Ms Deirdre O'Connor:

We welcome the opportunity to address the committee on behalf of our membership of more than 32,000, which includes principals and teachers in primary and special schools. Enrolment in primary schools has long been a concern of the INTO. The objectives of the organisation include "the support of equal access to full education for all children". The principles of inclusivity, equality, participation and parental choice set out in the Education Act 1998 in respect of access to education have been supported by the INTO. The INTO has supported the enrolment, with appropriate support, of children with special educational needs in primary schools and has opposed the provisions which allow religious-run schools to refuse to enrol children on the basis of the faith of the school.

In this submission, I will address the four areas of concern to us in. We have supplied a full written submission. Those four issues are the scope of the legislation and regulations, the need for inclusive and non-discriminatory enrolment policies, the proposals to devolve the function of enrolment to the principal teacher and the proposal to end appeals on enrolment under section 29 of the Education Act.

The INTO is of the view that most schools have effective systems of enrolment. The majority - about 80% - of primary schools enrol all applicants. Where problems have arisen, they have largely resulted from a lack of school places rather than any failings on the part of the existing schools to manage enrolments effectively. The INTO has long sought agreed guidelines on enrolment. Concern has been expressed that over-regulation would be detrimental to the inclusive spirit of primary schools in that it may have the effect of excluding those parents not familiar with the system. The development of agreed guidelines would be a more appropriate response. That said, some of the draft regulations are welcome and could be incorporated into guidelines. These include those relating to the standardisation of timeframes between schools and the proposed elimination of the first come, first served approach. There are still a number of issues that require further guidance, including late enrolments, enrolments by parents in multiple schools and enrolments during a school term. Clear guidance is needed on when a school is full with reference to pupil-teacher ratios, maximum class size, space and the development of sustainable schools. The INTO is in favour of proposals in respect of transparency in the enrolment process and the publication of enrolment policies. We welcome the proposal that enrolment may be refused where a parent does not agree to the school's code of behaviour or where An Garda Síochána or the HSE has provided its opinion that the admission of the student would be seriously detrimental to the safety of staff or students. We feel that provides an appropriate balance between the rights of the child and parents and the rights of staff working in schools.

The INTO is committed to supporting the concept of equal access to full education for all children, and the operation of effective, inclusive, non-discriminatory enrolment policies in schools is key to this. Where demand for places exceeds those available, schools must use fair, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria to select pupils for enrolment. We welcome the proposals that criteria which are directly or indirectly discriminatory on any of the nine grounds should not be permitted. We note that the proposals contained in the draft heads maintain the current exception for religious-run schools contained in section 7.3(c) of the Equal Status Act 2000. The INTO continues to oppose this exception. The INTO welcomes the prohibition of criteria for admission related to parents' ability to pay, academic ability or attendance at open days. Giving priority to the siblings of children already enrolled is seen as sensible and fair. We welcome the proposal allowing discretion in respect of the enrolment of the children of staff for practical reasons.

The largest concern we have concerns the proposal to amend the Education Act to place the principal's responsibility for the admissions policy on a statutory basis. It is acknowledged that the day-to-day management of admissions to a school is carried out by principals. However, the development and implementation of school policy, particularly in cases of refusal to enrol, is a responsibility which has been properly shouldered by the board of management. Any increase in responsibility inevitably increases workload for primary principals, 70% of whom are also carrying out full-time teaching duties. The concerns about the workload of principals, in particular teaching principals, are well documented by the INTO and others. In addition, in a context where promoted posts are being dismantled and at a time of salary cuts, reductions in resources and support in schools and the proliferation of initiatives, the negative effects of such a fundamental change in the statutory role cannot be underestimated.

I will address the proposed repeal of section 29 appeals. The INTO has consistently expressed concerns about the operation of section 29 appeals on enrolment, particularly in the absence of agreed guidelines. These concerns have centred on the lack of transparency and perceived lack of consistency in the process. The proposal that future appeals would be dealt with at board level are received with caution. The INTO is concerned that an outcome which parents would regard as high stakes being finally determined at local level would place enormous strain on a volunteer board, in particular on the principal teacher and, as previous speakers have noted, open up the possibility of litigation against schools with consequences for the principal teacher.

The INTO agrees that this debate on school admissions is timely and important. We thank the committee for listening to our submission.