Joint Committee on Education, Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science debate -
Tuesday, 8 Feb 2022

Education (Admission to Schools) Bill 2020: Discussion (Resumed)

Chairman

On behalf of the committee, I welcome Dr. Niall Muldoon, Ombudsman for Children; Ms Áine Lynch, CEO of the National Parents Council Primary; Ms Mai Fanning, president of the National Parents Council Post Primary; Dr. David Doyle, associate professor of law, Maynooth University; and Ms Suzanne Connolly, CEO of Barnardos. The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission was invited today but cannot attend due to another commitment. It sent in a written submission which has been circulated to all members and it will be considered as part of our committee deliberations.

Our witnesses are attending to assist the committee with our scrutiny of the Education (Admission to Schools) Bill 2020. The format of the meeting is that I will invite Dr. Muldoon to make a brief opening statement, followed by Ms Lynch, Dr. Doyle and finally Ms Connolly. Their statements will be followed by questions from members of the committee. Each member has an eight-minute slot to ask questions and receive answers. As the witnesses are probably aware, the committee will publish their opening statements on its website following the meeting.

I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that may be regarded as damaging to the good name of a person or entity. If statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, witnesses will be directed by the Chair to discontinue their remarks.

I invite Dr. Muldoon to make his opening statement, followed by the other witnesses as outlined. They each have three minutes.

Dr. Niall Muldoon

I thank the committee for the invitation to attend. Since 2016, the Ombudsman for Children’s Office, OCO, has made it a strategic priority to promote the rights and welfare of children in direct provision and those in the Traveller and Roma communities, and we believe they are only some of the children who are impacted by the past pupil criteria. As members of the committee will be aware, the OCO has previously expressed concerns about the impact the past pupil criteria can have on children whose mother or father did not attend secondary school or who did not attend a particular secondary school. We, therefore, welcome the provision contained in the Education (Admission to Schools) Bill 2020 which, if enacted, would remove the ability of schools to allocate 25% of places for the children, or grandchildren, of past pupils if they are oversubscribed.

It is important to recognise that the 25% allowance can possibly affect the ability of any child whose mother, father or grandparent did not attend a particular school to get a place in that school. However, there are groups of children who can be particularly disadvantaged. These include Traveller children whose mother or father may not have attended any second level education; children of immigrant parents who would not have attended secondary school in Ireland; children of parents with disabilities who may not have attended a mainstream secondary school; and children of families who have had to move to a different area to find accommodation due to a number of valid reasons, including the housing crisis, returning from abroad, promotion prospects and change in family circumstances. They are all currently at a disadvantage because of the current wording.

Ireland ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNCRC, in 1992 and has an obligation under international law to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of all children living in Ireland. Under the convention, a child has a right to an education and secondary education should be available and accessible to every child. Article 2 of the UNCRC, which protects children from discrimination, is one of four general principles considered integral to the rights granted to children under the convention. Article 2 protects children from discrimination in their own right and also protects them from discrimination they may suffer as a result of their connection to their parents.

While the UNCRC itself does not define discrimination, the European Court of Human Rights, ECHR, has found that while treating people differently does not always amount to discrimination, a difference in treatment will be discriminatory if it “has no objective and reasonable justification”, that is, if it does not pursue a “legitimate aim”. From a children’s rights perspective, children have a right to be protected from discrimination and harm and should only experience differential treatment if there is a reasonable or objective basis for this and if it is consistent with children’s rights and their best interests. The priority given to children or grandchildren of past pupils of schools cannot be seen to be a reasonable or objective basis for treating children differently.

We believe that schools should be fully inclusive and promote equality. Education can be a way out of disadvantage for many students yet this provision seems to say that children who had parents and grandparents who went to a particular school can get priority in obtaining a school place. This is undoubtedly leading to a continuing cycle of disadvantage for some children.

Goal 2 of the Department of Education’s Statement of Strategy 2021-2023 is to ensure equity of opportunity in education and that all students are supported to fulfil their potential. It states:

[E]quity of opportunity and inclusivity must be fundamental principles in our education system. Our aim is to develop a system that welcomes and meaningfully engages all students, including those with special educational needs and students at risk of educational disadvantage.

By allowing preferential access to schools for one group of children over others, the State is failing in its own strategic aim to provide an education system which promotes equity of opportunity and inclusivity.

From a children’s rights perspective, children have a right to be protected from discrimination. Putting children without an intergenerational connection with a school at a disadvantage to those with such a link is discrimination by treating children differently when they are trying to access their education.

I am grateful for the invitation to meet today and I am happy to take any questions that the members may have.

