 |
Response
to the Department of Education’s consultation on the
New Admissions Arrangements for Post-Primary Schools
Children’s Law Centre
June 2005
Introduction
The Children’s Law Centre is an independent charitable
organisation established in September 1997 which works towards
a society where all children can participate, are valued,
have their rights respected and guaranteed without discrimination
and every child can achieve their full potential.
We offer training and research on children’s rights,
we make submissions on law, policy and practice affecting
children and young people and we run an advice/ information/
representation service. We have a dedicated free phone advice
line for children and young people called CHALKY and a youth
advisory group called Youth@clc.
Our organisation is founded on the principles enshrined in
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,
in particular:
• Children shall not be discriminated against and shall
have equal access to protection.
• All decisions taken which affect children’s
lives should be taken in the child’s best interests.
• Children have the right to have their voices heard
in all matters concerning them.
From its perspective as an organisation, which works with
and on behalf of children, both directly and indirectly, the
Children's Law Centre is grateful for the opportunity to make
this submission to the Department of Education and to offer
assistance in developing the New Admission Arrangements for
Post-Primary Schools.
General Comments
Consultation
We welcome the fact that the Department of Education is consulting
on its draft New Admissions Arrangements for Post-Primary
Schools. We note from your letter dated 8th June 2005 that
as part of this process the Department commissioned research
into the views of children in Year 8 which has taken the form
of a series of focus groups involving a sample of 20 schools.
We would be grateful if you would provide us with further
details of how this consultation took place and whether the
Department intends to further consult directly with children
and young people as the group who will be impacted upon most
by the implementation of the new admission arrangements. Such
consultation is essential not only in ensuring compliance
with section 75 and the Department of Education’s equality
scheme, but also in ensuring compliance with your obligations
under Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights
of the Child (UNCRC). The UNCRC Committee, in its concluding
observations in 2002 expressed concern about the inconsistent
application of Article 12, with particular reference to education,
stating that,
“...the Committee is concerned that the obligations
of article 12 have not been consistently incorporated in legislation,
for example... in education and in protection throughout the
State party... The Committee is also concerned that in education,
schoolchildren are not systematically consulted in matters
that affect them. The Committee notes that groups of children
in the State party expressed their feelings that their views
are duly taken into consideration.” (Para 29, CRC/C/15/Add.188)
We note that in your letter dated 8th June 2005, the Department
states that,
“Following the consultation, the Department will undertake
an analysis of all responses received, which will take on
board any equality issues and inform the decision making process.
As we move towards finalising the way forward, we will consider
the full range of information available to us and fulfil our
duties in respect of equality screening and any other forms
of screening or proofing deemed necessary.”
We recently made a response to the Department of Education’s
Equality Scheme – Revised Policy Screening and Timetable
consultation and raised a number of concerns in relation to
the New Admissions Arrangements policy, termed the Open enrolment
policy in the Revised Screening document. We would like to
request details in respect of how the screening process was
carried out in relation to this policy; including the qualitative
and quantitative data used to inform the decision making process
and the rationale for the Department’s initial conclusion
the post-primary school policy should be included in the timetable
for EQIA after consultation on the policy. We believe that
this is contrary to the letter and spirit of section 75 of
the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which intends for equality concerns
to be central to the policy decision-making process. This
involves consideration of section 75 at the very beginning
stages of a policy’s development and implementation.
The Equality Commission’s Guidance for Implementing
Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 states that,
“1.4 The new statutory duties make equality central
to the whole range of public policy decision-making. This
approach is often referred to as “mainstreaming”.
The Council of Europe has defined mainstreaming as:
“the (re)organisation, improvement, development and
evaluation of policy processes, so that a[n] … equality
perspective is incorporated in all policies at all levels
and at all stages, by the actors normally involved in policy-making”.”
