 |
Response
to the Department of Education’s Equality Scheme –
Revised Policy Screening and Timetable consultation
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,
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. Education issues comprise 25.2% (1,627)
of the total number of issues raised through the CHALKY helpline
since June 2000.
Our organisation is founded on the principles enshrined in
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC),
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
further assistance in the further development of the Department’s
Equality Scheme and revised timetable for EQIA.
General Comments
We welcome the fact that the Department of Education is consulting
on its revised policy screening and timetable document as
per its statutory duty under section 75 of the Northern Ireland
Act 1998. We would be grateful if you would provide us with
details of how you have or intend to consult directly with
children and young people as the group who will be impacted
upon most by the screening in or otherwise of the Department’s
policies. 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)
Screening is a vital part of the section 75 statutory duty
imposed upon all designated public bodies. It is essential
at the screening stage that all of the policies which should
be subject to an Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) are identified
and screened in to ensure that an assessment of any potential
adverse impact can be carried out and such impact mitigated
in the operation of the policy. While we recognise the need
for efficiency and appreciate that the level of knowledge
and experience in relation to section 75 has developed considerably
since the Department carried out its initial screening exercise,
we have some concerns about the fact that the Department now
aims to screen out 19 of its original policies where it was
initially felt that an EQIA was necessary. We believe that
a number of these policies which the Department aims to screen
out should be screened in either because of a potential adverse
impact on members of one or more of the nine groups detailed
in section 75, the importance of the policy itself and the
different needs, experiences and priorities of different groups
of children in relation to the policy. We also wish to query
who the Department has consulted with and the extent of consultation
carried out in respect of this process.
The Screening Review
The Pre-School Education Expansion Programme
The Pre-School Education Expansion Programme is dealt with
at page 11 of the consultation document. While we recognise
that a major review of the pre-school sector is currently
underway and that this review includes a section on equality
proofing to establish whether any inequalities exist among
the section 75 groups, the Department has stated that when
the outcomes of the policy review are announced, an EQIA will
form part of the documentation. This commitment is welcome,
despite the fact that an EQIA should have been carried out
as part of the ongoing consultation process. However, the
Department goes on to say that preliminary findings indicate
that there are no adverse impacts within the current arrangements
and that an EQIA should be included in the revised timetable,
“...pending the outcome of the review.” We believe
that this is contrary to the letter and spirit of section
75 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. It is vital that a full
and thorough EQIA is carried out on this policy in advance
of the consultative process. We recommend that the Department
carries out an EQIA on this policy as a matter of urgency.
We would also 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, the rationale for deciding that an EQIA should
be carried out after the outcome of the review, thus negating
its value within the policy making process.
Contrary to the Department’s preliminary findings, the
Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People’s
(NICCY) commissioned research, “Children’s Rights
in Northern Ireland” 2004 highlights a number of concerns
with the current system of pre-school education and states
that many of these concerns have been raised in the consultation
process. These include the fact that places are not always
available in the locations or in the type of pre-school programme
which parents want, the fact that much of the pre-school provision
is religiously segregated, there is a very low level of Traveller
children participation, only three out of the thirty-seven
Irish medium pre-school places are in statutory nursery units,
the adult:child ratio for nurseries is 1:8 and it is 1:13
for pre-school, there can be different age criteria for admission
for children in nursery schools and pre-school play groups,
the need for rural-proofing of pre-school provision, the need
to improve provision for children with special educational
needs and the need for more full-time places with widespread
geographical consistency in the number of hours each place
is funded for.
In addition to the Department’s responsibilities under
section 75, Article 2 of the UNCRC confers the principle of
non-discrimination and states that,
“States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights
set forth in the present Convention to each child within their
jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective
of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's
race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability,
birth or other status.”
