Education Update: Important High Court Development For Enrolment
|Author:||Mr Ian O'Herlihy, Liam Riordan and Edel Kennedy|
|Profession:||Mason Hayes & Curran|
What is Section 29?
Section 29 of the Education Act 1998 gives parents and students who have reached the age of 18 the right to appeal certain decisions made by a school's board of management to the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Skills. This includes decisions to exclude, suspend and refuse enrolment.
In a recent High Court case, Board of Management of Presentation College Athenry v Secretary General of the Department of Education and Skills and Others, the school challenged the decision of a section 29 appeals committee to uphold an appeal by parents on behalf of their son against a decision to refuse his enrolment in the school.
The school's enrolment policy set a limit of 180 places. It provided that if the number of applications to enrol exceeded this stated limit, places would be offered in descending order of priority in accordance with six categories. The applicant, in this case, came within the sixth category: pupils of a number of specified feeder schools. The policy provided that random selection would be applied if there were more applicants than places available in a particular category.
After allocating places to students who were in the first five categories, seven places remained to be filled from the sixth category. A lottery was carried out, but the applicant was unsuccessful.
Appeals Committee Decision
The parents appealed against the decision to refuse enrolment. Their appeal was based on the fact that they had moved their son to one of the listed feeder schools in order to ensure that he would obtain a place in the school. The parents claimed that the former principal had given them assurances that their son would be guaranteed a place in the school if they moved him to a particular feeder school. They did so, but as there was no place available in sixth class, their son was forced to repeat fifth class.
The appeals committee found that the boy had been placed correctly in category six and that he had not been successful in the lottery. The appeals committee found that the parents had demonstrated a reasonable expectation that their son would be offered a place following conversation with the previous principal. It further found that the parents had relied on this and had made significant changes in their child's education, moving him and his sister to another school.
The key issue to be determined in this case was whether:
the appeals committee was entitled to take into account the...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL