Mr. Evan Buckley:

I wish to refer to a number of heads and summarise our submission. Head 4 broadens the admission arrangement to include centres of education. We welcome that as it will include Youthreach, prisons and some VTOS centres. It is a good idea. With regard to the assessment of students' academic or other abilities, there may be some circumstances where it is worthy of consideration, in particular regarding those who might apply to attend all-Irish schools or where pupils might require certain subjects they studied in third year when transferring to fifth year.

Head 5 removes the capacity to appeal a refusal to enrol to the Secretary General. It leaves the decision with the principal and the appeal with the board of management. We are concerned that a number of such decision could be the subject of judicial review or litigation. The financial capacity of a board of management to defend such cases is an issue for us.

Under head 7, it is stated the appeal decision of a board of management is final. That is a very stark statement. It does not reflect ETB structures, whereby the ETB school committee decision must be ratified by the ETB committee itself. We want this to be examined so the ETB structures are reflected in the requirements. There are a number of possible solutions to that issue.

Head 8 relates to the right of the NEWB and NCSE to designate a school. This is a big change to the autonomy of the current schools. The legislation should address this to ensure decisions of the NEWB and NCSE are open, transparent and fair. It should require a reporting mechanism to be in place and that all publicly funded schools be given equal consideration. The legislation speaks a lot to the rights of the child designated to a particular school. It also needs to refer to the rights of existing pupils. They must be considered, particularly where the appointment of an additional pupil might have an impact on the resources available to existing pupils. The appeal criterion applies only where the decision is unreasonable. This is very undefined and unclear. The criteria should be more defined and they might well refer to a significant negative impact on those already attending a school.

Head 10 allows for an appeal of the NEWB decision, but the person to take that decision will be designated by the board itself. There is a need for an appeal panel, agreed with the board and the others partners from which it selects persons to hear appeals.

Head 14 repeals section 19 of the Education (Welfare) Act 2000. It is the section that allows a school to refuse to enrol a pupil subject to certain conditions in its admissions process. We are concerned that if the section were repealed, the statutory power to refuse admission at all by a school or an ETB would be removed.

There are three specific issues that relate to PLC colleges and PLC courses, namely, fees, interviews and specific entry requirements. Section 23 of the relevant legislation states there should be no fees or charges in the future. At present, circular 13/2011 allows for certain charges, including non-refundable deposits.

PLC, post-leaving certificate, courses routinely collect insurance, equipment, certification and membership costs in advance of admission. The fees also include the €200 Government charge. These fees need to be addressed in this legislation.

It is also essential to set basic entry requirements with specific regard to the type of course on offer. It is imperative to interview those participants who indicate they have a learning difficulty for us to expedite disability supports and identify risks. For example, those seeking entry to a journalism course must have a basic leaving certificate standard of English. These issues concerning the PLC need to be addressed to meet the needs of the ETB, education and training boards, sector.