In addition, article 28 of the UNCRC states that Member States
shall recognize the right of the child to education and shall
achieve this right progressively and on the basis of equality
of opportunity. The UNCRC Committee reiterated its concerns
around inequalities in educational provision, stating that
Member States must,
“Take all necessary measures to eliminate the inequalities
in educational achievement and in exclusion rates between
children from different groups and to guarantee all children
an appropriate quality education” (Para 48c CRC/C/15/Add.188)
This is compounded by the UNCRC Committee’s General
Comment No. 1 on the Aims of Education, which state that
“Discrimination on the basis of any of the grounds listed
in article 2 of the Convention, whether it is overt or hidden,
offends the human dignity of the child and is capable of undermining
or even destroying the capacity of the child to benefit from
educational opportunities.” (Para 10, CRC/GC/2001/1)
The above concerns raise issues around potential adverse impacts
in relation to race, disability, religion and age, in light
of this we believe that the policy should be screened in and
the Department should carry out a full EQIA, not qualified
on the outcome of the ongoing review, in accordance with the
Equality Commission’s Guidance as a matter of urgency.
The Promotion of Child Protection Policies and Procedures
in Schools
The Promotion of Child Protection Policies and Procedures
in Schools policy is dealt with at page 15 of the consultation
document and the Department has decided that this policy should
be screened out. We wish 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 Departments initial conclusion that this policy should
be screened out for the purposes of carrying out an EQIA.
Schools are required to determine the measures to be taken
at the school, “with a view to protecting pupils from
abuse, whether at school or elsewhere.” (Article 18,
Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 2003). The
NICCY research has highlighted a number of issues in respect
of child protection procedures in schools. Wile the Department
has issued guidance on child protection, “Pastoral Care
in Schools; Child Protection” 1999, concerns about the
guidance include the need for further guidance on the protection
of children with disabilities and special educational needs
in mainstream settings. This is particularly relevant in terms
of the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special
Needs Education and Government’s stated objective in
the Draft Children’s Strategy to increase the number
of children with disabilities and special educational needs
in mainstream education. In addition, the Education and Training
Inspectorate identified a minority of schools of schools where
practices in relation to child protection could be improved.
This is clearly an equality concern as there appears to be
variances in the level of protection being afforded to children
and young people attending different schools. The consultation
document states that “...all children, regardless of
section 75 category, are afforded a level of child protection”
(Page 16). We have some concerns around the level of child
protection and believe that the Department should carry out
and EQIA to ensure that all children are afforded a consistently
high level of child protection, regardless of geographical
location, or any other factor, such as the schools resources
or a child’s disability. The NICCY research has highlighted
issues such as better training of teachers, monitoring of
the implementation of policies and better partnership working
between social services and schools as central to ensuring
adequate child protection procedures are in place for all
children and young people.
In its concluding observations the UNCRC Committee stated
that Member States must,
“Take measures and set up adequate mechanisms and structures
to prevent bullying and other forms of violence in schools
and include children in the development and implementation
of these strategies” (Para 48e CRC/C/15/Add.188)
Because of the apparent variances in the levels of child protection
and the issues around child protection and children with disabilities
and special educational needs in mainstream education, we
believe that this policy should be screened in and an Equality
Impact Assessment carried out.
Promotion of Positive Pupil Behaviour
The Department’s framework for Promotion of Positive
Pupil Behaviour is outlined at page 17. We note that the “Suspension
and Expulsion Procedures” cover this area and wish to
state that this is an area of particular concern for the Children’s
Law Centre, with18.4% (299) of all education queries received
through the CHALKY helpline since June 2000 relating to suspensions
and expulsions. We note also that a revised Suspension and
Expulsion Procedures policy was issued for consultation in
2004 by the Department and that the results of this consultation
are currently being evaluated. The Department has stated that
if any significant adverse impacts are identified an EQIA
will be carried out. This EQIA should have been carried out
in conjunction with the consultation on the Suspension and
Expulsion policy in order to assess and mitigate any adverse
impacts at the initial stage of consideration of the policy.
