place all Protestants into a category of privilege - suggesting that they have chosen private education is manifestly unjust."

The Archbishop also highlighted concerns over the future of the Church of Ireland College of Education which, along with Marino College and Froebel was threatened with withdrawal of funding. He said, "the ongoing use of the Department of Education and Science of the designation "small colleges" in relation to the Church of Ireland, Froebel and Marino Colleges is a failure to grasp the point that these colleges are distinctive, each in different ways. To group colleges merely by size is meaningless in this context."

Concluding on the topic, the Archbishop said, "I am not objecting to cuts in principle, so long as such cuts are fair and just, and not simply to wipe out a whole sector."

Elsewhere in his address the Archbishop spoke on how the Church and individual Christians should respond in the current recession. He highlighted the creation of "Taney Employment Centre", an initiative by the Diocese of Dublin and Glendalough which will provide advice and support for those unemployed, facing unemployment and those thinking of changing employment. He emphasised the importance of good stewardship by individuals and the Government and argue that "the amount of money wasted by the HSE in the recent years of plenty on grandiose projects, and doctrinaire reforms, leaves us now with a greatly weakened and struggling health service."

In the final part of his address, the Archbishop alluded to the findings of a recent 'audit' of Church of Ireland parishes in Dublin and Glendalough. Amongst the findings he referred to were that between 20-25% of parishioners attend services every Sunday, at least half the parishes responding spoke of a very high number of parishioners from a non-Church of Ireland background, several citing percentages as high as 40% and that of the forty seven currently in training for ordained ministry in the Church of Ireland, one third are from the Diocese of Dublin and Glendalough. Commenting on the findings, the Archbishop said that "there are many good stories to tell. This is not simply a case of encouraging people to 'blow their own trumpet' but rather the realisation that we an encourage each other and share new ideas and learn from each other more."

 

The Economy
There is unlikely to be anybody in this room that has not had to face some difficult decisions due to the economic crisis.  There are some whose lives have been turned upside down, who are genuinely frightened of what the future may hold.  There are others who have had to revise or postpone plans that seemed quite possible to carry through even a short time ago.  There are young people feeling that their life has ground to a halt before it has even started. This is one side, and a very real and painful side of the picture.

The other side of the picture is that there are things that we must do in this situation.  It could bring out the best in everybody – but of course it could also bring out the worst.  We could perpetuate the individualism of the era of the Celtic Tiger, or we could begin to become more caring, more conscious of the needs of others, and less out for our own interests.

The problem with the period of affluence enjoyed by so many was that values were turned on their head.  People began to feel like commodities, and success was judged in the most materialistic terms.   The tragedy is that those who had been sucked into this scenario when all began to unravel began to feel worthless and utter failures.  

Our first response as a Church, and indeed as individual Christians, is to examine the values that we hold.  The Gospel of Jesus Christ places a very high value on each person.  The value that we each have in the sight of God is something that we need to grasp for ourselves, and it is a value that we have to place on others.   This may seem obvious, but when one pauses, it is apparent that this is not something widely accepted.  We are all too often valued in our society for what we have achieved, the job that we hold, or even the material possessions that we have amassed.

Our further response as a Church is to do something practical.  I know that many parishes are doing this in a pastoral and often generous manner.  I want to mention in this context the Diocesan Initiative – “Taney Employment Centre”.  This is described as an advice and support centre for those unemployed, facing unemployment and those thinking of change. This is the initiative of a small group of dedicated professionals led by Geoffrey Perrin.   

There is a further onus on us all in Irish Society, which is indeed part of our Christian response as well – and that is the proper use of the resources that we have – something that is Christian Stewardship.   It is all too easy to make the assumption as one moves from a period of intense materialism, to suggest that material things are of no value.  The waste of a period of affluence, the lack of respect for creation, and the general “must have” culture has been brought to a sudden halt – and we must instead recover good stewardship of material things, as well as of the created order itself.   

Let it be said that it is at every level that good stewardship has to be exercised, and this is the task of Government in a very special way.   It is easy to hit out at the cuts that most directly affect us as individuals, or our own special concern.   No Government can govern by simply heeding the pleas of every pressure group and we have to recognise that.  But good stewardship must also be exercised by a Government, and it is both necessary and right that we should decry cuts which affect the weakest in society, and those which are not fairly shared right across the board.   It is all too easy to lose any sense of direction by a lack of clear and informed thinking, and this is simply bad stewardship.   The amount of money wasted by the HSE in the recent years of plenty on grandiose projects, and doctrinaire reforms, leaves us now with a greatly weakened and struggling health service.  The health service is in danger of being totally demoralised.