(Gender mainstreaming conceptual framework, methodology and
presentation of good practices. Council of Europe, Strasbourg
May 1998)
It is clear from this that the intention of section 75 is
to mainstream equality, making it central to policy decision
making. In order for an equality perspective to be central
to policy making, it needs to be incorporated in all policies
at all levels and stages. This would unequivocally involve
incorporation of the principles of equality of opportunity
from the beginning of the process and throughout the development
and implementation of the policy, not merely at the end of
the process when decisions have been taken in relation to
the policy with no regard shown to section 75. Because of
the pre-consultative nature of the EQIA process it is vital
that, where a policy is to be screened in, full and thorough
EQIA’s are carried in advance of the consultative process.
We recommend that the Department carries out an EQIA on this
policy as a matter of urgency.
We also wish to direct the Department to its approved Equality
Scheme which states that,
“2.7 It should be noted that for some months prior to
the coming into operation of Section 75 of and Schedule 9
to the Act, action has been ongoing to review the following
existing policies:-
o Arrangements for School Funding (Local Management of Schools).
o Selective Structure of Post-Primary Education; Transfer
Procedure Tests. Promotion of personal and social development
of young people through leisure activities.
o Maintenance of statutory Northern Ireland Curriculum.
2.8 The screening exercise has shown that in relation to each
of these reviews an Equality Impact Assessment is required
as an integral part of the development of any policies which
might be proposed as a result of the reviews.” (Our
Emphasis Page 11, Equality Scheme for the Department of Education,
February 2001)
It is abundantly clear from both the Equality Commission’s
Guidance and the Department of Education’s commitment
to ensuring that an EQIA be an integral part of the new post-primary
arrangements that the Department should have already carried
out an EQIA on this policy. It is essential that the Department
determine the possible adverse impact on equality of opportunity
prior to the introduction of this policy. We strongly recommend
that an EQIA be carried out as a matter of urgency in order
to comply with both the Equality Commission’s Guidance
and the Department’s own Equality Scheme. There is also
a need to child rights proof this policy against a variety
of international standards which are detailed below.
International Standards
Education has long been recognised as a fundamental human
right. A number of international instruments exist which guarantee
every child the right to an effective education, free from
any form of discrimination. The most important of these is
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).
The Convention is a set of non-negotiable and legally binding
minimum standards and obligations in respect of all aspects
of children’s lives which the Government has ratified.
Under Article 2 of the UNCRC, each Member State undertakes
to ensure Convention rights to every child without discrimination
on any ground including gender, social origin, property, disability,
birth or other status. All children are thus entitled to equal
access to education regardless of their social origin or status,
their geographical location, their membership of a linguistic,
ethnic or other minority, their detention or their disability.
Moreover, under Article 2 (2), States also undertake, to take
all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected
against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis
of their status, activities, or the expressed opinions or
beliefs of the child’s parents, guardians or family
members. Similarly, Article 1 of the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention Against
Discrimination in Education prohibits,
“...any distinction, exclusion, limitation or preference
which, being based on race, colour, sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic
condition or birth, has the purpose or effect of nullifying
or impairing equality of treatment in education”
It is arguable that the current selection procedure for post-primary
education in Northern Ireland is discriminatory within the
terms of the UNESCO Convention. For example, children may
be discriminated against on the basis of their economic condition
or birth, where they come from disadvantaged backgrounds,
their parents have underachieved in education and do not have
the academic ability nor financial resources to pay for private
tuition to support and prepare their children for the transfer
procedure examinations. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds
may also be discriminated against following the removal of
the current transfer procedures in that some school catchment
areas may be extremely affluent, resulting in the exclusion
of socially disadvantaged children when a school is oversubscribed
if the school relies on geography as a criterion for admission.
What is also very concerning is the significant differences
which exist in educational attainment after the 11-Plus between
grammar schools and non-grammar schools. This “grammar
school effect” results in pupils who attend grammar
schools gaining on average an additional 16 points at GCSE
stage. (Gallagher and Smith, “The Effects of the Selective
System of Secondary Education in Northern Ireland” Department
of Education, 2000) Whilst there are various factors which
contribute to the differences in results between sectors,
this would appear to be disproportionate. The result is an
apparent breach of the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination
in Education, which includes within its definition of discrimination
the subjection of a person or group to education of an inferior
standard. There are also concerns about the lower level of
educational attainment of particular groups of children, including
children with a disability, with research carried out by Kilpatrick
& Quinn in 2000 noting the predominance of children with
special educational needs in the secondary sector and a lack
of special educational needs policies in some schools. Other
children from the Traveller community, the Chinese community,
the Indian community and other indigenous minority groups
in Northern Ireland, may also be discriminated against on
the basis of their language and national or social origin.