While we welcome the proposal to include the Suspension and
Expulsion Procedures in the revised timetable, we feel that
carrying out and EQIA is imperative and a matter for urgent
consideration, not simply “pending the outcome of the
consultation process”.
We again wish to refer to The Equality Commission’s
Guidance for Implementing Section 75 of the Northern Ireland
Act 1998, as quoted above, which states that the intention
of section 75 is to mainstream equality, making it central
to policy decision making. An equality perspective must therefore
be incorporated in all policies at all levels and stages,
from the beginning of the process, throughout the development
and implementation of the policy. It is vital that a full
and thorough EQIA is carried out on this policy in advance
of the consultative process, not least as a result of the
findings of the NICCY research in relation to school suspensions
and exclusions. The research found a number of areas of inequality
and inconsistency in relation to suspensions and exclusions.
These include the major variations in schemes for suspension
and exclusions used by different schools, the high levels
of suspensions among males and those living in very deprived
areas, the disproportionate number of children with statements
of special educational needs who get suspended, the variances
between schools on what are grounds for suspensions and incidences
of unlawful practices in relation to suspensions, for example,
suspensions being imposed for longer than five days in the
first instance. In relation to exclusions, the research found
much higher levels of exclusions in schools where decisions
to exclude pupils are taken by the Board of Governors, extreme
difficulty in getting children who have been excluded into
other schools, particularly children expelled from special
schools and children with special educational needs who are
expelled from mainstream education, there is no right of appeal
to an independent appeal tribunal and the child has no right
to be heard at an expulsion appeal tribunal. This is consistent
with our advice and legal service experience. We also wish
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, the rationale for deciding that an EQIA should
be carried out pending outcome of the consultation process,
thus negating its value within the policy making process.
Many of these areas have very obvious implications in terms
of section 75 and the Department’s statutory duty. There
are clearly issues in relation to children with disabilities,
males and potential issues of religious discrimination given
the high levels of suspensions and exclusions in areas of
high deprivation. A full and urgent EQIA in advance of any
consultation is essential to examine areas of adverse impact
in greater detail and to determine ways to mitigate such adverse
impact. There is also an obvious need to child rights proof
this policy in order to ensure compliance with international
standards as it raises a number of issues in relation to the
UNCRC and the Committee’s concluding observations.
The fact that it is well acknowledged that both suspensions
and exclusions have an adverse impact on a child’s education,
as mentioned in the NICCY research, raises compliance issues
around Articles 2 – non-discrimination, 3 - the best
interests of the child, 6 – survival and development,
28 – the right to education and 29 - the aims of education.
This is extremely worrying given the profiles of those pupils
most likely to be suspended or excluded. In addition, the
UNCRC Committee has highlighted a number of concerns in relation
to the lack of mechanisms for independent advocacy around
appeals in relation to suspensions and exclusions. In its
concluding observations, the UNCRC Committee expressed concern
around the Government’s compliance with Article 12 –
the child’s right to express his/her opinion and to
have it taken into account, stating that Member States must,
“Ensure that legislation throughout the State party
reflects article 12 and respects children’s rights to
express their views and have them given due weight in all
matters concerning their education, including school discipline;
Take appropriate measures to reduce temporary or permanent
exclusion, ensure that children throughout the State party
have the right to be heard before exclusion and to appeal
against temporary and permanent exclusion, and ensure that
children who are excluded do continue to have access to full-time
education” (Paras 48 a and b, CRC/C/15/Add.188)
It is clear from both the experience of the Children’s
Law Centre and the findings of the NICCY research that there
is still a great deal of work to be done to meet the obligations
of the UNCRC and the Committee’s concluding observations.
It is essential that an EQIA is carried out on the Suspension
and Exclusion policy as a matter of urgency as there are clearly
section 75 implications in relation to a number of the nine
categories. In complying with the obligations of the UNCRC
and the Committee’s concluding observations, the Department
must address these fundamental issues which serve only to
further discriminate against some of the most vulnerable children
in society, while denying them their most basic human rights
to education and to have their opinion heard and taken into
account.
