Meeting with Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection
General Scheme of the Education (Admission to Schools) Bill 2013
1pm, Wednesday, 15th January 2014
Committee Room 3, Leinster House 2000
Witness: Marie Céline Clegg IBVM on behalf of Loreto Education Trust Board
Loreto Education Trust Company has responsibility for the exercise of patron responsibilities
in relation to eighteen post-primary schools and 5 primary schools and is also involved in the
joint patronage of five Community Schools throughout the country. Marie Céline Clegg is a
Loreto Sister, Company Secretary and a member of the Board of Directors of Loreto
Education Trust while also providing a legal support service to Principals and Boards of
Management in Loreto schools as a member of the management team in Loreto Education
Centre, Foxrock.
Opening Remarks
The Loreto Education Trust Board 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. Loreto
had welcomed the original intention of a new framework as articulated in the Discussion
Paper: to regulate only those aspects of enrolment policies where a common or national
approach is desirable, and otherwise to provide the maximum discretion to schools (Section
1.3). Having consulted with stakeholders to the extent that a limited timeframe permitted, it is
our view that the extent to which the proposed legislation confers a right on the Minister to
prescribe and regulate in relation to each and every stage of the admissions process is
excessive. If the motivation for a prescriptive and regulatory approach is, ultimately, social
cohesion we believe that the latter cannot, in fact, be legislated for but should, rather, be the
central aim of policy and practice.
The Statutory Function of Boards of Management
The Loreto Education Trust Board respects the autonomy of Boards of Management in the
exercise of their statutory responsibility while providing clear guidelines, from the
perspective of the Patron, regarding what constitutes an inclusive school environment and the
implications of that for school admissions policies. It is our contention that the role of the
Board of Management is diminished in the scope of its decision-making and autonomy by the
proposed level of ministerial regulation regarding all stages of the admissions process. We
also believe that Section 29(1) of the Education Act 1998 in relation to admissions should be
amended rather than repealed. The new proposals, while possibly more cost effective from
the state’s perspective, will, if implemented, undoubtedly result in Boards of Management
becoming the subject of judicial review the outcome of which may result in an unworkable
further appeal process while imposing a major burden on those who serve voluntarily in their
capacity as board members and having the potential to impact negatively on Principal/Board
relations.
Specific Concerns
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. We also agree with the very detailed analysis contained in
the submission presented by the Joint Managerial Body which represents the Boards of
Management of our voluntary secondary schools. I welcome the opportunity, however, to
highlight briefly some aspects of particular significance from our perspective:

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
throughout the country in accordance with a stated intention in the introduction to



their Admissions Policies to comply with the Equal Status Act 2000 – 2011 and all
relevant legislation. Why then a further statutory requirement capable of rendering
admissions policies more and more inaccessible to parents/guardians and the general
public?
The new section 33 makes provision for the Minister to regulate in relation to 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
micro-managing at its most extreme. Imagine, for example, the implications of
ministerial involvement in granting derogations in relation to use of the past-pupil
criterion across the diversity of schools throughout the country – from fee-paying
schools to stand alone schools in rural areas and the ‘four and five schools in a town’
scenario. One cannot help but ask ‘might resources be better spent on school
improvement projects to the extent that if parents do not get their first choice of
school, they are, at least assured of a good second or third choice alternative’?
Another issue of concern is the offer of ‘provisional places’. As public
representatives in your own areas you will be aware that parents/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 an
unrealism in Regulation 32, therefore, which stipulates that, where demand exceeds
capacity, a sufficient number of offers of enrolment shall be made on a provisional
basis in order to cater for the outcome of any appeals by unsuccessful applicants.
The balancing of rights is an important governance and management function in
schools. Art 26.3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that
‘parents shall have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to
their children’. Protocol 1, Art 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 in relation to 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 to do so. It is important that any regulatory
framework acknowledges both rights while accompanying ‘guidelines’ might offer
advice regarding resource issues involved in balancing all rights in this context.

The highly prescriptive nature of the proposed legislation is illustrated in S.33(iii) to
S.33(ix) of the Bill where it is described how the regulations will ‘prescribe’ in
relation to offer of enrolment, the format, content and timeframes in respect of which
notice of a school’s admissions process shall be published and other related matters.
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 ‘sledgehammer’ approach of the
current Bill and Regulations.
Marie Céline Clegg IBVM
Loreto Education Trust Board
8 Jan 2014