Ms Áine Lynch

The National Parents Council Primary, NPC, welcomes the opportunity to submit its views to the joint committee. At the core of all the work of the NPC primary and especially its advocacy and representation role is its vision statement, which states that the NPC wants to see an Ireland where every child has the opportunity to reach his or her full potential. This vision statement speaks to equality and equity and lies at the heart of the discussion regarding the Education (Admissions to School) Bill 2020. Although it could be argued the current provision that allows schools to include admission criteria regarding family members having previously attended the school is implemented rarely, we must look to our legislation to set the tone for what we value in society. It could also be argued that the legislation sets the tone to the effect that your history can define your future.

In recent years we have seen a dramatic change in communities, increased new housing developments, diversity in our populations and an increase in population mobility, all of which mean that our children are growing up in vastly different local communities from those in which their parents and grandparents grew up. Any legislation that allows for possible discrimination within communities must be amended. At the core of these communities are our schools and what happens within a school shapes the communities around them. Who gets and does not access to a school something to the community around it. Ensuring that a school’s admission policy provides and is seen to provide equity of access for local children to their local school must be a priority.

The paramount right of parental choice regarding education is enshrined in our Constitution and is an important right for parents. When oversubscription occurs in an individual school, however, that choice cannot always be accommodated. It is the NPC’s view that in choosing which parents' choice is accommodated and which choice is not, the school board of management’s decision must be underpinned by fairness and equity. I thank the committee again for the opportunity to present to it.

Dr. David Doyle

I thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss our research findings at this meeting. The research, funded by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, focused on the discriminatory practices faced by children in accessing education in Ireland. It was based on 30 semi-structured interviews with politicians, educators and representatives of various relevant interest groups. These interviews were conducted prior to the commencement of Education (Admissions to School) Act 2018, but a common theme running through the research was that the Act, although undoubtedly a significant step in the right direction, did not go far enough in ensuring accessibility without discrimination to Irish schools. As one participant put it, the law is "inherently discriminatory and the law should be changed".

The discriminatory impact of section 62(10)(b) of the 2018 Act can be demonstrated by applying the provision to the facts of the well documented case of Stokes v. Christian Brothers High School Clonmel. John Stokes, a child from the Traveller community, had applied for a place in the school, which was oversubscribed - the school had received 174 applications for 140 places - due to its strong academic reputation. John Stokes met two out of the three criteria set out in the admissions policy in the event of oversubscription, but he did not meet the third because he did not have a family connection with the school. His father, like most Traveller men of his generation, had not attended secondary school and he was the eldest child in the family. Of those who satisfied the three criteria, 57 applicants were allocated a place on the sibling ground and 36 boys secured a place by virtue of the parental rule. This meant there were 47 places left for the remaining 84 applicants. A lottery was subsequently held and John Stokes, like 37 other boys, failed to secure a place. Crucially, if the so-called parental rule had not been included in the admissions policy, there would have been 83 places available for 120 students. In other words, John Stokes's odds of success in the lottery would have increased from 56% to 69%. Importantly, for the purposes of our discussion here today, the subsequent decision to limit the number of places that could be reserved for the children of former pupils to 25% in the 2018 legislation would have made absolutely no difference whatsoever to John Stokes. After all, 36 out of 140 places equates to 25.7%.

My view is that any admissions criteria in oversubscribed schools will result in discommoding certain students and families but it should not automatically discommode Traveller or Roma children, the children of minority ethnic groups, the children of same-sex or single parents, whose fathers might not necessarily be identifiable, or of those who are forced to move county or country for employment reasons. I am very happy to discuss any of the issues raised in our research.

Ms Suzanne Connolly

I thank the committee for inviting Barnardos here today to provide evidence on this important issue. In 2020 Barnardos supported almost 18,000 children and their families. We deliver evidence-informed outcome-focused services for children and their parents and careers in family homes, in schools and in our 45 centres throughout Ireland. Our services are trauma-informed focusing on the impact of adverse childhood experiences on the lives of children and parents with whom we work. We work with families to help them address issues affecting their children’s development and well-being. The children to whom we offer support are often living in complex and frequently chaotic circumstances, affected by traumatic life situations such as poverty, abuse, parental poor mental health, neglect, separation and parental addiction. Education is often a primary route out of disadvantage for many of these children.

We support amending the existing legislation, section 62 of the Education Act 2018, which allows schools to adopt admission policies that reserve 25% of places for children of parents or grandparents who went to that particular school. It goes against the spirit of Article 28 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recognises children’s right to education and provides that states must achieve this right on the basis of equal opportunity. Section 62 also allows schools to introduce admission policies which could unjustifiably disadvantage many of the children we support. For example, many of the children we support have parents and grandparents who struggled to engage with the education system themselves when they were children. Some of the children with whom we work have parents who were not educated in this country. It is inappropriate and unjust that these children should have less of a chance of attending a school that adopts section 62(10)(b).