Maximising Learning Opportunities for Children with Learning
Difficulties/ Special Educational Needs
The Department’s policy on Maximising Learning Opportunities
for Children with Learning Difficulties/ Special Educational
Needs as outlined on page 19 incorporates three separate initiatives
- Policy on provision for earliest possible identification
and assessment of children’s learning difficulties;
Resourcing and legislating for those needs to be met as effectively
as possible, within school and; Resourcing and legislating
for those needs to be met as effectively as possible, with
outside support as necessary. Special Educational Needs is
an area of particular concern for the Children’s Law
Centre, with 27.2% (443) of all education queries received
through the CHALKY helpline since June 2000 relating to children
with special educational needs and service provision. We note
that the Department has concluded that none of the initiatives
which make up this policy should be included in the revised
timetable in order for an EQIA to be carried out. 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 Departments initial
conclusion that these three initiatives should be screened
out for the purposes of an EQIA. While we note the argument
that this specific policy has no adverse impact as it is aimed
at improving educational provision for members of one particularly
vulnerable section 75 category, there is a lack of consideration
both of the fact that children with disabilities and/or learning
difficulties are not a homogenous group and also of external
factors which will raise questions around section 75. We recognise
the fact that the policy on Maximising Learning Opportunities
for Children with Learning Difficulties / Special Educational
Needs aims to positively discriminate in favour of children
with learning difficulties or special educational needs, but
believe that the existence of this policy will not go far
enough to ensure that the Department meets its obligations
both under section 75 and in compliance with international
standards. While it may be the Department’s intention
that no group suffers adverse impact as a result of this policy,
the Equality Commission has made it clear that the intention
of a designated public body is irrelevant in deciding whether
or not to carry out an EQIA. In the Final Report of the Equality
Commission’s Investigation under Paragraph 10 of Schedule
9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 – Children’s
Law Centre and the NIO, the Equality Commission stated that,
“...the purpose of screening, as set out in the Commission’s
Guide to the Statutory Duties, is;
“to identify those policies which are likely to have
a significant impact on equality of opportunity...”
The Commission did not accept that the... reasons for not
undertaking an Equality Impact Assessment, which focussed
on the reasons for adverse impact and the fact that such impact
was not intentional, rather than the potential for adverse
impact, represented a proper consideration of whether the
policy was “likely to have significant impact on equality
of opportunity”.” (SDI/22/04)
We also wish to state that where the Department is working
in partnership with other agencies in the operation of a policy,
this partnership or inter-dependency approach should in no
way hinder the carrying out of an EQIA on the particular aspects
of that policy for which the Department has responsibility.
We wish to bring your attention to the Department’s
approved Equality Scheme which states that,
“1.8 Where the Department of Education has lead responsibility
for a policy which requires close co-operation with, or is
implemented by other Departments, it will ensure that those
other Departments actively participate in any Equality Impact
Assessment which may be necessary. This will include, in particular
their participation in a steering group for the Assessment.
1.9 Similarly, where this Department has lead responsibility
for a policy delivered by NDPBs or other public authorities,
it will involve them with any Equality Impact Assessment which
may be necessary…
2.18 In carrying out its statutory equality duties, including
the co-ordination of Equality Impact Assessments, the Department
will liaise and co-operate with its NDPBs and other partner
bodies.” (Pages 4 and 14, Equality Scheme for the Department
of Education, February 2001)
Article 2 of the UNCRC states that,
“1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights
set forth in the present Convention to each child within their
jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective
of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's
race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability,
birth or other status.
2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure
that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination
or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed
opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians,
or family members”
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”
The Department has a responsibility to ensure that disabled
children and children with special educational needs do not
suffer as a result of inequality or discrimination in education.
