REPORT OF THE PARENTS’ ADMISSION    POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

(The text set out below is taken from the report recently compiled by a group of dedicated parents who formed a committee to assist with a local crisis concerning school admissions.  The concerns and recommendations offered in this report represent a common sense start to addressing what is certain to be an ongoing problem.  Copies of the report are available on request from the group's Facebook site at  https://www.facebook.com/apacdublin15 ).



February 2015


TABLE OF CONTENTS


Slide 1 – Title Page
Slide 2 - Contents
Slide 3 - History of the Committee
Slide 4 – What is the “Admissions Process”
Slide 5 – The Schools and Their Roles
Slide 6 – The Primary School
Slide 7 – The Secondary School
Slide 8 – The Role of the School and Its Management
Slide 9– The Board of Management
Slide 10 – The Role of the Chair
Slide 11 – Governance Suggestions: The Chair
Slide 12 – Governance General Board Practice
Slide 13 – Admissions Policies: Setting a Standard
Slide 14 – Specific Examples Regarding Policy Standards
Slide 15 – Specific Examples Regarding Policy Standards
Slide 16 – Specific Examples Regarding Policy Standards
Slide 17 – Oversubscription – A New Approach
Slide 18– Planning and Infrastructure
Slide 19 – “Fit for Need” Planning
Slide 20 - Immediate Planning Needs For the Setanta “Catchment Area”
Slide 21– Sponsorship, “Ethos” and Location
Slide 22 – The Role and Responsibilities of Parents
Slide 23– Feeder Schools/Siblings
Slide 24 – The Dispute Resolution Process
Slide 25 - Next Steps
Slide 26 – Notes and Appendices


HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE
The Parents’ Admission Policy Advisory Committee (“APAC”) was formed in October of 2014 in response to a crisis brought on by actions taken by the Board of Management of Colaiste Pobail Setanta (“Setanta”), chaired by Cllr. David McGuinness. The Board, without consulting or informing parents, had instituted a lottery for places in the 2015 incoming class. This action lead to enormous confusion amongst parents who had been lead to believe that, at least insofar as students applying from “feeder schools” were concerned, Setanta would be able to accommodate all applicants. The news that this was not to be the case caused enormous disruption within the impacted community. Mass meetings were held and, acting upon advice received from local representatives, the APAC was duly elected by the parents and local community and commenced operations. While the parents dispute with the Board of Management continued the APAC met regularly, formulated preliminary reports, presented in front of the Setanta Board of Management and the Dublin Dun Laoghaire Education and Training Board (“DDLETB”), met with and briefed local council members and TD’s and formulated template materials for use by concerned parents. As part of this ongoing exercise the APAC compiled a vast amount of material and experience in connection with the admissions practices of Dublin schools generally and specific familiarity with the issues and challenges facing the Dublin 15 area. In order that these experiences are fully chronicled and presented to the community the APAC has formulated this report which has been reviewed and passed by its members. The Committee hopes that the findings contained herein are of some use to the community during what will undoubtedly be challenging times in the near future.


WHAT IS THE ADMISSIONS PROCESS?
It is much more difficult to find an answer to this question than one might expect. In working through the problems encountered by parents within the Dublin 15 region the APAC found that it was nearly impossible to find any one person or group who could see the admissions process as anything more than the immediate task placed in front of their respective bodies. Feeder schools did not effectively communicate with parents. Secondary schools would name a primary school as a feeder school and then never communicate with the parents or management of that school. Boards of management would set policy and then not properly record, document or communicate that policy. The schools’ sponsors were completely unaware of the actions of the board while the members of the board were not apprised of actions being taken in their name. School principals were treating all applicants as if they had been accepted into a school while at the same time being fully aware that actions taken at the board level could lead to certain applicants being excluded. Something so disjointed can scarcely be called a “process”. While a lack of communication explains some of this confusion another, more prominent, cause actually lies behind the failure. There is, inherent in the current system, a complete lack of integration between the component parts. The APAC calls on the parties involved to move decisively to define the admissions system as a true “process” involving interaction between the various component parts and hopes that the analysis and recommendations contained in the following pages is of some assistance in that effort.


THE SCHOOLS AND THEIR ROLES
As previously detailed, one of the primary findings of the APAC during the course of its operations has been that there appears to be little or no coordination between the various parties involved in the admissions process. Indeed, there appears to be little understanding of what the “admissions process” is or what it entails. As a result every individual cog in a machine that has clearly gone off the rails can seemingly stand back and claim “I did nothing wrong”. Until there is a clearer understanding of who has responsibility for what duties, and how that activity ties in with the other parts of the process, there is an increased likelihood of the difficulties of the past few months being revisited again and again and again. In this section the APAC will try to outline what we see as the true scope of the “admissions process” and will try to define roles for the various parties to and components of that process.