This is of particular concern in light of the Common Funding
Formula whereby funding for English as an Additional Language
(EAL) provision in schools is still allocated, but is no longer
being ringfenced. As a result, many children may not receive
specialist provision. This is even more concerning given the
fact that the Department has stated in its recently published
revised screening document that intends to screen out the
provision of EAL services.
Article 28 paragraph 1 of the UNCRC provides that every State
party recognises the right of the child to education. With
a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis
of equality of opportunity, the State undertakes to adopt
a number of measures. Of particular relevance to post-primary
education in Northern Ireland are commitments to,
“Encourage the development of different forms of secondary
education, including general and vocational education, make
them available and accessible to every child and take appropriate
measures such as offering financial assistance in cases of
need” (Article 28 (1)(b));
“...make higher education accessible to all on the basis
of capacity” (Article 28(1)(c) and
“...make educational and vocational information and
guidance available and accessible to all children” (Article
28 (1)(d)).
The Committee on the Rights of the Child has recognised that
the UNCRC is comprised of general principles with broad-ranging
implications. In this regard, it has encouraged States to
include in their educational policies and legislation a clear
commitment to using the Convention’s principles on the
right to education to inform educational policies. The Department
should ensure that the UNCRC forms the basis for all educational
policies in Northern Ireland. The Committee on the Rights
of the Child, which monitors the implementation of the Convention,
has reiterated the relevance and importance of these principles
in vindicating the child’s right to education and has
attached particular importance to the right of the child to
be heard and to play an active part in decisions regarding
his or her education. (Article 12, UNCRC)
Article 29 of the UNCRC details the aims which education should
fulfil and identifies as the primary aim of education the
holistic fulfilment of a child’s development to their
fullest potential. According to Article 29 paragraph 1, State
parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed
to:
“(a) the development of the child’s personality,
talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest
potential;
(b) the development of respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter
of the United Nations;
(c) the development of respect for the child’s parents,
his or her own cultural identity, languages and values, for
the national values of the country in which the child is living,
the country from which he or she may originate and for civilisations
different from his or her own;
(d) the preparation of the child for responsible life in a
free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance,
equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic,
national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin;
(e) the development of respect for the natural environment.”
According to the UNCRC Committee’s General Comment on
Article 29 of the Convention – a statement of its meaning
and objectives - education must be child-centred, child-friendly
and empowering. (General Comment 1 CRC/GC/2001/1) The goal
is to strengthen the child’s capacity to enjoy the full
range of human rights, to promote a culture which is infused
by appropriate human rights values and to empower the child
through developing his or her skills, learning and other capacities,
human dignity, self-esteem and self-confidence. In this context,
‘education’ goes far beyond formal schooling to
embrace the broad range of life experiences and learning processes
which enable children, whether individually or collectively,
to develop their personalities, talents and abilities and
to live a full and satisfying life within society.
The UNCRC Committee also stated that were a State to deny
a child access to educational opportunities, this might present
a failure to comply with the right to education as contained
within Article 28 of the Convention. The Committee also went
further, stating that any failure to comply with the principle
aims of education under Article 29 could potentially have
a similar effect in denying a child’s right to education.
For example, discriminatory practices, including discrimination
against children with disabilities, are in direct contradiction
of the requirements in Article 29(1)(a) that education be
directed to, “the development of the child’s personality,
talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest
potential”.
Article 2 of the First Protocol to the European Convention
on Human Rights as incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998
also provides that no one shall be denied the right to education.
This has been interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights
to mean that every child is entitled to access effective education.