The NICCY research acknowledges a number of Department led
initiatives in relation to children with learning difficulties/
special educational needs and commends the Department for
the recent and ongoing SENDO consultations, however it also
highlights a number of concerns as Special Educational Need
provision emerged as one of the major concerns among professionals
in the education sector. These concerns included delays in
assessment and statementing with no statutory time limit for
compliance, inadequate levels of provision, lack of support
and advice for parents, limited participation of children
and young people in decision making as per Article 12 of the
UNCRC as well as a range of issues around the treatment of
children attending both special and mainstream schools. While
we welcome the SENDO consultations, we are of the opinion
that inadequate resources have been committed in order to
deliver an adequate service.
The NICCY research indicated four main themes which emerged
as a result of interviews with key professionals in relation
to special educational needs. These were, the inadequacy of
resources at board and school level, poor access to education
by children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds due to
current limits on resources which favour affluent parents,
the pressing need for early intervention and the long and
cumbersome nature of the assessment and statementing process.
It is extremely worrying that this crisis in funding provision
in relation to special educational needs is presently the
case, particularly in light of the proposed funding cuts in
education of over £30 million. The Education and Training
Inspectorate’s most recent report (2002-2004) highlighted
areas for improvement in special educational needs provision,
including the inadequacy of current funding arrangements,
suitable training programmes for teachers and the need for
schools and early years providers to raise standards in special
needs teaching. We believe that the proposed funding cuts
in education will serve to further exacerbate the problems
which currently exist in special educational needs provision,
particularly as it is widely acknowledged that special educational
needs provision will be one of the first and hardest hit areas
as a result of the cuts. The multi-faceted nature of children
with special educational needs and/ or learning disabilities
and their families means that there will be equality issues
arising from ongoing provision of services, such as those
identified in the NICCY research. We are of the opinion that
these three policies should be screened in for EQIA and also
child rights proofed. This is particularly vital because of
the proposed funding cuts in education which will place further
limitations on a service which is already in crisis.
English as an Additional Language
The Department’s policy on English as an Additional
Language as outlined on page 22 is welcome in that the aim
of the policy is to have a positive equality impact on children
and young people whose first language is not English. We note
that as a result of this aim, the Department has concluded
that this policy should not be included in the revised EQIA
timetable. Again we wish to bring your attention to the Equality
Commission’s decision in its Final Report of the Equality
Commission’s Investigation under Paragraph 10 of Schedule
9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 – Children’s
Law Centre and the NIO as stated above which clearly indicates
that the intention of a designated public body for a policy
to have no adverse impact is not sufficient in coming to the
decision not to carry out an EQIA. We wish 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 Departments initial conclusion that this policy should
be screened out for the purposes of an EQIA.
The Department notes that the figures for children who have
English as an additional language in schools are 2,056, which
is a 26% increase on the previous year. The Department also
states that given the expansion of the European Union, “...it
is likely that the number of children in need of EAL support
will continue to increase.” (Page 22) In relation to
the provision of English as an Additional Language, the Department
is bound by its obligations under the UNCRC in terms of compliance
with the principle of non-discrimination - Article 2 and Article
29, which states that,
“States Parties agree that the education of the child
shall be directed to…
(c) The development of respect for the child's parents, his
or her own cultural identity, language 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 civilizations
different from his or her own.”
Again Article 1 of the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination
in Education is relevant in that inequality of treatment in
education is prohibited on grounds of language, colour and
race.
The NICCY research highlights the existence of high levels
of racial prejudice in education and the need for cultural
diversity awareness as early as possible. It also highlights
problems of the lack of sufficient training for teachers aimed
at increasing their awareness of the needs of minority ethnic
children and how they can teach about race in the classroom,
accessing interpreters for parents to liaise with schools
and the fact that many refugees and asylum seekers are poorly
educated in their first language.
