Dr. Michael Redmond:

I thank the Senator and Deputy for their nuanced characterisations of what is happening at school level. At school and board of management level, there is not a school in the country that is oversubscribed which likes to impose criteria on incoming applicants. Criteria are, by definition, exclusionary and inclusionary. The hierarchy of criteria is down to the local board of management.

In our experience, schools do not ring fence 25% of their places for the children of parents or grandparents. In a survey we carried out in preparation for this meeting, 250 schools responded. Of those that responded, 60% of schools of all types have this provision in their criteria, including many DEIS schools. St. Kevin's College, Ballygall, New Cross College, Finglas, Mercy Secondary School, Inchicore, St. Paul's, North Brunswick Street, and St. Vincent's, Glasnevin, all have this criteria in their admissions policies. Whether they apply it depends on the degree of oversubscription.

Of the respondents that have this criterion in their admissions policies, 60% are oversubscribed. In the final shake up, only 15 of the 250 schools that responded to the survey brought in 25% of their enrolment under that criterion. A further 25 brought in single figures. From our trawl of the voluntary secondary sector, 40 schools applied the criterion. The majority of those only brought in single figures in terms of students. In practice, the criterion is not at the apex of the selection criteria schools employ.

Far from being an elitist provision that is designed to be exclusionary of local children, quite the opposite is the case in the schools our sectors represent here today. Nationally, our schools are extraordinarily inclusive and welcoming of all students, in particular students in their local communities. The simple fact is that capacity is the problem. In many parts of the country, our schools do not have sufficient places to cater for all applicants. That is where the problem lies. Schools are not applying this criterion in an exclusionary way.

In terms of special educational needs and enrolment, schools seem to be managing reasonably well with the current one-year provision, except for two situations.

The first concerns boarding schools, and the second, which is more universal, concerns students with special educational needs for whom the installation of certain infrastructure, such as lifts and ramps, requires a lead-in time. As members have heard from my ETBI colleague, Mr. McKelvey, there may be circumstances in which a SENO presents a late assessment of need for a student. That can be problematic, too. However, that can be solved fairly straightforwardly. What cannot be solved through universal provision is the fact that, in many parts of our country, schools are heavily oversubscribed and need to apply criteria. They do not want to be in that position but they must apply the criteria. When they do, they follow the law.