Moreover, taken together with Article 14 ECHR - the non-discrimination
principle - the right to access available educational facilities
must be secured to all children without discrimination.
Chapter 1 – Context for New Admissions Arrangements
We note the key educational developments prior to 2010, one
of which is pupil profiles. We will deal with pupil profiles
in more detail in our response, but wish to briefly highlight
our concerns in what we see as inherent risks at this point.
There is no requirement for parents to take cognisance of
the pupil profiles in determining what is in the child’s
best interests. It appears to be a matter for parental discretion
as to whether or not a parent accepts their child’s
teacher’s assessment of the child’s individual
needs. Situations may also arise where teachers feel under
pressure from influential parents in relation to the preparation
of a child’s profile. We have a number of concerns around
pupil profiles and the potential for their use as a form of
academic selection. We reiterate our recommendation from our
earlier submission to the Post-Primary Review Body on The
Review of Post-Primary Education that pupil profiling be thoroughly
piloted prior to their introduction so that any concerns may
be monitored in practice and remedial action taken as necessary.
We welcome the assertion that the introduction of the new
Entitlement Framework,
“...will end the wide disparity in provision between
post-primary schools that exists at present.” (Para
1.9)
It is encouraging to note the movement towards additional
provision of vocational courses in line with Articles 28(1)
(b) and (d) of the UNCRC. We welcome the marked shift away
from a purely academic focus in all post-primary schools and
the fact that the new Entitlement Framework will guarantee
pupils greater choice in accessing the most suitable curriculum.
This goes some way to ensuring that children receive an effective
education as required by Article 2 of the First Protocol to
the European Convention on Human Rights as incorporated by
the Human Rights Act 1998 and presumably aims to meet some
of the requirements of Article 29 of the UNCRC. However, the
Entitlement Framework presents a number of challenges to teachers
and those tasked with career advice and guidance. It will
be of paramount importance that all children in post-primary
education have equal access to the same type and number of
courses as well as the individual encouragement and attention
to ensure that they are able to access these courses, are
aware of the implications of courses chosen on their future
career path and are participating at the correct level which
is most suitable and appropriate for individual development.
It is also unclear as to how the introduction of the Entitlement
Framework will have the effect of reducing disparities in
provision between post-primary schools. We assume that while
there will be greater choice in the type and number of courses
available, some schools will still be considered more popular
and more academically successful than others. The reduction
in disparity of provision has not been elaborated upon and
we would like to have more information in relation to the
Department’s plans to ensure the delivery of a consistent,
high-quality standard of education to all children at post-primary
level.
We also support the introduction of cooperation and collaboration
between schools with the intention of sharing expertise, knowledge
and resources to the benefit of pupils. We believe that the
decisions around which schools work in partnership with each
other should be taken independently with the promotion of
equality of opportunity in post-primary education being the
fundamental aim so that schools which are viewed as better
achieving schools work in partnership with those which are
viewed as poorer to ensure high quality education provision
for all pupils in post-primary education in accordance with
Articles 28 (1) and 2 of the UNCRC. There is also a need to
work in co-operation with Further Education colleges to maximise
variety in the choice and type of courses offered.
We also note that the Government intends to pilot a number
of Specialist Schools in Northern Ireland over the next 5
years. Very little information has been given in relation
to these schools and we assume that there will be a consultation
process including full Equality Impact Assessment will be
carried out prior to these pilots. The Department needs to
have regard to their s75 duty and in addition pupils in rural
areas when deciding on the location of these Specialist Schools
to ensure that Article 29 of the UNCRC as defined by General
Comment 1 is complied with so that education is child-centred,
child-friendly and empowering (General Comment 1 CRC/GC/2001/1)
and also that it is available to all children as per Article
1 of the UNESCO Convention Against Discrimination in Education
which prohibits, distinctions, exclusions and preferences
based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political
or other opinion, national or social origin, economic condition
or birth in education.
We recognise the fact that almost half of all post-primary
schools are currently oversubscribed in Northern Ireland and
that admissions criteria must be applied. The Department has
outlined the projected fall in demographic trends over the
next number of years and has indicated that the projected
decline in the number of post-primary school-age children
will lead to a reduction in the number of oversubscribed schools.
