I have to disagree slightly with my collegue Michael Kelly over his take on Ruairi Quinn's article on the future of schools carried in yesterday's Irish Times. I actually think Quinn's article is more friendly to Catholic schools than Michael seems to think.

For me the key paragraphs in the article dealt with the all-important topic of parental choice, and crucially Quinn believes that the principle of parental choice must be central to the debate on the future of schools. He doesn't envisage a State-run, one-size-fits-all systems.

The most relevant quotes from his article are as follows:
 
'Parents should have a choice, as far as possible, about what kind of school their children will attend'.
There should be an "orderly transfer of Catholic patronage of some primary schools to other patron bodies” which would “enable Catholic parents to have Catholic schools which would deliver Catholic education for observant Catholic parents and their children".
 
Note here that while he envisages a certain number of Catholic schools changing hands, nonetheless he refers to only 'some' schools, meaning the rest will remain in Catholic hands and presumably will continue to be publicly-funded.
 
Finally, he has this to say:  "Article 42 of our Constitution recognises the parent as the primary educator of the child. The Labour Party believes that this is a good starting point from which to address the issue of the provision of education.
 
"Getting from where we are, to a pluralism of choice in primary education which reflects the needs of Ireland today and into the future, is a journey which we need to take. But we must embark carefully and with concern, first and foremost, for our young students and their teachers."
 
So unless I'm missing something there isn't a world of difference between the future the Catholic bishops see for Catholic primary schools, and the future the Labour party sees for them.