THE PRIMARY SCHOOL
One of the more frustrating obstacles that faced parents in the Setanta catchment was the infuriating manner in which primary schools disengaged from the process by which their students moved on to the next level of education. The management of schools seemed to treat any efforts in respect of assisting parents or students in this regard as voluntary tasks that they might or might not carry out, as the mood may strike them, rather than as responsibilities intrinsic to the job of fostering students through their school. Moreover, when the schools did communicate with parents it was in a wholly reactive, rather than proactive, manner. For example, one primary school principal rushed a text out to parents days before the closing date for applications to Setanta, expressing panic at the low number of applications received to that point.1 This response only served to indicate that not enough had been done to educate parents about the application process and what it requires. The APAC recommends that all primary schools take the following actions:


Any primary school that is named as a “feeder school” must, at board level, affirmatively accept and acknowledge such designation.2


All primary schools must appoint a member of management or staff as its named “admissions coordinator”. It shall be the job of this designee to act as liaison between parents, the primary school and local area secondary schools in matters relating to admission to secondary schools.


The coordinator of any school which accepts designation as a “feeder school” shall be tasked with informing themselves and impacted parents of the expected intake levels for those schools into which the primary school will feed, the closing dates for feeder school applications and the priority that the admissions policy of said school shall afford applicants from the primary school.


The school should publish, at least annually, on the school website and via post to sixth (and for information purposes, fifth) year students, a communication to parents outlining the admissions requirements for any secondary schools for which the primary school has accepted designation as a feeder school, inclusive of dates for application, estimated intake levels and the names and contact details for alternative schools in the area. The communication must include a warning prominently displayed that informs parents that designation as a feeder school does not guarantee admission to any given secondary school.


In the event that a school loses its status as a feeder school to a given primary school this fact must be communicated to the school population immediately upon receipt of such notice.


All primary schools must accept and acknowledge that engagement with parents and local area secondary schools is an intrinsic and necessary part of their responsibilities to the students and parents within their school.


THE SECONDARY SCHOOL AND THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT
The experiences of the APAC with the board of management and staff of Setanta has not been, to say the least, productive. However the Committee has had the privilege of working with and observing a number of other schools and their boards during the course of its work and is happy to report that the concept of board management of local schools can be an effective model if run well and taken seriously. The responsibilities of the board, its chair and school management are outlined in some detail in the following pages.


ROLE OF THE SCHOOL AND ITS MANAGEMENT
The publications and structure of the school system makes it clear that the responsibility for setting admissions policy is primarily that of a school’s board. However, effectively implementing the policy set by the board will, by necessity, largely fall on the shoulders of school management. The difficulties most prominently brought up during the course of the APAC’s investigation revolved around three aspects of the intake process. These would be:


Clarity: All the parents that went to the initial meeting held with the Setanta management and staff in January of 2014 were left with the very clear (and incorrect) impression that there were going to be sufficient spaces available to accommodate all feeder school applicants. Indeed, affidavits were issued by several parents indicating that they were specifically told that this would be the case. When orientation or informational meetings are held with potential applicants it is crucial that management acquaint themselves with the demographic picture of their applicant pool and, if they are uncertain that there will be assured entry for applicants within a given category that possibility should be stated clearly at the outset, and indeed throughout, the meeting. What was often misunderstood during the course of the Setanta dispute was that parents who complained were not saying they should be given an admission slot “by right”. They were saying that because there had not been proper communication they were deprived of the ability to exercise the level of choice they should have had. This problem can be eliminated simply by making it clear at the outset what the numbers are and what they mean.


Duration: The admissions process, as scheduled by Setanta, was deemed by most parents to be far too long (and thus far too confusing). From the time of the initial meeting, through to the enrolment meetings for accepted applicants, more than a year passed. By contrast the process used by other schools (for example, St. Peter’s of Dunboyne) seemed far more concise and efficient. The recommendation of the APAC would be to shorten the periods associated with enrolment while continually providing website updates concerning expected intake numbers and similar information. This could also be communicated to primary schools by liaising with their admissions officers.


Inclusion: The APAC found that the experience of parents was often coloured by the feeling that they, and even more distressingly, their child, were being left out of the process merely because they hadn’t yet achieved “accepted” status. At some point in time this sort of “split” is inevitable, but for much of the time it seemed entirely avoidable. There was no need to keep students who were languishing on a waiting list (with a good chance of being admitted) sitting alone in a classroom while their friends and fellow students went through the happy exercise of having a school tour or attending a meeting. There should be some way of accommodating these students so that they at least can partake in some degree of inclusive activity, even if it is only an introductory tour. The ill will that was generated by grouping students into groups of “haves” and “have-nots” cannot be overstated. The possibility of this taking place should be acknowledged and a plan instituted to eliminate any re-occurrence in the future.

THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT
Core Statement: A secondary school’s board of management is tasked, under applicable statutes, with primary responsibilities for setting, communicating and insuring proper implementation of a school’s admissions policy. It needs to review a policy for clarity on a regular basis, should not make decisions that modify or reinterpret policy without communicating the same to all impacted parties, must properly document and record its decisions, should remain accessible to the public at all times in order to maintain the integrity and transparency of the admissions process, should implement and adhere to a governance code, should avoid conflicts of interest when appointing its members, should delegate authority to speak for the board in a clear manner, should be sensitive to the needs of all parties when assessing the timing of its decisions and actions and should draw its membership from a pool of people who are capable of showing a degree of fitness for the role. In choosing its officers, including the crucial roles of chair and secretary, the board should conduct a secret ballot designed to avoid the appearance of being “steamrolled” into a decision. The board should also be deemed capable of taking certain actions (for example, publishing and distributing copies of its minutes) without first conferring with any higher authority. To fail to give boards such a basic degree of authority undermines their very reason for existing.3 Finally, dissenting members of a board should be allowed (and, indeed, encouraged) to make and record a “minority report” when disagreeing with a board’s actions.

THE ROLE OF THE CHAIR
Throughout the Setanta crisis the direct experience of the APAC, together with many of the impacted parents, has been to regard the actions of Cllr. David McGuinness, Chair of the Setanta Board of Management, as a text book example of how not to chair a board. While the APAC will attempt, whenever possible, not to personalise the findings contained herein, when an individual takes on a chairman’s role it is not fair to the institution he purports to represent to allow them to avoid the responsibilities associated with the job. Otherwise the role becomes little more than a means to glorify one’s own C.V. without accepting any actual responsibility. Setanta’s board was involved in a community wide dispute and faced direct appeals from numerous parents. The chair was approached by APAC members and others for some level of involvement or clarification and there was a continual failure to provide useful input to this process. A review of his current list of “roles” indicates that Setanta’s chair claims board membership for each of the following schools: Coolmine Community College, Luttrellstown Community College, Castleknock Community College, Pobail Scoil Setanta, Blakestown Community College. He also, according to his website, is a member of the VEC board and teaches at a local school.4 Putting aside the inherent conflicts that may arise from such memberships one must simply wonder how anyone could possibly provide any degree of meaningful engagement if they are taking on this many roles? In the near past this issue was examined in a similar context and it was clearly determined that this cannot be done. Following the recent financial crisis the Central Bank adopted stringent restrictions on the ability of individuals to hold multiple directorships or chair multiple boards. Given the experience of the APAC and the worry that appointees might regard these positions as means to claim a “role” without actually treating it as a “job” the APAC would encourage the adoption of similar standards, as outlined in the next slide:


GOVERNANCE SUGGESTIONS - THE CHAIR
A Chair should not be allowed to sit on other school boards: Similar to the requirements for credit institutions a chair should be limited in the number of positions they hold. The idea that someone can effectively run a board that is tasked with setting policy and overseeing management of something as complex as a modern secondary school while serving on a half dozen similar bodies is absurd.
The Chair must sign correspondence purporting to communicate a board policy, action or position: During the course of the dispute with the Board of Management there were numerous communications sent to various parties which purported to express the “findings” of the board, the “decision” of the board, the “requests” of the board or the concerns of the board. In not a single instance were these communications signed by the Chairman of the Board. Not even the minutes appear to have been signed by the presiding officer.5 In all instances this task was delegated to the Secretary. In reality the Secretary of the board will be the Principal of the school. The APAC sees this as both grossly unfair to the Principal (who now is asked to become the “face” of the Board) but also reinforces the previously noted tendency for Chairs to treat their position as essentially cosmetic. The APAC welcomes the involvement of elected officials on Boards, but strongly suggests that if you are going to take on such a role you must be willing to put your name to actions that take place in the name of the body you Chair. Under the current system the following two types of results are facilitated (i) the Chair remains stoically passive and does not provide an effective challenge to school management; or, (ii) the Chair becomes recklessly active knowing that they stand little risk of being held accountable for their actions. Neither result is acceptable – the admissions process will only be enhanced if Chairs are required to conduct business in the light of day.