We are of the opinion that while this may be the case for
some schools, there will always be popular schools such as
the 16% of schools which were oversubscribed by 50% or more,
with two schools receiving twice the number of applications
for places. It is essential that the Department firmly addresses
the issue of oversubscription in such a way that the fairest
and most consistent model is adopted across Northern Ireland.
While at present there is no statutory duty on Education and
Library Boards to monitor the admissions criteria set by each
school’s Board of Governors, we feel that this role
should be extended to ensure consistency in the application
of all schools chosen admissions criteria. While oversubscription
and competition for places may decrease by 2015, the Department
must ensure that there is no discrimination in the allocation
of places in post-primary education. This is even more pertinent
in light of the massive proposed funding cuts in education
of over £30 million. We believe that the proposed funding
cuts in education will lead to school closures and serve to
further exacerbate the problems which currently exist in disparities
in post-primary education provision.
Chapter 2 – Principles and Objectives
While many of the principles and objectives detailed in Chapter
2 are positive in nature and it is clear that some of the
principles and objectives are relevant to compliance with
the Department’s obligations under UNCRC, there is however
an overall absence of a central rights-based approach to the
issue of education, which is contrary to international norms.
Respect for the rights of the child does not appear to be
seen as an end or a legitimate objective in itself and there
is a strong emphasis on parental preference and choice, with
no reference to the views of the child being heard and taken
into account as per Article 12 of the UNCRC. (Para 2.3) This
is disappointing given that the UNCRC Committee states in
its 2002 concluding observations that the Government must
ensure that education legislation and policies reflect Article
12 (para 48a, CRC/C/15/Add.188) and that children not, ‘having
their say’ and having their views taken into account
was identified as “…the single most important
issue to children in Northern Ireland.” (“Children’s
Rights in Northern Ireland,” NICCY, 2004 page xxi) There
is no reference to the rights of children in the education
system, such as their right to enjoy equal access to an effective
education, the right to receive a child-centred education
and to have his or her rights, particularly the right to be
heard and to have their best interests respected while in
education. We note the very welcome initial movement towards
ensuring that the views of children and young people are taken
into account in relation to the formulation of anti-bullying
policies in schools through Article 19 of the Education and
Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. We wish to see this
right extended throughout all areas of education in an effort
to comply with the obligations of the UNCRC.
While the principles do state that there should be no discrimination,
direct or otherwise, in education but they do not identify
this as the right of every child. There is also a failure
to identify the needs and rights of those individual children
and certain groups of children who currently do not enjoy
equal access, such as children with disabilities, Traveller
children, children from linguistic and other minorities. No
mention is made of the importance of international standards
and children’s human rights in education in this context.
One of the Department’s objectives at para 2.3 is to,
“take account of the particular circumstances of pupils
with special educational needs.”
This falls far short of the wording of Article 23 of the UNCRC
which identifies the rights of children with disabilities
and in particular, recognises that a mentally or physically
disabled child should enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions,
which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate
the child’s active participation in the community. Among
other rights, Article 23 (3) recognises that any assistance
extended to children with disabilities shall be designed to
ensure that the disabled child has effective access to and
receives education, training, rehabilitation services, preparation
for employment and recreation opportunities in a manner conducive
to the child’s achieving the fullest possible social
integration and individual development, including his or her
cultural and spiritual development.
In relation to the Department’s question on page 8 regarding
whether these principles and objectives provide a sound basis
for the future development of the future admission arrangements,
the human rights and equality principles enshrined in the
UNCRC and the other international instruments previously referred
to should provide a platform for children’s rights standards
and should be embraced by the Department in developing the
new admission arrangements for post primary education. The
standards that have been set under these international treaties
provide a starting point and bedrock for the Department to
progress from, in order to ensure that children’s rights
in and to education are protected in the future and the principles
and objectives should be amended to reflect this.
