Dr. Ken Fennelly:

I represent the Church of Ireland board of education. The board has some specific concerns about some of the proposals contained in this Bill. My colleagues present from the other management bodies will no doubt outline issues of common concern. I will endeavour to do so from the perspective of the Protestant religious minority community.

In reflecting on this draft scheme for school admissions, the Church of Ireland board of education considered several proposals to be of a specific concern. These are rooted in a consciousness of the responsibility on schools and school patrons to ensure the specific religious ethos of Church of Ireland schools is preserved and maintained. This is a responsibility to the church community generally, but is a specific responsibility to parents who choose a school for its specific ethos. A respect for the role and responsibilities of both the board of management and the school patron on the part of the State is, therefore, of vital importance. In that connection, I draw members' attention to head 4 where it is proposed to insert a new section 33. At this point, the proposals move from the making of regulations to prescribe the format of school admissions policies to prescribing the content of school admissions policies. It is the general view of the Church of Ireland board of education that at this point the draft Bill is moving into overly prescriptive and perhaps interventionist territory. Under the Education Act 1998, it is the duty of the board of management to manage the school on behalf of the patron. It strikes us as incongruous that the Minister would seek to be the ninth member of the board of management and determine the content of the schools admissions policy, as distinct from its format.

The committee will appreciate that this role for the Minister in regard to the content of the admissions policy will cause boards of management to question their autonomy in running the school on behalf of the patron. Clearly in a school which is under the patronage of a religious body, the appropriateness of the Minister seeking such powers, even if they are only to be used as a last resort, is open to question in our view. The committee might wish to consider how this proposal sits with Article 44 of the Constitution which states that religious bodies have the right to manage their own affairs.

Church of Ireland primary schools teach the Follow Me religious education curriculum. The Bill contains a proposal that the school should put in its admissions policy the school's arrangements for upholding the constitutional right of any students who do not wish to attend religious instruction in the school. The current situation is that schools facilitate this where possible. There are various practical issues which arise where a parent wishes their child to be withdrawn from class time. As we stated in our submission, we are of the view the proposed wording is confused in its allocation of responsibilities on this issue. It is the parent who withdraws their child from class time. The right to opt out of religious instruction is a State-given right. Schools facilitate this on the basis of practicality and within the scope of available resources on the basis of goodwill. Should this now become an obligation on schools, it will obviously need to be resourced sufficiently. It is also a concern to the board as to how such a new obligation might be fulfilled in a small rural primary school without extra supports. The board requests the committee to give the practicalities related to this issue further consideration.

Head 11 of the draft Bill proposes that schools should co-operate on admissions within a locality. Such co-operation and dialogue among schools locally is encouraged by the Church of Ireland board of education and we understand it to be common practice. A difficulty arises for the Protestant minority schools when such co-operation becomes non-voluntary. Boards of management of a school can choose to freely enter into such arrangements. The proposals would compel schools to co-operate. There is no reference to parental rights in terms of choice of school ethos. It would be important to schools within the Protestant minority tradition, both at primary and second level, that there is recognition of their focus to serve the expectations of parents from that tradition in any co-operative activity on school admissions.

While the proposed abolition of the section 29 appeal mechanism was raised by others, the Church of Ireland board of education wishes to highlight that should this proposal go ahead, it will leave school boards of management in a very difficult position in exposing schools to High Court litigation. Church of Ireland schools are mainly small in numbers with limited resources. Even where resources are available, all will agree that such resources should be spent on the education of children and not litigation. The Church of Ireland appeals to the committee to give careful further reflection to the consequences this proposal will have for both schools and parents. In our view, it is unreasonable and is not based on a parent-centred premise. Any appeals process must be independent and have an inherent integrity. What is proposed in the draft heads is that the same board which sets the policy will hear appeals on that policy for places in its own school. I am sure the committee will appreciate that such an introverted appeals process will cause difficulties for communities in local areas. It will certainly pose problems for chairpersons who are involved in both school life and other community activities. For the Church of Ireland, this poses a real difficulty in the context of smaller close-knit parish-based communities.

The position of the Church of Ireland board of education is one of concern about several provisions in this draft Bill. The consequences of the strong approach of the draft scheme will create a diminished role for school boards of management and school patrons, expose both parents and schools to litigation, and allocate an inappropriate role for the Minister for Education and Skills. We have set out our specific concerns in our written submission. In general terms, the Church of Ireland board of education is of the view that the draft bill is overly prescriptive in what it is attempting to achieve. The board understands the rationale of the Minister and his Department in bringing forward this Bill as it is fulfilling a perceived need for greater clarity, uniformity and transparency in the area of school admissions, which is welcome. However, the draft scheme raises wider societal questions as to the appropriateness of shifting the power to determine the format, content and manner of publication of school admissions policies from the local school community to the Minister for Education and Skills.