The existing legislation sends out the wrong message to children, parents, grandparents and society as a whole. It tells children that where their parents and grandparents did or did not go to school determines their future opportunities. We know at a population level parental educational attainment affects children’s future outcomes. We should be adopting measures to address, not reinforce, this fact further. Section 62 reminds parents and grandparents that their educational history may influence or restrict their children's and grandchildren’s opportunities. Limiting a child’s educational options due to having parents or grandparents who they themselves had limited options is the epitome of promoting intergenerational disadvantage and discrimination. A child’s educational options should never be negatively affected by the education of their parents and grandparents.

Barnardos believes in children’s rights and promoting policies that protect and enforce these rights. All educational policies should seek to promote equality of opportunity and combat disadvantage, particularly given the lifelong impact educational attainment can have on the life of a child. Maintaining section 62(10)(b) would be the wrong decision for children, regardless of how widespread its adoption is across schools.Giving consideration to the voice of children, we believe no child would want their opportunities limited by the where their parents and grandparents went to school.

The current section should be repealed in order to ensure equal opportunity for all children and avoid the discrimination of certain groups of children, potentially those who are experiencing vulnerabilities or facing disadvantage.

Chairman

The first questioner is Deputy Conway-Walsh. She will be followed by Deputy O'Callaghan.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

I thank all the witnesses for their contributions. A common thread runs through them all. I have a few questions. Perhaps we could get from the witnesses a sense of how prevalent this problem is, not that the scale of the issue is the only reason to legislate, because one child in a family being discriminated against is one too many. Could the witnesses give us a sense of how common this is? Today we are discussing a codified selection criteria and how it can discriminate against some people. That relates to my first question. How pervasive is this in the form of discrimination where no formal criteria is in place?

Do schools need these formal criteria in order for them to make selections on the basis of family backgrounds?

Dr. Doyle stated that his view was that any admissions criterion in oversubscribed schools will result in discommoding certain students and families. Which criteria are the most legitimate on which to make these difficult decisions? What policies would result in the least discriminatory practices?

Can the witnesses think of any circumstances in which the current legislation is justified, or is it fundamentally unjustifiable and should be removed? Is there an issue with gentrification where, due to the housing crisis, people cannot afford to live in communities in which they grew up?

How can the admissions process be simplified to ensure the filling in of forms is not off-putting for parents, especially with low literacy levels?

Dr. David Doyle

With regard to the least discriminatory practices, understandably, gender and geography come in to play in feeder schools. That has been well documented. What is problematic about this provision, however, is that it is virtually impossible for certain minority groups to meet the criteria. My argument is that any criterion that is virtually impossible to meet is fundamentally discriminatory and should be removed. If everybody has an equal opportunity of gaining a place in a lottery, at least it is fair. Somebody will obviously fall the wrong side of it, but a submission to this committee in 2019 stated that 57% of boys from the Traveller community have not completed primary school or entered secondary school. Even in ten years' time, the effect of that will still be palpable.

Chairman

The witnesses may remove their masks while speaking. It is totally up to themselves. I will leave the decision to each speaker.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

Will any of the witnesses speak to the other questions? It would give us an idea of the scale of prevalence.

Dr. Niall Muldoon

I went looking for the scale and I could not find any research that tells us. I think we are right to say we have two admissions cycles done since it came in to being. We should have it. I had hoped that last week, the joint managerial board might have some figures, but it just said limited or small number. That is crucial. We should have those figures to hand to try to make a decision.

At the same time, one child discriminated against on this basis is too many. Dr. Doyle outlined very well that we are in situations where this will be perpetuated. The parents of children who come from direct provision and abroad will not have reached the criteria and the families will be disadvantaged for the next two generations. We need to make sure we stamp it out and move it to a situation in which it is much more available to all children.

The Deputy asked about the form of the criteria. A number of criteria are already there that do not need this one. One can get two, three or four criteria that are in the locality. The idea of education is to be local and available to those who live here and various other criteria. If one moves to a lottery, everybody is equal. It is never ideal. A lottery is far from ideal. However, if that is what one is left with, then it is equally available to all children. That is the key to the future, as far as I am concerned.

Senator Rose Conway-Walsh

In rural areas, children with disabilities or extra educational needs are often transported to towns 50 miles away, which is a 100-mile trip in order to access education. What is Dr. Muldoon's view on that?

Dr. Niall Muldoon

Obviously, from our point of view, it is not the way forward. I would like to see all schools have availability for special needs children and all teachers rotate around special needs classes and all children get a chance to move around situations. We could create a properly inclusive and engaged population of children. The children who do not have special needs will recognise and understand engagement with children who do and vice versa. They would become friends, know each other and see each other around the town. The children with special needs would not be farmed away to somewhere else and know nobody when they came back to their home town. That is what we need to move to as quickly as possible.

Senator Rose Conway-Walsh

Absolutely. It should never happen in the first instance.

