education

Question 1

source

Answer 1

• Article 42. 1 The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
  o 2 Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State.
  o 3 1° The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.
  o 2° The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.
  o 4 The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

Question 2

what is education

Answer 2

• Ryan v Attorney General – ‘Education essentially is the teaching and training of a child to make the best possible use of his inherent and potential capacities, physical, mental and moral.

Question 3

duty of the state towards children

Answer 3

• Byrne v. Ireland [1972] – the Supreme Court held that the State could be sued in tort and that this extended to breaches of constitutional obligations. Walsh J emphasised that constitutional duties, such as the State’s obligation to provide education, must be capable of legal enforcement. He referred to Article 10 of the 1922 Constitution, which guaranteed free elementary education, as an example of a provision enforceable against the State if not implemented.
• Re Art 26 and the School Attendance Bill 1942 [1943] – The Supreme Court considered whether s.4 of the Bill, requiring that education outside national schools be certified by the Minister for Education as suitable, was constitutional. The key issue was the interpretation of “certain minimum education” in Article 42.3.2 of the Constitution.
  o The Court held that while it is for the Oireachtas to define this term, such a definition must give effect to the constitutional provision without breaching other constitutional rights. The phrase was interpreted to mean a basic standard of elementary, general education.
  o The Court found parts of the Bill unconstitutional because they could allow the State to demand a level of education exceeding this constitutional minimum, thereby infringing the rights of parents to provide education outside the State system.

Question 4

what is suitable elementary education

Answer 4

parents educating their children at home were prosecuted under the School Attendance Act 1926, which required children to attend a national or suitable school unless receiving “suitable elementary education” elsewhere.
o The High Court held that although the term lacked statutory definition, this did not bar a conviction. It was for the parents to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that their children were receiving suitable education.
o In assessing this, the court could consider factors like contemporary educational standards, the child’s needs, the parents’ financial means, and geographic location.

Question 5

what includes in primary education

Answer 5

• O’Donoghue v Minister for Health [1993] – the applicant was a child with profound mental and physical disabilities. His parents claimed the State failed in its constitutional duty to provide him with free primary education under Article 42 and sought a declaration to that effect.
  o The State argued that the child was ineducable, and that Article 42 referred only to traditional scholastic education, which would not benefit him. They claimed the care he needed did not amount to “education” within the meaning of the Constitution.
  o High Court (O’Hanlon J): Rejected the State’s position.
  o Held that primary education under Article 42 includes more than just academic instruction, it extends to any form of teaching or guidance that helps a child develop their inherent physical, mental, or moral capacities, however limited.
  o Drew on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons (1975) to support a broad, inclusive interpretation of education.
  o Found that the State had failed its constitutional duty by not providing for the applicant’s educational needs. Declaration and damages awarded.

Question 6

does the primary education go over 18

Answer 6

• Sinnott v The Minister for Education [2001] – The case concerned the interpretation of “free primary education” under Article 42.4 of the Irish Constitution. The applicant, a 23-year-old man with severe autism, required basic education throughout his life.
  o HC – ruled in favor of Sinnott, stating that education should be needs-based. The State appealed, arguing that there was no constitutional obligation to provide education for disabled adults.
  o SC – held that the Constitution should be interpreted as a “living document” but still within its historical context.
  o Denham J argued that the right to free primary education applied only to children, as the term “child” was age-related, meaning it extended only up to the age of 18.
  o The majority of the Court agreed that Sinnott was entitled to education up to 18 years of age, based on his needs as a severely autistic child.
  o Geoghegan J added that primary education for mentally handicapped children might extend beyond the usual age limit due to learning disabilities.
  o The majority also overturned the High Court’s finding that Sinnott’s mother’s constitutional right to parental choice in education was breached. However, Denham J dissented, stating that the failure to provide education violated both Sinnott’s rights and his mother’s right to equality under Articles 40.1 and 41, as a parent.

Question 7

what method must be used

Answer 7

• O’C v Minister for Education [2007] – the plaintiff, an autistic child, sought to compel the Minister for Education to provide education specifically using the ABA (Applied Behavioural Analysis) method. The Minister maintained that the eclectic model then in use was sufficient to satisfy the constitutional obligation under Article 42.4.
• HC – Peart J clarified that the question was not which educational method, ABA or eclectic, was superior, but whether the State’s chosen method was constitutionally adequate.
• He emphasised that Article 42.4 obliges the State to provide for free primary education, not to directly provide it.
• Peart J found no evidence of irrationality in the Minister’s decision and held that the Minister was entitled to adopt a different view from those advocating for ABA as the only acceptable approach.

Question 8

the teacher protect

Answer 8

• State v Crowley – In 1975, Rev. Crowley appointed Mr. McCarthy as principal of Drimoleague school, despite him lacking the required five years’ experience. The Department of Education refused the appointment but later approved it in 1976 once McCarthy qualified. The INTO believed the delay was a ploy to secure the job for him and initiated a strike in April 1976, closing seven local schools. Parents tried to move children elsewhere, but the INTO blocked this with a circular.
  o A parent sued, claiming the INTO breached children’s educational rights and the State failed its constitutional duty.
  o The court ordered the State to provide transport to nearby schools.
  o The INTO was found to have violated rights by blocking enrolment elsewhere.
  o The State was not found in breach, as it complied with the order and was not required to provide education specifically in Drimoleague.

Question 9

right to third level education

Answer 9

• Carter v The Minister for Education – confirms that children (or young adults) in Ireland do not have a constitutional right to third-level education, whether as an unenumerated right or as part of the right to work. Judicial recognition of such a right must follow formal procedure and argument. This reinforces the limited scope of enforceable educational rights under the Constitution, which primarily covers free primary education (Article 42.4) and parental rights, rather than post-secondary access.

Question 10

the role of the family

Answer 10

• re Article 26 and the School Attendance Bill 1942 [1943] – the Supreme Court held that while the State can set a minimum educational standard under Article 42.3.2, the manner of providing that education is a matter for parents, not the State. This reflected a clear constitutional rejection of excessive State control in educational matters.
• Northwestern Health Board v HW [2001] – the Supreme Court refused to compel a PKU test on a child despite the parents’ refusal, citing Articles 41 and 42’s strong protection of family autonomy.
  o While not endorsing the parents’ decision, the Court held that State intervention is justified only in exceptional cases where parents have clearly failed in their duty. As Murray J noted, the State’s role is subsidiary.

Question 11

religious freedom

Answer 11

• Campaign to Separate Church and State v Minister for Education [1998] – the plaintiffs argued that paying chaplains in community schools from public funds breached Article 44.2.2, which prohibits State endowment of religion.
  o The HC (Costello P) dismissed the claim, finding that State support for chaplains facilitated parents’ rights under Article 42 to ensure the religious formation of their children, and such support did not amount to unconstitutional endowment.
  o The SC upheld the decision, holding that Article 44.2.2 prohibits permanent or preferential funding of religion but allows support for religious education where it reflects parental choice under Article 42.
  o The funding must be available to all denominations equally. Barrington J noted the Constitution distinguishes between religious instruction and broader education, and that a school’s religious ethos does not violate a child’s rights, even if the child is of a different faith.

Question 12

article 42a

Answer 12

1. The State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights
2. 1° In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.

Question 13

PKU tets

Answer 13

• North Western Health Board v HW [2001] – Parents refused a heel prick test; State sought to intervene.
  o SC held: While the decision was “unwise,” it fell within parental rights under Article 41. No immediate threat to life = no State override.
  o Judges emphasised family autonomy unless there’s an immediate or fundamental threat to the child.