Chapter 3 – Choosing a Post-Primary School
We support the emphasis in this section on parental preference
and the importance of informed parental choice. This is consistent
with Article 5 of the UNCRC which recognises the responsibilities,
rights and duties of parents to provide, in a manner consistent
with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction
and guidance in the exercise by the child of his or her Convention
rights. However as previously stated, it is vital that the
views of the child are taken into account in choosing a post-primary
school in accordance with Article 12 of the UNCRC. We are
also concerned in relation to parental preference where this
may be in conflict with the child’s best interests.
The best interests of the child must be the paramount consideration
in determining their post primary education and realising
their right to education. It appears that parents have overall
discretion in choosing a school without a requirement that
the views and opinions of the child be taken into account.
This is in breach of the UNCRC.
Reference is made to the pupil profile as a means of informing
the parent in exercising his/her choice of school. The pupil
profile is a useful tool in determining educational achievements
as interpreted by individual teachers, but we wish to stress
that it should not be used as a form of academic selection.
In our submission to the Post Primary Review Body on the Review
of Post-Primary Education we stated that pupil profiles should
only be made available to post primary schools after a decision
has been made regarding the child’s transfer. This intention
appears to have altered in that at para. 3.5.2. the Department
states that,
“... there will... be an opportunity for individual
discussions with potential post-primary schools, which may
include discussion of the Pupil Profile” and para 3.9
states that,
“Parents should wish to share information in the Pupil
Profile with these post-primary schools ...”
We strongly oppose the use of pupil profiles prior to a decision
about choice of school. Pupil profiles should not be available
to post-primary schools as there is a high likelihood that
they will be used to determine selection. This will have the
effect of replacing the current transfer test with another
system based on academic selection. Such selection will be
more flawed than our current system as pupil profiles are
by definition subjective in nature, not only through the teachers
comments in the profile, but also through the determinations
of those in post-primary schools who interpret what is meant
by the profile. This would be a disastrous development and
would perpetuate the same human rights violations which have
become common place under the current system of selection.
We must question the value of this process and the introduction
of new admissions arrangements if unregulated pupil profiles
can be used to inform the debate between parents and post-primary
schools. This will certainly give rise to academic selection
based on pupil profiles which may or may not have been influenced
by the child’s parents putting pressure on the teacher.
Additionally, there is the potential that parents from higher
socio-economic backgrounds may be able to make better use
of their child’s profile than those from disadvantaged
backgrounds, for example, these parents may have more confidence
to approach schools and to make representations for selection
for admission. Further consideration should be given to how
best to avoid this discriminatory effect. Pupil profiles should
be piloted thoroughly prior to their introduction so that
specific concerns may be monitored and evaluated in practice.
The Department commits at para 3.5.1. to quality assure the
system of pupil profiling to ensure that they are consistent
across schools and between pupils. This will be a very challenging
task and we are of the view that detailed Departmental Guidance
for schools and comprehensive training for teaching staff
is fundamental. We welcome the Department’s commitment
to consistency in the system of pupil profiling and also wish
the Department to commit to ensuring the consistency of the
use of pupil profiles across Northern Ireland to ensure that
these profiles do not become a further means of academic selection,
replacing the current flawed system that its seeks to address.
We agree that monitoring to quality assure the system of pupil
profiling is fundamental and would like further information
on how the Department aims to carry this out in practice.
Reference is made to the fact that parents will receive information
to help them interpret the pupil profiles either from ELB’s,
the CCEA or the Department itself. We wish to emphasise the
importance of providing this information in a variety of formats,
to ensure that all parents can understand the information
and are informed about the effect that their choice, based
on this information, will have on the life of their child.
There appears to be an onus on the parent to discuss the content
of the pupil profile with both the child’s primary school
teacher and possibly representatives from the child’s
chosen post-primary school. As a result, the more pro-active
the parent, the more informed and prepared they will be for
choosing a school and the transition. This will have a negative
impact on parents who are from socially disadvantaged backgrounds,
particularly with relation to the provision of and reliance
on web-based information, which clearly favours those from
advantaged backgrounds. The Department needs to take immediate
action and invest considerable resources to ensure that those
already disadvantaged socio-economically and by the current
education system have access to information in a suitable
format and are fully aware of the new system and its consequences.