Ms Mai Fanning

We do not have any statistics at National Parents Council Post Primary on the figures. Every year, we are inundated with distraught parents who have not got a place for their child for various reasons. We see the most support from our cohort of parents for a place in a school to be given preference, if one has a sibling in that school. Sometimes there may be six or seven years between siblings and one has had the experience of a school and it is important that one's next child has access to that school as well. For the same reasons that have been spoken about before, we do not hold that because you has had a parent or grandparent in a school, preferential treatment should be given. The movement of people for employment purposes or in other circumstances, for example, or even in the context of those returning to the country, it happens time and again that families cannot get children into schools.

One of the main things that crops up every year is that you will be offered a place in November, you do not get the school you was looking for, you may end up getting nowhere and you may find out the following June, July or August that you got a place. From speaking to schools, it is all down to the fact that parents will enrol their children in as many schools as they can. Parents will pay the fee to keep their children on the books and then decide at the end of the year to which school they want to send them.

All of those places are locked up within schools. In terms of giving everybody an equal shot at places that are out there, we will hit peak numbers in 2023 to 2024. They will start to decline slightly after that. In terms of giving everybody absolutely equal access, we have to look at how school places are allocated and what happens when schools are oversubscribed. That may be because a parent has accepted three or four different schools.

We should focus on a system whereby if you accept a school place, you are taken off the other lists. That offers a free space at a time in the year where it does not become a crisis point and this is all dealt with in the same month or two, such as between the middle of October and the middle of November. Schools would have some sort of a link that one could not have a child on the roll and accepted in two or three different schools.

Chairman

I am sure Ms Fanning is probably aware that secondary schools in Wexford communicate with each other. I know from speaking to parliamentary colleagues that schools in other counties do not have that relationship. I have spoken to the Department of Education about this issue. Schools should be sharing information. I know that there are issues regarding the GDPR, but my understanding is that was cleared up by the Department in order that schools would be able to communicate to see whose names were on various lists.

In Wexford, specifically in Wexford town, it is a huge issue. Children could be on multiple lists not only in their respective towns but outside of them, in other areas such as New Ross or Enniscorthy. I apologise to the Deputy for cutting in.

Ms Mai Fanning

That is a fact and it happens in Wexford town. It works but that concept needs to be standardised. We all appreciate the autonomy of each school but admissions need to be governed. There needs to be more stable guidelines for schools where schools can have that communication or it can be centralised or they can have some sort of process. Taking the area I know, a child can be on the lists of two or three schools in Wexford, on the lists of another two schools in Waterford and, more than likely, on the lists of another couple schools between Enniscorthy and Gorey. They are not only staying within the county but they are going outside of the county as well.

Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh

Whose responsibility is it to have the criteria there?

Chairman

Ms Lynch wants to come in there. Maybe she wants to add to that.

Ms Áine Lynch

Administration around admissions is an important issue and we have much work still to do in tightening that up. Ms Fanning alluded to the complications that arise. However, we cannot lose sight of what we are talking about in terms of what is permissible in an admissions policy. They are two very different things. While we might need to do much work around admissions and that issue of multiple applying, and why that even happens, the important point is that we need to make sure that what we allow in admissions policy is equal and fair. Before we even get into who is going to what school and what lists they are on, we have a criteria for people being able to apply for admissions to a school. I refer to the idea that we would have something within that admission policy that sets a tone for our society that allows for some children to have an unfair advantage in terms of getting into some schools over other children who will never reach those criteria. The tone that we set, as a society, and the communication to children and families within communities that they are not allowed into this level of school is a dangerous one for us to continue to set. Admissions administration is a difficult thing that we try to grapple with all the time and we need to continue to make that better but before we get there, we need to ensure we have an admissions policy that is equal and fair to all applying. That is all I wanted to add.

Ms Suzanne Connolly

I echo what Ms Lynch said. It is about all children having equal aspirations. We do not know how pervasive this issue is but we all share this idea that any child should know that if he or she does not get into a school, it is because he or she has lost a lottery, not because of his or her background.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee today. This is an interesting topic and it benefits from having this lengthy deliberative assessment of it as opposed to just a quick debate in the Dáil where a debate can sometimes be a bit superficial. I have questions for Dr. Muldoon based on what he said. Obviously, there are many parents who want their children to go to the school they went to and, in fairness, there is nothing necessarily wrong with that. Some of the reasons are benign; it can be out of sentiment, affection or nostalgia. However, Dr. Muldoon's point is that he does not look at this from the point of view of that child, parent or grandparent and that he must look at it from the point of view of the abstract child, a child who has been excluded as a result of the rule. Do I take it from what Dr. Muldoon said that he believes there is no legitimate aim for the continuation of this statutory provision?

Dr. Niall Muldoon

That is probably the essence of it. There is no difficulty with a child going to the school their parent went to if he or she lives in the community and fits all the other criteria but just because the parent went to that school does not give any pre-emptive advantage. From our point of view, that is an automatic disadvantage which Dr. Doyle set out very well. Many groups of children are two steps back because of it, and will be two steps back for the next two generations. Again, it continues. It is very clearly set out. If your parent or grandparent today has not gone to that school, then you will not get into that school, so your child and your grandchild will not get into that school. Straight away four generations are being affected and that is discrimination by its very essence.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

It is the child who is being excluded who is being subjected to discrimination and disadvantage as opposed to some huge advantage being conferred on the child who gets in. Would Dr. Muldoon agree with that?

