Protestant school cuts should be reconsidered

25 October 2009  

Should the state continue to provide special financial support to help fund Protestant education? That is essentially the question which lurks behind the current controversy about the cutting of funding to Protestant schools, a move which has caused outrage and worry among the Protestant community, and has been opposed by the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin.

Protestant schools benefited from a special arrangement whereby they were permitted to charge fees while, at the same time, partaking of state funding arrangements for schools in the free education scheme.

The arrangement, say the schools’ representatives, has enabled them to cater for the dispersed rural Protestant community, who have been helped to attend boarding schools. Their case has not been helped by the reality that a small number of Protestant schools are among the most exclusive and expensive in the state - even if they do not represent the entirety of the sector.

Much of the rhetoric from representatives of the Protestant community has been overblown. Just because the Protestant community is opposed to the cuts doesn’t mean that they should not go ahead. We should realise that Protestant schools are not being singled out for malicious treatment; rather, their special treatment is coming to an end.

The state’s finances are, we know, in a dire state, and expenditure must be reduced. Cuts will be broad and deep, and they will affect most areas of public expenditure. But they should be as smart and as sensitive as possible.

It is our view that there remains a case for the special treatment for Protestant schools to continue. The state provides special treatment for many groups in society, recognising their unique situation.

Specifically, it has accorded special treatment to religious groups - not least to the largest denomination - and that special treatment continues in many aspects of education.

The sudden reduction in funds to Protestant schools seems a disproportionate move to save a relatively small amount of money. It is keenly and uncomfortably felt by a minority which the state has always been rightfully careful to protect. The government should rethink its proposal.