The Irish Times view on long school holidays: a relic of another time
Agriculture now accounts for little more than 1 per cent of the Irish economy and the use of child labour is tightly regulated. Thus it is reasonable at this point to postulate that long school holidays are an anachronism out of step with the needs of modern Irish society.
Much of the increase in productivity that underpinned economic progress in recent decades is linked to an increase in the number of women in the workforce. Female participation – at 61.4 per cent – is now at its highest since records began in 1998.
Despite a marginal shift towards a more even distribution of parental responsibilities over the period, women remain the primary caregivers in the majority of domestic arrangements and the bulk of the responsibility for caring for children during the school holidays falls to them.
READ MORE
It is not hard to make the argument that the current regime limits economic growth and that shorter school holidays could further enhance female participation and bolster productivity.
The counter-argument is that if a system is not broken then it does not need fixing. Irish school students consistently score above the average in EU and OECD surveys of academic achievement.
This is of course only one measure of the effectiveness of the current system. It does not follow that spreading teaching hours – which are amongst the highest in the OECD – over a longer period would be detrimental. Likewise, it is wrong to assume that teachers are opposed to shorter days and longer school years.
In truth the debate about school holidays is not an economic or pedagogical one. It is about the growing disconnect between the way the school year is structured and how we live our lives.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
9 hours ago
- Irish Times
Expect plenty of cribbin' and moanin' as the budget games begin
The budget games are under way, right enough. Impending decisions about spending priorities for next year and into the future are now the unavoidable context of every political exchange – especially those within Government , some of which you'll see, most of which you won't. They are the subtext of every interview, news story and speech between now and October. As ever, the management of expectations at the centre is essential at this stage. At the recent National Economic Dialogue Paschal Donohoe solemnly warned of deep uncertainty about the future and that (inconveniently) positive headline economic figures so far this year mask 'considerable vulnerabilities'. 'The mood music is changing,' Donohoe warned. His party leader saw 'dark clouds on the horizon'. For the Taoiseach , 'challenging,' was the mot juste. In the Dáil this week, Minister for Public Expenditure Jack Chambers returned to the theme. READ MORE 'We face significant economic uncertainty,' he said. 'Everyone in this House needs to realise the level and degree of ... corporate risks that exists right now.' As the Bert used to say during the late stage hubris of the Celtic Tiger, sure this is all cribbin' and moanin' and talkin' down the country. Still, you can see what they're at. The country and its political system have become accustomed to massive giveaway budgets, and cannot contemplate restraint. Well, let me qualify that thought: everyone can contemplate restraint, just not for themselves. Everyone has a demand for extra spending, sourced from the public purse. Some have a good case; all believe they deserve priority. Much of our media – especially RTÉ – is in the habit of promoting the causes of all comers relentlessly and uncritically. Of course, RTÉ might feel a special affinity with bodies looking for money from the Government. But still. Some context would not go amiss – how much would this cost? What is the existing budget? Where might the money come from? What should not be done in order to pay for this? What taxes should be increased? The list of supplicants for greater public funding is literally unending. A casual glance at a political correspondent's inbox gives a flavour of the requests bombarding the budget ministers: extra provision for education for people with disabilities; extra funding for school capitation; VAT cuts for the embattled hospitality industry; a €25 per week increase in welfare rates; this week's cause celebre – retaining the €1,000 discount on fees for third level students; and so on, and so on. [ The Irish Times view on college fees: Government has a choice to make Opens in new window ] Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan played a more subtle hand. Speaking at the Free Legal Advice Centre in Dublin, he said it was clear that Ireland has 'a big problem' with domestic violence. He would like to provide more resources for Flac and for civil legal aid – but 'I'm limited in terms of budget'. He is getting to the heart of the entire question of budgeting: it's all a question of priorities. Few people would quibble with increasing the budget for legal aid to ensure that people can have access to justice and to the protection of the law, when that question is taken in isolation. But governments cannot take any of these questions in isolation – they must weigh it all up as part of a coherent and credible whole of Government budgetary plan. Within the justice budget, for example, how does that measure up as a priority against recruiting more gardaí? Or fixing the problem of prison overcrowding? Or supporting the victims of crime? Or rehabilitating young people who have fallen into criminality? And how should the justice allocation be compared to the other budgets within Government? Should justice be constrained so that we can spend more money on health? On disabilities? On child poverty? Not so simple now, is it? And, yes, you might want to do all these things. But you can't. Anyone who pretends you can isn't being straight. You have to choose. Now let's not feel too bad for Messers Donohoe and Chambers. It may be hard being in charge of budgets during a time of plenty, but it's better than being Rachel Reeves . As the tears rolled down Reeves' cheeks in the House of Commons on Wednesday, both sterling and the UK's standing in the bond markets were headed in the same direction. Whatever the problems of prosperity that Jack and Paschal have to manage, they are far, far preferable to the other kind of problem, now facing Reeves and her prime minister. Better to have surpluses than deficits. So you might think that an overriding national priority would be to maintain steady and stable public finances. To do that, the budget ministers and the leaders of the Government parties have decided, they must eliminate the once-off giveaways of the last three budgets. 'We can't and we won't' continue with them, Donohoe told Ivan Yates on Newstalk on Thursday. But how firm is that determination? My sense is that Donohoe's is rock solid. He is not, however, in charge of the Government. Both Simon Harris and Micheál Martin, while ruling out another goody basket of one-off giveaways, have insisted that they will also seek to help people with rising costs in the budget. Does this signal a middle ground will be found? This week's controversy over student fees shows just how hard it is to withdraw benefits to which voters have become accustomed. Does the Government have the political will and the capacity to restrain itself and take politically difficult but necessary decisions to position the country for future growth and to protect it against future adversity – or will we cross our fingers, plough on and hope for the best? We'll see. But I know one thing: the politics of no hard choices never, ever ends well.