This is also the case in relation to post-primary school prospectuses,
extensive web-based information, being informed of and during
information evenings and making the final choice and the possible
application of admissions criteria. Consideration also must
be given to the fact that access to open evenings may not
be available to all parents for reasons such as availability
and affordability of childcare for additional dependents,
lack of travel, cost and accessibility of public transport
or disability. The Department must make adequate provisions
for those parents who have difficulty attending open evenings
if this is to become a factor in the new admission arrangements.
Further we would have considerable concern that any child
would be disadvantaged, as would be the case, by virtue of
parental/guardians inability or failure to properly engage
in the process. We also have additional concerns about the
reliance on the engagement of parents/guardians in relation
to the anticipated impact that the new admissions arrangements
will have on looked after children, children in the youth
justice system and children who are carers. There does not
appear to be any provisions in the new admissions arrangements
to protect their best interests and their right to an effective
education. We wish to see the needs and best interests of
these children and young people addressed as a matter of urgency
within the final admission arrangements for post-primary education
in Northern Ireland.
Chapter 4 – Pupils with Compelling Individual
Circumstances or a Statement of Special Educational Need
We wish to draw the Department’s attention to one of
the draft actions in the Draft Children’s Strategy under
the sub-heading of Additional Needs which refers to the removal
of barriers to disabled children and young people entering
and remaining in mainstream schools. We assume that this action
refers to all of the barriers, other than purely physical
barriers, faced by disabled children and young people in relation
to mainstream education and also assume that this draft action
will have the effect of increasing the number of children
with special educational needs entering mainstream post-primary
schools. This has not been addressed in the document and presumably
will have resource and other implications for the discussion
around whether pupils with special educational needs should
continue to be supernumerary.
Compelling individual circumstances is important for those
children who find themselves requiring additional consideration.
It is vital that statutory safeguards are put in place to
prevent exploitation by those with capacity to manipulate
such a system. It would appear from the business of the Admissions
Appeal Tribunals that it is the more influential, educated
and affluent parents who exercise their right of appeal against
the refusal by a school to admit their child. We support the
proposed use of a central panel to consider special circumstances
claims in the interests of consistency, objectivity and impartiality.
We stress the need for any criteria which may be drawn up
to be Equality Impact Assessed before being properly consulted
on as per the Equality Commission’s Guidelines including
directly with children and young people with additional considerations.
Chapter 5 – Admissions Criteria for Oversubscribed Schools
Again there is a strong emphasis in this section on parental
preference and parental choice. As previously stated, it is
vital that the views of the child are taken into account,
with more focus on pupil consideration in choosing a post-primary
school in accordance with Article 12 of the UNCRC. Any discussion
of the application of criteria in decision making for schools
admissions will have equality implications. The application
and definition of criteria currently is varied and inconsistent
and as a result, discriminatory and in contravention of the
Department’s obligations under Articles 2, 3, 28 and
29 of the UNCRC and Article 1 of the UNESCO Convention Against
Discrimination in Education. Para 5.4 states that the new
menu of admissions criteria should conform to Equality legislation,
we would argue that the new criteria should also comply with
domestic and international human rights standards and that
these should be included.
Family-Focused Criteria – Siblings/Eldest Child
While we recognise the practical advantages in keeping siblings
together we have a number of specific concerns in relation
to the operation of these criteria, particularly regarding
equality of access to the school of choice. Some children
may be discriminated against in situations where:
o Their elder sibling(s) did not attend the school of their
preference;
o Their elder sibling(s) had very different individual educational
needs; and
o The child is coming from a socially and economically deprived
background, his or her parents have low educational achievement
and they are the first child in the family to have presented
with educational needs which require different educational
provision
If this criterion is to be adopted as one of the Department’s
proposed statutory admission criteria, it is likely that we
shall see future legal challenges grounded on the basis of
the Department’s failure to afford protection in respect
of a child’s right of equal access to an effective education,
as provided under Article 2, Protocol 1, (ECHR), in conjunction
with the non-discrimination clause under Article 14 (ECHR).