GOVERNANCE - GENERAL BOARD PRACTICE
Board members should be free of conflicts: This should preclude any principal or staff member of a feeder school from acting as a member of the board. The APAC dealt with a situation where a board member also served as a principal of a feeder school. The actions purportedly taken by the Board were all of a type that directly benefited his school and were to the detriment of the other feeder schools and applicants. Whether this was coincidental or not is immaterial – the appearance of conflict taints the actions of the board in a circumstance of this type. No valid reason exists which can justify allowing such a blatant conflict to take place.
Board members should be vetted for fitness and probity: Following the financial crisis the Central Bank instituted a fitness and probity regime for parties who were seeking to serve on boards of regulated entities. It is unacceptable that we would recognise the importance of checking the credentials of those running our banks but impose no such checks on those who run the institutions responsible for educating our children. The APAC doesn’t feel there is a need to make the standard for service on a board oppressively high, but certainly such basic requirements as sufficient time to dedicate to board service, proper residency within the catchment area, basic understanding of the role of the board and a Garda child protection certification should be required.
Boards should adopt and adhere to a Governance Code: Boards currently operate under the terms contained in the VEC “Handbook for Boards of Management of Schools and Community Colleges” but these provisions are not formally adopted by the board and are buried in a 130 page publication. All boards should be required to adopt and live by a governance code that includes such basic information as what constitutes a quorum, how to properly document a board action 6, what rights a minority of the board has to issue contradictory reports, what degree of transparency must be maintained, how to remove or replace a board member or officer and what actions the board may take without seeking approval from the sponsor. Primary among the latter should be the ability (and duty) to disclose minutes upon request by a parent or member of the public. While non-relevant material may be redacted the APAC faced a three month struggle to receive even one set of minutes which partially addressed the issues raised. This is ludicrous and should not be allowed.
Board members should be accurately listed on the school’s website: The APAC was amazed to find that Setanta did not update its list of Board members on a timely basis. It was months into the dispute before it was possible to discover who sat on the Board. It was even more surprising when, during the course of its investigation, the APAC discovered that many schools do not even disclose their board members names. Any typical corporate entity in Ireland is required by statute to list board members on their stationary. Schools evidently don’t even have to list them on their website. This is unacceptable, undemocratic and ultimately self-defeating.
Boards should appoint an admissions sub-committee The experience of the APAC indicates to us that the admissions process is not something to be treated as “business as usual”. Having board members that can call on knowledge and experience in this area serving on a sub committee will insure a smoother better regulated process.

ADMISSIONS POLICIES – SETTING A STANDARD
The APAC has conducted a thorough study of a number of local school admissions policies.7 The Setanta policy was the cause of much confusion amongst parents. In order to determine how it could be improved other policies were reviewed and studied to see if there was a more effective approach. From this analysis the APAC would make the following high level suggestions concerning admissions policies generally:
They should be short and to the point;
Words and phrases used in a policy should be clearly defined;
The policy should be reviewed by the Board of Management, who should insure that they are familiar with all of its relevant aspects, after which it should be approved and republished annually, in advance of the date for applications;
All information critical to understanding a policy should either be included in the policy or prominently displayed and communicated to impacted parties when it becomes known;
To the greatest extent possible admissions policies should be written using the same template in order to provide consistency of approach and ease of interpretation.

SPECIFIC EXAMPLES REGARDING POLICY STANDARDS
Short and to the Point – The APAC feels that there were too many examples of where policies became wordy and confusing. The Setanta policy, as one example, contained two sections purporting to establish “priority”, each of which contradicted the other. It equated the school’s “criteria” for enrolment with the “priority” of enrolment and contains lengthy sections on interviews and assessments which have minimal application to the actual admissions process. This is not to say that these matters aren’t important – they are. It’s just that they aren’t particularly related to admissions. Remember – parents are reading these policies in order to ascertain what they need to do to apply and what their chances are for securing admission for their child. The things they need to do after their child secures that spot are certainly important but the key word here is “after”. These should be treated as a separate process and dealt with via a separate policy.
Clear Definitions – Among the first statements appearing in the Setanta Enrolment Policy is the following “As Colaiste Pobail Setanta will be catering, in the foreseeable future, to an ever increasing population growth within its catchment area…” (emphasis added). Nowhere in the policy is it possible to find out exactly what Setanta sees as its ”catchment area”. In fact – it is not possible to find a definition of catchment area anywhere at all. It is a term of immense importance to a number of schools – except no one knows what means. Is it a postal code reference? A geographic footprint such as “within a three square kilometre radius”? A specific group of housing estates? It is vitally important to have such terms defined.8 Similarly the status of “siblings” is of great importance to many policies – Setanta has stated that it gave preference to applicants who are “siblings of existing students”. Does this mean students that are enrolled now or that will be enrolled at the same time as the applicant? Does it mean that if one sibling is accepted older siblings gain preferential rights to transfer? How does the concept of “catchment area” factor into this equation? All this ambiguity and we haven’t even brought up how this conflicts with the concept of “feeder schools”. It is the recommendation of the APAC that all policies include a “Definitions” section that clearly sets out the meaning and impact of a given term. The “guessing” needs to be removed from reading a policy. Some of the terms that the APAC would see as requiring clearer definition (in addition to those already listed) would be: “Feeder School”, “district”, “sponsor”, “ethos”, “mission statement”, “criteria” and “priority”.