Dr. Niall Muldoon

We always have to try to make it equal for every child. If one is in and the other is out, there are advantages and disadvantages there.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

Ms Lynch said that fairness and equity are principles that must be upheld. Is it her view that this specific statutory provision violates those principles?

Ms Áine Lynch

Yes, it is our view. Based on everything I have said, it is the reason if there is a particular admissions criteria. At the end of the day there are always going to be children and parents who, in an over-subscribed school, will not be happy with the result. We have to make that unhappiness "fair", for want of a better word, so that everybody going into that process has an equal chance of being unhappy and an equal chance of being happy in terms of the selection.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

In Ms Fanning's last answer to the Chairman, she highlighted a point that is repeatedly made to me in the months of February, March and April by the parents of a first child generally who has not got into a school. It puts huge stress on those parents. Invariably, once September comes, it seems to be sorted out. It seems to put parents through an unnecessary amount of stress. Does Ms Fanning think there is some centralised system that should apply in order to resolve that?

Ms Mai Fanning

I think there should be. It warrants a discussion and exploring how it could be dealt with. I do not have the answer, funnily enough.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

It is something that needs addressing.

Ms Mai Fanning

Absolutely.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

In regard to the John Stokes case, if this rule is removed tomorrow, admissions to schools will not become this remarkable system of fairness overnight. It is still going to involve choice. On what basis does Dr. Doyle think schools should be required to choose their students? Should it be principally on the basis of locality? As Deputy Conway-Walsh said, I am conscious that in England house prices shoot up because houses are adjacent to schools that are much sought after by parents. By what route do we go? Every avenue seems to have potential problems.

Dr. David Doyle

Any criteria is going to involve certain people being excluded and that is problematic. From my point of view, what is really problematic with this provision is that while on the face of it, it is a neutral provision but it has a particularly discriminatory impact on certain people who are never going to meet the criteria. To contrast it with the other type of criteria the Deputy mentioned, at least there is some possibility that the criteria may be met. Obviously, geography and locality can give rise to situations where somebody might miss out because the cut-off point might be half-way through an estate. That seems unbelievably harsh but at least there is some possibility of meeting the criteria whereas with this provision, it is virtually impossible for this cohort of children.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

I know Dr. Doyle's views on this specific provision but to what extent should the State be involved by way of legislation in specifying how schools should approach admissions? We have legislation but is Dr. Doyle suggesting that we need to go further?

Dr. David Doyle

We conducted these interviews in 2018 with the various stakeholders. Most of it was welcomed. Even the sibling rule did not provoke any opposition among the interviewees but it is important to remember that just because this provision is removed, it is not going to exclude every child who had a parent or grandparent in that school. There will still be a large cohort of children there whose parent or grandparent went to that school, by virtue of the sibling rule or the various different criteria in regard to feeder schools, geography and so on. It is a fact that this seems neutral on the face of it but in practice, and especially in particular areas where there is over-subscription, it is in effect blatantly discriminatory.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

That is the point that was replicated last week. If the provision is removed, there will still be children whose parents went there going to a school. There is nothing wrong with that per se. What is wrong is if there is a statutory provision which excludes certain children because of the connection that another child has.

Dr. David Doyle

That is it. To put it a different way, many parents who were previously pupils also contribute to the school community, perhaps sponsoring teams, taking kids on placements during transition year and so forth. Many other parents and grandparents have contributed nothing to the school community since leaving and their grandchildren and children benefit from this rule by virtue of that family connection, even though they have not contributed in any way. I agree with the Deputy.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

This committee is also looking at leaving certificate reform at the same time. There are great criticisms that could be made of the leaving certificate and CAO. If, for example, we had a system whereby 25% of places for medicine were limited to children of doctors, would that not be problematic?

Ms Suzanne Connolly

That is without a doubt. The Deputy's question reminds me of a little ten-year-old girl I met whose mother attends Barnardos services. She says that she wants to be a doctor. I told her we will do everything we can to support her. However, the odds are against her given her circumstances and because her mother depends so much on her and all those sort of things. In the context of this discussion, I would like to be able to say to her, as I do, that all of us around her will do our best and that she can aspire to that. That is what this is really about. It is about aspiration, equality of opportunity and recognising that some children are just born into circumstances where the odds are against them unless we support them and there are possibilities for them to do well.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

I thank the witnesses for their contributions. It is heartwarming to hear the support for the Bill, which I drafted. What has been interesting this and last week is that this has opened up a wider discussion on the nature of Irish education and who it serves. It is beginning to become clear that, effectively, it serves the patron. What happens every year is that parents and children are at the heart of this scramble for what is perceived to be the better or best school in their area. It is depressing that we have come to assume there has to be such a suggestion that one school is better than another and that not every school could be of a similar standard and have similar outcomes and resources.