In its concluding observations the UNCRC Committee recommended
that Member State’s must,
“Take all necessary measures to eliminate the inequalities
in educational achievement and in exclusion rates between
children from different groups and to guarantee all children
an appropriate quality education.” (Para 48c) and,
“Ensure that refugee and asylum-seeking children have
access to basic services such as education.” (Para 50b)
The Department clearly has a responsibility to ensure that
it provides a consistently excellent quality, regional English
as an Additional Language service to ensure that the children
in need of this service do not experience inequality or any
impairment of their education. What is worrying however is
the fact that a number of boards have acknowledged that English
as an Additional Language may be one of the services which
will be affected by the proposed funding cuts in education.
This will clearly have implications under section 75, as well
as in compliance with the international standards outlined
above. This is even more worrying when one considers that
the Department has stated that the numbers of children requiring
this service is likely to markedly increase with the expansion
of the EU. We wish to see this policy included in the revised
timetable for EQIA in order to ensure that no adverse impact
is experienced by children from all of the section 75 categories
who wish to access this vital service as a result of the education
funding cuts or a failure to provide for the expansion in
demand for this service.
Open Enrolment
The Open-Enrolment policy as detailed on page 23 is split
into two policies; Primary and Post-Primary. These policies
are clearly interlinked but the Department has concluded that
only the post-primary policy need be included in the timetable
for EQIA. While we recognise that there is very little oversubscription
for admission at primary level, we feel that there is a possibility,
with the introduction of the new admission arrangements for
post-primary schools, that primary schools may become oversubscribed,
particularly if post-primary schools decide to use feeder
schools in admitting pupils. This is likely to give rise to
oversubscribed primary schools which are the feeder schools
for those post-primary schools which are perceived as the
most prestigious or high achieving. There are obvious section
75 implications with the use of any criteria to determine
admission to schools and the Department should be preparing
for the introduction of the new admission arrangements for
post-primary schools and examining any corresponding affect
that this may have in the context of primary school admissions.
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 Departments initial
conclusion that the primary school policy should be screened
out for the purposes of an EQIA and the post-primary school
policy should be included in the timetable for EQIA after
consultation on the policy. Again we wish to highlight The
Equality Commission’s Guidance for Implementing Section
75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which very clearly states
that in order to fulfil its statutory duty the Department
needs to ensure that an equality perspective is central to
policy making and must be incorporated in all policies at
all levels and stages. This involves 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. 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. We strongly recommend that an
EQIA be carried out as a matter of urgency on both the primary
and post-primary school policies in order to comply with both
the Equality Commission’s Guidance and the Department’s
own Equality Scheme.
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. Article 28 paragraph 1 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 equal 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 educational
policies in Northern Ireland.
Research by Professor Lundy has found that the admissions
criteria employed by some schools may discriminate on the
basis of race and disability and may disadvantage children
from lower socio-economic groups (2001). There is also the
possibility for discrimination on the basis of religion if
the criteria of parish catchment areas is used by schools
to determine admissions. Because of the possibility of the
future application of admissions criteria for oversubscribed
primary schools, we feel that the Department should screen
in the Primary enrolment policy and timetable it for EQIA
after the introduction of the new admission arrangements for
post-primary schools.
In terms of the Post-Primary enrolment policy, given its pre-consultation
nature, an EQIA should have been carried out as part of the
ongoing consultation. It is essential that the Department
determine the possible adverse impact on equality of opportunity
prior to the introduction of a policy. The Department should
carry out a thorough EQIA on this policy as a matter of urgency.
There is also a need to child rights proof this policy which
we will deal with in greater detail in our response to the
consultation on the new admissions arrangements.
Conclusion
The Children’s Law Centre is grateful to have the opportunity
to comment on the Department of Education’s Equality
Scheme – Revised Policy Screening and Timetable. 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 Revised
Policy Screening and Timetable and look forward to the issues
raised in this response being addressed, taken forward by
the Department and hearing from the Department in the near
future.
|