Irish Times
9 hours ago
- Irish Times
Oliver Plunkett's story would make a great film – it's a shame modern, secular Ireland has forgotten him
Interest in Oliver Plunkett has fluctuated over the four centuries since he was found guilty of treason in a blatant miscarriage of justice in 1681, after which he was hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn . Interest may have peaked in the 1970s. In 1975, there was nearly a diplomatic incident because then taoiseach Liam Cosgrave and president Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh were vying to represent Ireland at the canonisation in Rome . Cosgrave won and even proclaimed the first reading at the canonisation Mass. Archbishop Karol Wojtyła of Kraków also attended, invited by Cardinal William Conway. Four years later, now Pope John Paul II, he prayed before the relics of St Oliver Plunkett at Drogheda before his famous plea for peace. Citing Oliver Plunkett as an exemplar of forgiveness, he begged 'in the language of passionate pleading ... on my knees ... turn away from the paths of violence and ... return to the ways of peace'. More than 50 years before, in 1920, when Terence McSwiney was Lord Mayor of Cork, Sinn Féin councillors successfully proposed that George's Street be renamed Oliver Plunkett Street in honour of his beatification. READ MORE This year marks the 400th anniversary of Oliver Plunkett's birth and the 50th since his canonisation. But in contrast, the national coverage has been scant and the response muted, aside from in places directly associated with the saint, such as Loughcrew in Co Meath, where he was born, Armagh, where he was primate, and Drogheda, the home of the national shrine in St Peter's Church. An extensive programme , concluding in November, has been held in these areas involving Masses and ecumenical services, walks, tours, exhibitions, concerts and competitions, thanks to a hard-working committee. It is not the first time that Oliver Plunkett has fallen from national attention. For example, in the 200 years after his death, only a loyal few kept his memory alive. Tommy Burns, writing in the Commemorative Book compiled by the St Oliver 400 Committee, includes in that small number the Siena Dominican Sisters in Drogheda. They preserved the executed archbishop's head for nearly 200 years, which sometimes involved great personal risk. While the relic may appear grisly to modern sensibilities, it is venerated not for ghoulish reasons but as evidence of his ultimate sacrifice for his faith. [ From the archive: Highlighting cruelty of St Oliver Plunkett's execution reaffirms our commitment to faith Opens in new window ] Oliver Plunkett's story would make a great film. He was connected to many of the Hiberno-Norman landed families. When he chose to be a priest, he also chose exile in Rome, as no seminary could operate in Ireland. He became a well-regarded professor of theology at the College for the Propagation of the Faith. When appointed as Archbishop of Armagh in 1670, the memory of Cromwell's slaughter of thousands in Drogheda and Wexford followed by deliberately induced famine that reduced the population by up to 25 per cent was still fresh. Plunkett managed to navigate a political situation where Catholics officially had no civil rights. It sometimes necessitated disguise as an English officer or hiding in caves. He worked tirelessly to be on good terms with Protestant bishops and included Protestant students in a newly established Jesuit school in Drogheda. The Irish Catholic Church was in chaos – religious orders fighting over property, alcohol-abusing priests leading scandalous lives, and the Rapparees – or partisans – launching raids. The Rapparees were viewed either as guerrilla defenders of fellow dispossessed Catholics or lawless criminals, and probably contained elements of both. Oliver Plunkett negotiated a settlement with the Rapparees in Tyrone, leading to an unprecedented peace. Some of the clerics he reprimanded or removed from office would eventually give false testimony against him, implicating him in Titus Oates' entirely fictitious Popish plot. Modern, secular Ireland does not have much space for a story like Oliver Plunkett's or, indeed, for contemporary examples of Christian persecution. But as Archbishop Eamon Martin said in a homily in Loughcrew last Sunday, 'sadly, even in 2025, martyrdom remains a reality for many of our Christian brothers and sisters around the world'. Archbishop Martin cited the recent murder of 200 Christians in western Nigeria. Fulani armed groups descended on a village full of displaced Christians and murdered them with machetes, before setting fire to their bodies. According to a UK Parliament research briefing , 4,476 Christians were killed for faith-related reasons in 2024. Seventy per cent of those killed were in Nigeria. The world mostly ignores it. The BBC recently provided a perfect example of this reluctance to ascribe religious motives in an explainer on the 200 deaths. It laid the blame on farmer versus herder conflicts and climate change before mentioning religion as an additional factor. According to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, Fulani armed groups in northwest Nigeria engage in 'kidnapping, rape, property and cattle theft, illegal possession of weapons, and murder'. While the motivation behind individual attacks can be difficult to verify, they 'significantly restrict freedom of religion or belief, particularly for the predominantly Christian communities that live there'. We care about the shocking conditions of Palestinian children in Gaza because we see them daily on our screens. The courage and faith of St Oliver might remind us that other persecuted communities, including Christians, deserve visibility and no less of our concern.