I believe fundamentally that we need a Finnish revolution in Irish education. We have 4,000 schools in a country that has the same population as Manchester. We have schools competing against each other. When there is that level of competition it leads to inequality. This debate comes down to a scenario where some children are struggling to get into a school, and that should not be a reality. I think all members of this committee, regardless of our background, agree that we do not want a scenario in which children are turned away from a school, for whatever reason. If the State was front and centre in the provision of school places, there would be a school in each individual school district that could accommodate every child in the area, not the current multiplicity of schools that separate children on the basis of religion, gender and sometimes income.

With that in mind, what we have been doing in the past two weeks, unbeknownst to ourselves almost, is having a wider conversation about school provision, the patronage model and the lack of involvement by the Department of Education. Within all that, I believe a certain sector that wants us to keep the generational bloodline of succession within its schools exercised a disproportionate influence over the Education (Admission to Schools) Act. As Deputy O'Callaghan said last week, the relevant section in the Act is completely contradictory because another section in the same Act states there should not be familial advantage for any particular family. Despite that, this provision, which does not read with the rest of the Bill, was wedged in at the behest of a certain strong lobby group.

I agree with everything the witnesses have said. I do not have too many questions. The only defence for this provision last week was along the lines, "Ah sure, it is never really used." That is a pathetic excuse because even if one child in this Republic was on the rough end of this provision because their father, mother, grandfather or grandmother did not attend the school, that knowledge would probably sit with that child for life. It would make that child feel for life that they were just was not the same because their father, mother, grandfather or grandmother did not have the same opportunities.

It is funny because - my mother would probably kill me for saying this in public session but I will say it anyway - I am reluctant to ask in my own family whether all of my grandparents went to secondary school because I am pretty sure not all of them did. I am still reluctant to ask that question because there is a level of shame attached to that. Last week, Senator Eileen Flynn, who cannot be here today, gave very powerful testimony about how nobody in her family had been to secondary school - neither her father or grandfather - and how emotional she felt that this could potentially be a disadvantage to her.

Education is so personal and emotive. It says everything, too much, about us. For those trying to break through poverty, education is their only chance. Family will provide help and support but for people who do not have education in their family background, education is their only chance of breaking through intergenerational poverty. That is why a provision such as this is so wrong and elitist. It goes against anything that education is supposed to achieve that because someone's father went to a certain school, that person has a better chance of attending it.

For someone who is not from this country or from a particular area and does not come from a tradition of school attendance, having any of these factors as a reason for not being able to attend a certain school would, as I said, have a lifelong effect. It would also make that person feel that regardless of any genuine efforts to try to row in or to move into the mainstream, for example, by changing their accent or pretending to live somewhere else, changing the way they dress or cut their hair, they will never be let into the club because their father did not go to a certain school. I imagine that would make some young people pretty angry, even if that is only one person.

I saw some heads nodding when I brought up the contradiction within the Bill. Does anyone wish to speak to that? Apart from the emotional argument I made, there is also the legislative argument that it is legislative nonsense to have two provisions in the same Bill aspiring to two different things. I appreciate the witnesses' support for what the committee is collectively trying to do.

Dr. David Doyle

From my recollection, it is section 62(7) that effectively excludes this while section 62(10)(b) then includes it again. The provisions in the legislation seem to be completely contradictory.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

Does anyone else have any other comments before I wrap up?

Ms Áine Lynch

The Deputy spoke about parents wanting their children to go schools with a good reputation in their local community. However, when we talk to parents we find that choosing the schools they want their child to go to or not go to is a complex issue for parents. The majority of parents will tell us it is a reputational thing and they want their child to go to the best school, as seen academically. However, we also have parents who have other reasons for choosing a particular school. The school may do a lot of sport or look after their child better because it seems to be a caring school or whatever else. We need to make sure, when we are looking at the types of schools that parents are choosing for their children, that all schools can provide all of those things, rather than just looking at an educational reputation piece. When we listen to parents' reasons for choosing a school, they are very complex. In addition, for different children in the same family, there can be different reasons. I just wanted to add that point.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

I have nothing else to say about this. We will come back to the Finnish revolution another time.

Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire

I thank the witnesses for being here. I do not have many questions but I have some observations. My degree was in law and I learned some of the rules of interpretation. One of them is called the mischief rule of interpretation, which is the idea that one is trying to interpret something on the basis of the mischief it is trying to achieve or the problem it is trying to resolve.

I have heard of the Stokes case. The objective of this legislation is to try to address that type of mischief. Some of the discussion last week was around how frequently the issue in question arises. In many respects, it does not arise very frequently, but the existence of the Stokes alone case justifies a response. We do not know whether John Stokes would have got access to the Christian Brothers High School Clonmel if this rule had not been in place. It has been clearly demonstrated that his chance of accessing the school was significantly diminished. The existence of that case alone justifies the legislation.