Education
It is less than fair for any Government to use cuts to implement policies that it has neither signalled nor given an opportunity for a real engagement to take place.    This is precisely what is happening in the Department of Education and Science.  We are already experiencing the reality that at a stroke of a pen, long respected and well-tried mechanisms are being changed beyond recognition.   This has occurred in the case of the Protestant Secondary Schools which have been put into a different category of funding that will in the end put some, if not all of them, out of business.  Those that survive will only do so by charging excessive fees, thereby excluding the very community they were founded to serve.  

It is my distinct impression that the re-classification of the Protestant schools was not driven by financial considerations.  It was driven by what amounts to a very determined and doctrinaire effort within the Department of Education and Science to strike at a sector which some officials totally failed to understand.  Previous governments, whether single party, or coalitions including different combinations of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, Democratic Left and the Progressive Democrats, each understood and treated these schools in a fair manner.  The same cannot be said of the present Fianna Fáil / Green Party coalition.  

Provision for scattered minority communities and for large majority communities will always have to be different.  This is true in every aspect of life, be it education, transport or health.  This is precisely what Irish Governments until now have always attempted to grasp.   It is only now that what was once seen as realism in relation to different and complex situations is being described simply as “an anomaly”.   Furthermore religious communities, be they Roman Catholic or Protestant, have made and continue to make a huge contribution to the provision of education.  The State has been dependent on that contribution down the generations and still is to a large extent.  But widespread dependence on schools of the majority religious ethos requires that alternatives are catered for.   A minority is as entitled to schools under their own patronage as much as is the majority.  There is no conflict between the needs of either. The support of the Roman Catholic sector has been much appreciated as we seek to defend the Protestant sector.  For economic and practical reasons, it was found to be best to provide for the Protestant schools in a particular way. This allowed them to remain independent and charge fees.  At the same time they received essential ancillary grants, and also the normal capitation grants for pupils, but in the form of the Block Grant.   This is administered not indiscriminately but in a very strictly means-tested manner.   The frequent mention of the Block Grant and its maintenance is misleading – this is not a privilege, it is I repeat simply the individual capitation grants paid together with a fifteen per cent reduction.

The sudden transfer of these schools from the special category related to the free sector into what is a private fee-paying sector is what is grossly unfair.  The future of the schools is threatened by not only the loss of much funding that they had for many years, but also by the changes in the pupil teacher ratio.  These two changes, changing the pupil/teacher ratio and withdrawing funding, will not only cost jobs but actually make some schools no longer viable in quite a short span of time.  

I am not suggesting for one moment that cuts that are right across the board in these times, and which we are told will get worse, should not affect these schools.  We are not asking to escape, that would be both wrong and foolish.  What I am saying is that the recent placing of the Protestant schools in a different category – in the category of privilege – that is the category of those who in spite of the provision of free schooling in their own tradition opt for private schooling – is to ignore the real nature of those who attend our schools.  

Last week, the Minister said: “I believe the measures that differentiated between those schools with fee income and those with no fee income were fairer all round”.         

I am now responding to the Minister’s statement, and especially because he has repeated on several occasions that he wishes to hear from the Bishops and from the Secondary Education Committee.  Again and again, in response to the Minister we have made our proposal – that the status quo ante be reinstated.  Our schools should be treated, as they always have been, as block grant schools within the free scheme. We have responded, but in doing so now in public once again – I expand it in three ways:

FIRST, one cannot call it fair to place in the one category the two distinct groups which I have just mentioned.   The first group is made up of Protestant parents whatever their means, and many of them are very poor, and I mean very poor indeed, who sacrifice much in order to send their children to a school of their own tradition.  No cheaper alternative is available sharing a Protestant ethos.  There are only five Protestant comprehensive schools in the Republic, and three of these are in this diocese.  Some of these schools cannot even take all the Protestant children in their catchment area.   The second group - that with which the Protestant schools are being lumped together - is made up of those who in spite of free schools available in their own tradition and in their locality, actually opt to send their children to a private fee-paying school.   Obviously there is some blurring of the distinction in some large city schools, but an open policy on enrolment where possible is bound to throw up some anomalies.       

The Protestant Community in Ireland is very mixed, ranging right across the sociological spectrum, and of course in terms of income. This attempt by the Minister to place all Protestants into a category of privilege – suggesting that they have chosen private education - is manifestly unjust.