Irish Times
15 hours ago
- Irish Times
Is it time to acknowledge the legislative achievements of Charles Haughey?
Approaching the centenary of his birth in September, and 60 years after the passing of the Succession Act in 1965, is it time to give greater credit to the legislative record of Charles Haughey ? As minister for justice from 1961-1964, Haughey, still in his 30s, introduced ground-breaking legislation that would change lives. It included the Criminal Justice Act, 1964, which abolished the death penalty with exceptions retained for killing gardaí, prison officers and diplomats. These exceptions were removed in 1990 when Haughey was taoiseach. He also introduced the Adoption Act, 1964, which built on the 1952 Adoption Act and emphasised the rights of the child and the birth mother. And it was Haughey who introduced the Succession Bill in 1964 before becoming minister for agriculture later that year. His successor as minister for justice, Brian Lenihan snr, saw the Bill through the Oireachtas in 1965. READ MORE The resulting Succession Act entitles a surviving spouse to a portion of the estate of the deceased spouse, whether or not a will exists. If there is no will, the surviving spouse is entitled to the whole estate if there are no children or two-thirds of the estate if there are children while the children receive one-third. Even if there is a will, the surviving spouse is entitled to half the estate if there are no children and one-third if there are children. The Act marked a giant leap forward in family life and law. Before the Succession Act, it was possible for one spouse to exclude the other from benefiting from his estate. For example, a man could leave his farm to a male relative without making any provision for his widow. The old days of cutting the wife off without a shilling or threatening that if she remarried she would have to give up her life tenancy ... that kind of thing is all gone — Pat Lindsay, former TD in his book Memories In seeking a solution to this problem, Haughey was assisted by outstanding civil servants including Roger Hayes and Paddy Terry. They provided invaluable help, which he acknowledged. Another factor that prompted Haughey to introduce the Succession Bill was the large amount of money, sometimes even a farm, being left to the church while widows were neglected. Patrick Hillery, later president of Ireland, had encountered this phenomenon in the course of his medical practice in Co Clare. Pat Lindsay, a lawyer and a Fine Gael Dáil deputy at the time the Act was passed, observed in his book Memories how since the passing of the Act 'the old days of cutting the wife off without a shilling or threatening that if she remarried she would have to give up her life tenancy ... that kind of thing is all gone'. But opposition came from Fine Gael in the Dáil and the Seanad and in its document The Just Society, published in the same year as the Succession Act was passed. In that document, a section dealing with a proposed law reform programme stated that 'such follies as Fianna Fáil's Succession Bill will find no place in such a programme', although it did say that the rights of widows and dependent children would be protected. In Dáil debates, former taoiseach John A Costello , father of Declan Costello, originator of The Just Society document, praised many aspects of the Bill. He pointed to situations where, under prevailing conditions, wives were 'badly treated'. However, future taoiseach Garret FitzGerald opposed the Bill in the Seanad. Haughey had personal insight into the possible plight of widows. He was 22 in 1947 when his father died, aged 49, leaving a widow and seven children. Haughey's sister, Ethna, recalled how Cathal, as he was known in the family, phoned their mother regularly when she returned from early-morning Mass. The Succession Act came late for many, not only widows. In 1936, Osmond Esmonde contested his father's will in which his father, Thomas, had left his entire estate to his second wife. Following a lengthy court hearing, the court opted in favour of Osmond's stepmother. Not a shilling for the only surviving son. In 2023, the Law Reform Commission published a review of the Succession Act. A number of changes had taken place since 1965, including the Status of Children Act, 1987, which abolished the concept of illegitimacy. This was of major importance. But the Succession Act, 1965, remains Haughey's legislative innovation. Dr Finola Kennedy was lecturer in economics at UCD when appointed to the Second Commission on the Status of Women set up by Charles Haughey