Recognising the link between academic achievement and poverty,
this provision will perpetuate generational socio-economic
deprivation and consequently is discriminatory under international
standards.
Community-Based Criteria
There are issues with the operation of these criteria also,
particularly in relation to the possibility of religious discrimination
through use of the parish criteria. There are also problems
in relation to the demarcation of parish boundaries which
will vary considerably. What is most concerning however is
the proposed use of feeder schools, which present a number
of problems associated with the use ofthis criteria. Through
use of feeder schools in the admissions process, there is
the very real possibility that primary schools may become
oversubscribed under the new admissions arrangements. There
is a strong possibility that primary schools which are the
feeder schools for those post-primary schools which are perceived
as the most prestigious or high achieving will become oversubscribed.
This is particularly worrying given the fact that the Department
has published its revised screening document and intends to
screen out primary school enrolment. We would argue that an
EQIA is necessary in relation to primary school enrolment
and we would also warn the Department to prepare for oversubscription
in primary schools if feeder schools remain an option. This
will only serve to move the problem of oversubscription and
inequality further down the line, without any criteria to
deal with such an eventuality at primary school level. The
possibility for discrimination on grounds of socio-economic
background and rural/urban placement is apparent with the
use of this criterion. The Department could mitigate some
of these concerns by choosing poorer achieving feeder schools
for those schools which would be viewed as higher achieving.
Geographical Criteria
Geographical Criteria or proximity to school is already widely
used in admissions to primary and Grammar school sectors in
Northern Ireland. We have some concerns in relation to distance
criteria, particularly in respect of the right of access to
a school of preference for children in rural areas. The distance
between a child’s residence and school should not in
our opinion be a deciding factor in respect of the suitability
of a school to meet his or her educational needs.
There are also wider concerns that this criterion shall simply
replace one form of social segregation in education, namely
selection via the transfer procedure, with another form of
segregation based on the child’s postcode area. Northern
Ireland is a society where there are marked levels of social
differentiation in urban areas and if parents and children
are prompted by this admission criterion simply to choose
the school located nearest to the family home, not only shall
the child’s right to choose a school which may provide
a more appropriate education be jeopardized, but the wider
implications may be that the socio economic boundaries in
our society will not be addressed through the system proposed.
The inevitable population shifts into preferred catchment
areas by those with socio-economic resources is already evident
and will be exacerbated to the disadvantage of those who are
socio-economically deprived, by the inclusion of this criteria.
It is clearly of fundamental importance that the development
and application of criteria for entry to schools be informed
explicitly by children’s rights standards, particularly
the right to an effective and appropriate education, and the
guiding principles of non-discrimination, best interests of
the child and the child’s right to be heard.
Tiebreakers
While we recognise that there will always be situations which
cannot be resolved with the use of criteria such as those
described above, we do not support the use of tiebreakers
as a means of determining a child’s admission to their
choice of post-primary school. The criteria of random choice
will have implications in the interests of fairness and distance
from school will again have implications for children in rural
areas and will inevitably be subject to legal challenge.
Format of Menu
We believe that we cannot make an informed decision about
the order of the criteria used to determine admission to post-primary
schools without the Department carrying out a full and thorough
EQIA on each of the proposed criterion to determine in detail
the possible adverse impacts of the criteria. We believe that
there is a need to proactively advantage those children who
are currently being discriminated against in the education
system and would argue for the consideration of a form of
social criteria in the interests of equality of opportunity.
Conclusion
The Children’s Law Centre is grateful to have the opportunity
to comment on the Department of Education’s New Admission
Arrangements for Post-Primary Schools. We hope that our comments
have been constructive and useful to the Department and are
more than happy to meet with Department staff to discuss anything
in this response. We wish to be kept informed of progress
in the development of the New Admission Arrangements for Post-Primary
Schools and look forward to the issues raised and questions
asked in this response being addressed, taken forward by the
Department and hearing from the Department in the near future.
|