In many parts of the country, enrolment policies are not a problem because schools are not oversubscribed. That is how we would want it to be. I have some sympathy with the argument made by some of the speakers last week that what we need to do ultimately is resolve the issue of inadequate supply of school places, which is a particular problem in the greater Dublin area, Wicklow, Kildare, Cork city, Limerick city and many of the big urban centres. That is probably going to get worse before it gets better because there is a demographic bulge at primary level that is going to transition into second level. Subsequently, it might, perhaps, be alleviated. Ultimately, if there is going to be pressure on places, we need to resolve that issue, but there has to be equality in terms of how a limited number of places are going to be allocated.

I reiterate my support the legislation. In terms of additional issues related to admissions, a good point was made last week by the Joint Managerial Body in regard to a potential two-year admissions process for children with special educational needs in light of some of the documentation and so on that is needed. In terms of managing the transition, that is a fair point if any of the witnesses would like to offer observations on it. There is an issue. If people are living in an area where places are in short supply it is reasonable for them to try as many options as possible. What is not reasonable is that once they are offered a number of places they are holding on that number of places. There needs to be a cut-off in that regard.

I have a specific question for Ms Lynch of National Parents Council Primary in regard to an issue that I raised last week as well. School planning areas are quite often large. They can take in several towns. A school can be located at one end of the school planning area. This is mostly an issue for new schools. This can mean that a child who is living within 2 km or 3 km of a school could be of a lower priority than a child who lives 15 miles down the road but who is still within the school planning area. Dr. Muldoon may have come across this as well. We need to figure out a more flexible approach in that regard such as, perhaps, a school that is on the edge of school planning area being able apply to the Department for a derogation and being able to identify its correct catchment area. For me, the priority in terms of access needs to be the local child. It has been well articulated that the children who could lose out in respect of this issue are those whose parents did not attend secondary school in Ireland and the children of Travellers and migrants who did not attend secondary school. The local child needs to be at the heart of it.

I reiterate my support for the legislation. I would welcome a response from the witnesses on the points I have raised.

Ms Áine Lynch

On the two-year period for children with special educational needs, more planning is needed, but is about putting more resources into that area rather than extending the process to two years on the basis that one does not want to inadvertently disadvantage children with special educational needs because all of a sudden their parents have to make a choice much earlier. A great deal can happen within families in two years. We need to make sure there are no unintended consequences of any decisions. It would be better for applications to be processed with more resources, better planning and earlier planning with regard to the child's needs.

On the school planning, I know of a lot of areas where this issue arises. In one case, a new housing development is across the road from a school but it is not in the catchment area of that school. It is exactly as described by the Deputy. It is similar to the situation described by Ms Fanning in regard to Wexford where the local principals have come together to work that through. I agree with the Deputy that we need a better process in place for schools to manage that such that local principals do not have to organise it themselves. I agree that we need to look at that specific issue because it clearly is disadvantaging children who live across the road from a school if all of a sudden that school is not their local school.

Dr. Niall Muldoon

My response will not be much different. These sorts of issues are foreseeable. We just need the Department of Education to be proactive around rights and so on. Planning permissions for the building of housing estates take to two to three years. We need to identify the role for education there in terms of whether it has been planned for as part of that development. Those things can be done.

On the issue of the child with special educational needs, I have no problem with forward planning for two years, but one cannot create a situation wherein children are disadvantaged through that forward planning. We need to get our system working much more smoothly so that we can identify those children early, as well as their special needs and how they need to be met, so that the primary school is able to pass on that information quickly. Improving all of the areas will make a difference in that regard.

Ms Mai Fanning

This is something that we have dealt with a number of times. It is arises particularly where a child with special needs is transitioning from primary to post-primary level. That year is sometimes not enough. It puts an awful lot of pressure on a parent to approach a school and to have those discussions in regard to supports for the child and whether or not it is possible for the child to go to a particular school or the child needs to go to a different school or a special school. We have seen this occur a couple of times in terms of that transition. Often, all of the supports that are in place at primary level do not necessarily transition to post-primary level or the particular school the child is to go to. Parents often find that they have to condense all of their decisions and they have to do a great deal of footwork themselves to ascertain whether those supports can be put in place in the school in which the child has been enrolled or in the school into which he or she has been accepted. The decisions could be made within the year but if the process around what might be available for that transition could be started earlier that would possibly alleviate much of the stress.

Senator Fiona O'Loughlin

I thank the witnesses for their contributions. I listened remotely to what were very convincing arguments and all of the witnesses put fairness and equity at the centre of all they said. I was struck by one particular comment, I think from Dr. Doyle, that no child's education should be impacted negatively because of his or her parents. That is 100% correct. The onus is on all of us to ensure that every child has an opportunity to excel in education in their own community.