SECOND, the fee income to which the Minister refers provides the necessary funding for running the school which would otherwise be supplied by the State as in the so-called free sector.  Incidentally this free sector is not free of all fees in every such State school.  Payments in such schools are simply called “voluntary contributions” provided by parents – and indeed without them, many of the schools could not continue.    If all fee-paying schools in the State were to close and move into the system of free Education, the State would face a substantially larger educational bill than it does at the present time.    The fact of the matter is that this concession about fees was a way that was found to cope with providing for the minority churches.

THIRD – the Protestant Secondary Schools are not elitist, they are not selective, except that they have to give priority to children of their own tradition.  These schools are inclusive of those with special needs, often to a very high extent.  These schools have to provide for a range of children from a wider range of backgrounds than other sectors – to provide for those with high academic expectations as well as those who need to concentrate on the practical subjects.   One school principal recently described all these schools as being comprehensive with a small ‘c’.  

The Minister and the Department of Education and Science have in effect sent a message to the Protestant community which we as citizens of this State did not expect to hear.

In relation to Education, I must also mention concerns that the Church of Ireland College of Education is at grave risk of loosing its funding, if not in the short term, certainly in the longer term.   The primary schools of this State have always been a co-operative effort between the Churches and the State.  The State became involved in what is basically a Church system of education.  There are of course now alternatives to this model, but it still remains by far the largest system.  Most of the primary schools are not owned by the State, though the newer ones often are.    The State has benefited by both the system of Patronage and local Boards of Management which are heavily dependent on the local church communities.  In return the churches have been able to maintain their own ethos in these schools – though I am not suggesting for one moment that this is the only model that the State should support.   However unless the State can afford at this juncture to set up an entirely independent system, it simply cannot ignore the fact that teachers have to be trained for the couple of hundred schools within the ethos of the Church of Ireland.   The Church of Ireland College of Education is the natural accompaniment of this system of education in the State.  However it also provides training in Special Needs Education right across the board for teachers and Special Needs Assistants. It specializes in a major way in the provision of initial professional development for teachers who work in small schools where they teach multi-level classes.

 To simply cut off its funding is not the way to make either a community or our schools feel that they have any value whatever.

The ongoing use by the Department of Education and Science of the designation “small colleges” in relation to the Church of Ireland, Fröbel and Marino Colleges is a failure to grasp the point that these colleges are distinctive, each in different ways.  To group colleges merely by size is meaningless in this context.  As I have already argued, this same misuse of terminology is used in relation to secondary schools, where the designation “fee-paying” has been made a key characteristic.

It is very important that I am heard clearly on this.  I am not objecting to cuts in principle; so long as such cuts are fair and just, and do not simply wipe out a whole sector.  I am not suggesting that the Church of Ireland College of Education should not have to face the same stringency as is felt right across the third level sector of education, but I am stating that the suggested annihilation of that College sends a very sad message to the Church of Ireland community.   



An Audit of the Parishes
Last February, I issued to the Rectors in these dioceses an audit form.  It was not an attempt to analyse parish finances or numbers, but rather an attempt to get an overall picture of where the diocese was going.  It was not meant to be exhaustive, nor was it going to be made available for any other purposes than a snapshot of the diocese and its mission.  The returns are not being placed into parish or diocesan files for the future.

An analysis of these returns was undertaken with great care.  Over half of the parishes or of the clergy made returns, though there was a higher percentage of returns among the city and suburban parishes.

I think it would be fair to say that there were four distinct groups of parishes reflected in the survey – the suburban parishes and here of course almost all parishes outside the city share something of this commuting population, and then of course there were the essentially inner city parishes and the essentially rural parishes, and the last group which is quite significant were the eclectic (that is gathered together from beyond a parish) congregations, evangelical, anglo-catholic or charismatic.

In this context it was interesting that the average numbers of parishioners attending on any given Sunday was about 25% in Dublin diocese and about 20% in Glendalough.  The Dublin figure is probably higher because of the number of eclectic congregations which on the whole have a better percentage attendance.

The age profile varied greatly – some definitely had an older congregation, but others again had a large number of young families and children.

What was very interesting was that at least half the parishes spoke of a very high number of parishioners from a non-Church of Ireland background, and several cited percentages as high as 40% and more.

About one third of the parishes said that they had a structured Youth Ministry, and a few others hoped shortly to put such in place.  On the other hand, the majority took children’s ministry very seriously.  There are probably few surprises here, because we tend to be better working with children than with teenagers at the parish level.

