Enrolment ruling may affect school admissions rules

THE quashing of a Department of Education order compelling a community college to enrol a pupil allegedly effectively expelled by another local secondary school is expected to have significant implications for schools’ admissions policies.

Co Westmeath Vocational Educational Committee had claimed the appeal system allows some schools to “cherry pick” and offload difficult pupils in the local vocational college.

At the High Court yesterday, Mr Justice Daniel O’Keeffe quashed the department’s appeals committee decision that required the college to enrol the pupil after finding the committee exceeded its jurisdiction in two of the four reasons it gave for its decision.

The boy, who cannot be identified, was doing his Junior Certificate in a school run by a religious order when problems arose in May 2007. He was asked to stay at home and his parents were given the impression he would be better off leaving the school.

The parents applied to enrol him in the community college. Its board of management refused in August 2007 to admit him as its enrolment policy stated it should not accept transfers for pupils enrolled in another local school, except in exceptional circumstances.

The board was aware of “conflicting signals” about the boy’s behaviour but had not taken these into account, the VEC said. It considered there were no exceptional circumstances because the boy was not subject to disciplinary proceedings in his school.

The parents appealed the community college’s refusal and, in October 2007, the appeals committee granted the appeal. The VEC then brought its court challenge.

Yesterday, Mr Justice O’Keeffe noted the appeals committee upheld the parents’ appeal on four grounds. These were, firstly, the enrolment policy of the college might conflict with the right of parents to enrol their child in the school of their choice. Also, the boy had no school placement following his withdrawal from his school. Thirdly, the college had capacity to take the boy and finally, his level of misbehaviour did not warrant a refusal to enrol.

The committee also said it wanted to draw the attention of the National Welfare Board to “the irregular open-ended suspension and refusal” to take the boy back to his previous school.

The judge ruled Section 29 of the Education Act restricts the scope of an appeal to the actual decision being challenged. In this case, the appeal was against the board of management decision of August 2007 refusing to enrol the boy and the committee’s remit was to consider the facts and circumstances obtaining on that date.

Section 15.2 of the act gives no absolute right to a parent to enrol a child in a school of their choice and he ruled the committee was not entitled to allow the appeal on grounds the college’s enrolment policy might conflict with the parents’ right to enrol their child in their school of choice.

He also found it erred in allowing the appeal on the second ground, that the boy had no school placement.

The judge said the boy in August 2007 continued to be enrolled in his other school and his withdrawal from that school did not occur until September 2007.

However, the appeals committee’s findings on the other two grounds were neither irrational nor unreasonable, he found.