From from my own experience of as a former teacher I know how important it is for all children that in every school, fee-paying or otherwise, we have a multicultural environment and a diverse classroom in terms of learning how we all deal with the world and our mixed society. Dr. Muldoon made the point that we do not have the correct data.

Obviously, the real issue is that 20% of our schools are over-subscribed. We should not have such a situation but we do and that is where is it at.

We must deal with that 20%, no matter who the cohort is that will not have the opportunity to go their local school. Last week it was suggested, and I agree, that we need to look at the timelines in relation to how parents and young people apply to schools. It was suggested that it needs to be brought forward by at least 12 months so that people are not in a highly pressurised situation 12 months before school starts. I also believe there must be some type of centralised system. Many primary schools work together with a central admissions policy group but that is not happening at second level. It can happen in an ad hoc or informal way but it is not happening in a formal way. It is my belief that the Department of Education has a role to play in that and should be doing that.

In Newbridge, where I live, we have a huge problem with over-subscription that has been going on for about three years. It is expected to continue for at least another two years until a new school is built. Following a lot of pressure, agreement has been reached that somebody within the Department will work with the schools on the ground and with public representatives to make sure that every student has a place in secondary school next September. The stress that it is causing for young people and their families is enormous. It is not right and it absolutely should not be happening. We had to push hard to get that from the Department but it is something that should be in place as a matter of course.

If there is over-subscription, what is the fairest way of dealing with it within a school or school community? How should the Department deal with over-subscription to schools in a community? How does it make sure that fairness and equity are at the centre of any solution, but with the understanding that some children are going to lose out somewhere along the line, unfortunately?

Dr. Niall Muldoon

One of the things we need to remember here is that if we take away this piece, we will reduce the level of over-subscription. At present people are applying to schools they do not live near and that changes the demographic of people who are applying. It creates an opportunity for those schools so we will change things that way. One assumes that the people who stop applying or who are not allowed to apply outside their area will then be available to other schools. That changes things.

In terms of avoiding over-subscription per se, we have argued for many years that it requires forward planning and population planning. That is something that every other country in Europe is well able to do. They plan ahead, recognise where the population growth is going to be and allow for that. We need to put a better system in place in that regard. We need to develop the resources that will allow that to happen.

In terms of the subscription piece, there are criteria out there. I was looking at the submissions that were made last week. There are 220 post-primary schools in the ETB network and 27 community national school. Only eight of those use the past pupil condition and only two had to invoke it. There are criteria out there that people are using all of the time that are suitable and appropriate. I am not going to name them all but I think most people are comfortable with the idea of a sibling so that families are not split up. There are also discussions about mixed gender as opposed to single gender schools which might change the way families are allowed to enter schools and where they look for schools. Those sorts of things need to be considered. The discussion is well on its way here but I am not going to lay down criteria. Discussions with the educators who are currently involved, with the principals and the groups who appeared before the committee last week on the criteria are necessary. There are four or five clear criteria, including locality and other areas can be looked at and clearly moved forward but the idea of past pupil just does not ring true. The Department of Education stated in its strategy that admissions policies must be equal and fair and it does not ring true to have a past pupil element.

Ms Áine Lynch

The starting point in relation to this Bill is that we need to have legislation that does not permit the possibility of discrimination. That has to be the starting point for whatever we do. The Senator is right about over-subscription. We have been saying for so long that it is at 20% but I am not sure that is still the case. When we talk to parents about this, locality and children mixing in their local community is hugely important. That moves beyond the school and it means that the children they know in their local community are the ones with whom they go to school and the families know each other. That is of central importance to families. Again, there are lots of admissions policies that do not have a discriminatory path and we should look to those for how we go forward.

Ms Mai Fanning

One thing we have heard from parents is that when it comes to post-primary level, in some cases the local community is not the deciding factor. The choice is made under different criteria. Parents ask what the post-primary school can offer their child, whether it is focused on particular things like sport, whether it is more academic or practical and so on. Choices are made under different criteria and the geographic location of the school is not always a consideration. Another issue that would have to be considered is the ethos of the school. For many parents, the ethos is a very important and controlling factor in the choice they make. It would even impact on schools that are primarily boarding schools. Regardless of the reason it is considered appropriate for a child to attend a boarding school, that school would in most cases be outside of their community. The criteria that would be used at primary level differs from the criteria applied at post-primary level and that must be acknowledged in any legislation.

Dr. David Doyle

The key point I would make is that every child within a catchment area should at least have the potential to meet the admissions criteria. The problem with this particular legislative provision is that it may discommode a Traveller child or a child who is in direct provision whose parent could not possibly have attended the school in question and that is just fundamentally unjust.

Chairman

I thank the witnesses for coming here today. The discussion has been very productive. We had a meeting on the same subject last week. It is a very emotive subject, as most people know. A Bill has been put forward by Deputy Ó Ríordáin.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.20 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 15 February 2022.