One question that threw up quite extended answers was that relating to opportunities for faith development.   It was encouraging that most parishes were taking this area seriously – some with regular study and prayer groups, some with an emphasis on Lent or Lent and Advent courses, some with regular Alpha or Emmaus courses.  However there were a few parishes that were finding it very hard to progress at all in this area, and it is perhaps an area in which we could share experience.

An enquiry about ecumenical involvement produced little surprise. Generally local ecumenical relationships, clergy fellowships and sharing in special events seemed to be well established right across the four main churches and often beyond.   There was definitely less interest in the special ecumenical services for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.

An interesting response came to the questions concerning lay involvement in chaplaincies held by the clergy, and lay ministry in general.  The situation has developed that the hospital visitors that sometimes assisted the chaplains can now only undertake this work if they are an accredited part of the chaplaincy team, involving specific training.  However in Nursing Homes, and in facilities for the aged in general, some involvement seems to be warmly welcomed.  However there is an emerging lay ministry that is pastoral, practical and evangelistic developing and emerging in several parishes alongside an increasing liturgical role for laity both in the planning and conduct of worship.

One of the most encouraging aspects of the ministry of most parishes was the fact that in place of what in the past was often perceived as a traditional introspection, there is a growing and often very imaginative practical social awareness in most parishes of the diocese, and not least among members of the Mothers’ Union.   The Social involvement of the Church of Ireland in the Republic is often totally under-estimated because it is carried out almost exclusively by parishes or certain organisations rather than more centrally.  However our diocese sponsors some important events to raise awareness as well.

One area that was explored was that of both the frustrations and the fulfilment of ministry as felt by the clergy themselves.  There were three areas of frustration that seemed to surface quite a lot.  One was the amount of administration whether it be parochial or educational, or the demands of “Safeguarding Trust”  in particular.    Another was that the clergy were finding it hard to get time for any routine visiting beyond the administrative and the visitation of the sick and of those in particular pastoral emergency situations.    The third area of concern was the difficulty of encouraging lay leadership with the demands on the time of most lay people, and the fact that though numbers of laity linked to a parish may be high, their regular participation in the life and worship of the church was less regular and frequent than used to be the case.

These frustrations need to be taken seriously, and there are practical things that parishes can do, and there is possibly more support, spiritual and practical that we could provide at a Diocesan level.

The sources of fulfilment for clergy were important too. The relationship with parishioners was seen as a source of encouragement.  The sheer variety of the ministry refreshed many.  There was great fulfilment to be found in much of the pastoral work undertaken, and in the preparation of and leading of worship, especially the Eucharist.   Several also write very positively of the privilege of being involved in schools.    Though it was not specifically mentioned in parochial returns, there is another sign of clergy fulfilment in ministry.  Clergy who are fulfilled in their ministry convey that to others.  It is encouraging therefore to discover that of the forty seven in training in the Church of Ireland for ordained ministry, fifteen, or almost one third come from this diocese.

I would make several comments, and comments that I feel to be positive and encouraging.  The first is that all the responses showed clergy and usually parishes as well strongly motivated and there was no hint of complacency.  The second is that there was a tremendous variety in the parishes – not simply in terms of churchmanship, styles of worship or opportunity for practical outreach, but also in the way that they viewed their mission.   The age profile of the parish, the socio-economic nature of the local community and geographical location all provided a variety of context in which the mission of a parish could be carried forward.    

I want to dwell on that variety for a moment or two because a lack of awareness of the different types of churches and parishes that make up a diocese can lead to a very simplistic designation of some parishes as lively and others as apparently dying, some as vibrant, others not.    One of the clichés used among commentators today can be totally misleading – that we need to move from “maintenance” to “mission”.   Maintenance is part of the mission of the Church as well as what is more usually designated as outreach.  Many parishes and priests by their sheer faithfulness in a very difficult situation with limited resources can do just as much to the glory of God as those with marvellous outreach programmes.

To read those audit returns was to make me grateful for every corner of this scattered and diverse diocese – because in each part God is active.   Yes, new incumbencies, new members, new opportunities, will cause a change of direction from time to time, but that is but part of the marvellous tapestry of the divine purpose.   

The third and last point that I want to make from the study of that audit is that there are many good stories out there to be told.  This is not a case of encouraging people to “blow their own trumpet”, but rather the realisation that we can encourage each other, and share new ideas, and learn from each other more.  Perhaps we could suggest that from time to time, the Church Review does a parish profile, along the lines of the way in which the Church of Ireland Gazette does a Diocesan profile.