Mr. Noel Malone:

As an experienced principal I urge this committee to review these proposed regulations in light of the experience of the Limerick area post-primary schools common application system. I refer in particular to the Minister's proposal to extend a similar system to other parts of the country. Limerick is an area of the country that has grappled with the whole issue of educational inequality for many years and remains the only area in the country where a common admissions and application system applies. It is, therefore, an ideal test case for the application of these regulations. I welcome the fact that the Bill has included the right of the Minister to impose a similar system elsewhere. However, it is with some alarm and regret that we note the Minister’s assertion:

It is not the intention, in such a scenario, that the schools concerned will be required to apply a common policy. Rather that each school will continue to apply its own policy, in that only the process will have to operate in co-operation with other schools.

On this point in particular, I believe the Minister should insist on a common admissions policy across all participant schools, with geographical location as first priority, after brothers or sisters of existing students. Unfortunately, in my experience in Limerick, it is widely perceived that the system as it operates is unfair and discriminatory, and the last thing such a system needs is light touch regulation.
A key characteristic of schools in Limerick is the lack of social mix. This has negative consequences on those lower down the social hierarchy and brings additional advantage to pupils in these schools which are almost entirely middle class in their social composition. The centralised procedure has caused considerable anguish and uncertainty among parents and children. If children do not get their first or second preference school they may be left with the very last of their preferences. Ironically, participant schools are given a certain level of protection from any imputation of perpetuating inequality, by using the scheme as a kind of cover. Schools cannot be allowed to continue to operate independently in terms of their admission criteria, and therefore decide their selection criteria with no independent scrutiny. Of course, this really becomes relevant where demand exceeds supply.
Generally speaking, there is an aging population within the city boundary. Most of the growth in population is in the suburbs and outlying areas. In some areas with large and highly sought-after schools, the profile of the immediate area is one of an aging and sometimes affluent population, so those schools must draw from a larger catchment area. Unfortunately, in many instances this is largely contrived. Vast swathes of population are often ignored in favour of other applicants living significantly further away. This can mean children are travelling substantial distances away from their home by private bus or car. A key point is that current admissions policies do not observe the spirit of inclusiveness, even though many claim to do so. This has to change. If it does, greater equality of opportunity will follow.
Some schools apply preferential criteria, such as favouring children living in certain affluent areas, children from cherry-picked traditional feeder schools, brothers or sisters of past pupils, sons or daughters of past pupils and so on and finally, all others. In effect, very few places are left in this last category, as the schools have pretty much wrapped up their preferred clientele and end up sending refusal letters to many disappointed 12 year olds.
This leads to an extraordinary situation where some children have right of entry although they live some distance from the school while other children are refused, even if they reside adjacent to the school, or indeed attend the local feeder primary school. Surely, proximity to a school should have a higher ranking than when a child has a father or mother who attended a generation earlier. This could be construed that this is a means by which a certain social class is protected and the best students are cherry-picked to the detriment of those schools who genuinely strive for inclusivity.
The fact that the Minister may now consider granting a derogation to permit a school's admission policy to include a past pupil criteria of up to 25% will skew the process and cannot be explained away by defending its inclusion on the basis of tradition. If it is accepted that tradition can be used by a school to discriminate against other applicants, the very basis of the proposed regulation is undermined. Who will oversee the selection of this 25%? Where is the transparency of selections? Surely, this will give licence to some schools to continue to actively favour the socially advantaged, academically gifted or those who have exceptional sporting prowess. Furthermore, this proposal appears to reward those schools who have adopted such discriminatory practices in the past by limiting this derogation to those who allowed such a provision in the past five years, effectively penalising those schools which have embraced a much more progressive and open admissions policy.

There is no real justification for giving preference to children of past pupils or, to a lesser extent, siblings of former pupils. Again, this is always discriminatory and unfair. The proposed limit of 25% should be withdrawn and no derogation should be applicable. Instead, a fair and reasonable geographical radius in respect of any particular school in a city or rural location should be agreed. This would put all students in the agreed catchment of that school on an equal footing. Where there is an oversubscription for that school, other priorities can be addressed. Allocations to each school should be based on a common agreed admissions policy, on a genuine lottery basis, and should be centrally managed by the local education centre. This would make the system completely transparent and avoid any suspicion of manipulation.

I very much welcome the spirit and philosophy behind this draft Bill. However, unless the fundamental issues I have outlined are addressed, the current iniquitous system may be preserved under an illusion of fairness. These proposed changes are long overdue and I urge the committee to consider this submission in the spirit of true equality and justice for our children, regardless of background. They deserve nothing less.