Sr. Marie Céline Clegg:

I represent Loreto Education Trust, which has considered the proposed legislation and associated regulations against the backdrop of the discussion paper on a regulatory framework for school enrolment, published by the Department of Education and Skills in June 2011. The trust had welcomed the original intention of a new framework as articulated in the discussion paper, namely, to regulate "only those aspects of enrolment policies and practices where a common or national approach may be desirable, and otherwise to provide the maximum discretion to schools". Having consulted with stakeholders to the extent that the limited timeframe allowed, it is our view that the extent to which the proposed legislation confers a right on the Minister to prescribe and regulate in respect of each stage of the admissions process is excessive.

The Loreto Education Trust board respects the autonomy of boards of management in the exercise of their statutory responsibilities while providing clear guidelines, from the perspective of the patron, regarding what constitutes an inclusive school environment and the implications of that for admissions policies. It is our contention that the role of the board will be diminished in the scope of its decision making and autonomy by the proposed level of ministerial regulation regarding all stages of the admissions process.

There are some specific concerns. While our written submission has addressed in considerable detail the main concerns about the general scheme of the Education (Admission to Schools) Bill 2013 and the draft regulations on policy and process, I wish to refer in particular to several issues.

Our written submission has addressed in considerable detail specific concerns about the general scheme of an Education (Admission to Schools) Bill 2013 and the related draft regulations on policy and process. I want to refer now in particular to several issues.
The requirements specified in the Bill in relation to the publication of a school’s policy on admissions are those already being met by the vast majority of schools. The requirement of the stated intention in the introduction to their admissions policies with regard to all details of the Equal Status Acts 2000–2011 seems unnecessary. If people already comply with the Equal Status Act in every respect it is possible that having to insert a large amount of legislative detail in this regard will make the policies less accessible to parents and guardians.
The new section 33 makes provision for the Minister to regulate on all stages of the admissions process with particular emphasis on the content and the manner in which the admissions process must be conducted by schools. This is ministerial involvement at its most extreme in terms of micro-managing. Imagine, for example, the implications of ministerial involvement in granting derogations in respect of the past-pupil criterion across the diversity of schools throughout the country.
Another issue of concern is the offer of "provisional places". As public representatives, members are aware that parents and guardians want to know whether their child has a place. Delays and uncertainties cause very understandable tension and worry at a time when they need reassurance. There is a lack of reality in regulation 32, in this regard.
The balancing of rights is an important governance and management function in schools as it is for the Government. Article 26.3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states "Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children". Protocol 1, Article 2, requires the State to respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching as is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions. The UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights unambiguously upholds this right.
Accountability is being sought in the proposed legislation respecting arrangements for those who wish to withdraw from religious instruction, as is their constitutional right, but there is no corresponding emphasis on accountability in relation to the rights of those who wish to have religious instruction as an integral part of the curriculum in accordance with the characteristic spirit of the school as articulated by the patron in the exercise of its statutory responsibility.
The highly prescriptive nature of the proposed legislation is illustrated in sections 33(m) (iii) to (ix) of the Bill which describe how the regulations will "prescribe" in respect of every aspect of enrolment, format, content etc. We suggest that a set of guidelines accompanying a regulatory framework, concentrating on key principles only would be a much more appropriate means of ensuring compliance by schools rather than the sledge-hammer approach of the current Bill and regulations.