SPECIFIC EXAMPLES REGARDING POLICY STANDARDS
Review and Republish Annually: The fact of the matter is that due to a dynamic rate of change most areas in Dublin require boards to maintain eternal vigilance in order to insure that their admissions policies remain useful and relevant. That means that reviews should take place annually in a manner that allows for parents to have sufficient time to understand the implications of any change and the boards to have the benefit of the latest and most up to date demographic information when setting policy.
Include all Relevant Information: Among the most frustrating elements in the experience of the parents/principals interviewed by the APAC is the failure of the Board to communicate important changes to policy and process. This included the crucial change that was made to the number of students being enrolled for September 2015. The argument was put forward that “technically” this number didn’t have to be published. The problem with relying on “technical” arguments is that in the real world people expect a certain level of consistency and if you are forced to excuse your poor performance on the basis of it being “technically” allowable you will quickly lose all credibility. Boards need to assess what should be communicated and then get that information into the proper hands rather than look back after the fact and try and find an excuse based on a questionable interpretation of what must be communicated.9


SPECIFIC EXAMPLES REGARDING POLICY STANDARDS
Use of a Standard Template: One of the things that stood out for the APAC during the course of its review was the wide disparity in form and substance between the various admissions policies used by schools in the Dublin area. While there may be a few unique elements that will need to be addressed for certain schools there is no valid reason for such variety. Even if one school chooses to use a feeder school model while another does not the section of a policy that discloses that choice should be located in the same place for all schools. Using a standard form and standardised language will make it easier to review a policy annually, assess it for compliance and amend it when changes are required. The VEC should, for its schools, require conformity to this standard and other sponsors should be strongly encouraged to adopt this approach.

OVERSUBSCRIPTION - A NEW APPROACH
Regardless of what standards are used and how carefully admissions levels and policy may be communicated there are always going to be instances where oversubscription results. Openness and impartiality are critical to retaining parental confidence when such a situation arises. In the recent Setanta situation the manner in which the oversubscription problem was handled led to a bitter dispute that was entirely avoidable had the following basic recommendations been followed: Boards should include the expected intake amounts on the school website in advance of applications being accepted and should communicate those amounts to all feeder schools, parents of existing students and the VEC in advance of soliciting or receiving applications. This communication should be accompanied by a listing of the allocation priorities that will be used by the school for the incoming class. Prior to the receipt of applications the Board should set a date for any lottery that is to be held in respect of oversubscribed slots. This notice should include a time and place for such lottery. Any lottery should be held in the presence of a truly impartial observer (not a board member or interested parent) and should be open to the public.10 The VEC should develop a standard protocol for drawing numbers in a lottery. Stuffing hastily drafted numbers in a bucket is not sufficient. All such procedures should be recorded on video. Technology is far too advanced to not record such an important event. Following the draw letters to parents should be posted within 24 hours and a recording showing the lottery process should be posted to the school website.

PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Another area that the APAC has found to be of critical concern for the admissions process has been the coordination between the need for and the availability of secondary school places in the district. The Dublin 15/Dublin Northwest region was the location of this particular committee’s efforts but it would presumably be similar in its experiences to those of other urban areas. Dublin 15 does have some unique features in that the growth levels here are historic in terms of Irish experience but that only serves to clarify the issues presented rather than allowing the area to be treated as an outlier. The APAC would note the following major issues with regard to planning: The schools in a growing area should be constructed to be “fit for need” rather than being satisfied that they are “fit for purpose”. The sponsorship of a school should be carefully considered when deciding upon its location. A plan should be developed for a community to accommodate situations where a school’s ethos conflicts with the expectations of the community in which it is resident.

"FIT FOR NEED" PLANNING
In its many discussions with various authorities the APAC and impacted parents continually heard how “we knew this day was coming even before this school was finished”. This begged the question “If everyone knew this day was coming why wasn’t anything done about it”? The answer seems to be that once the plans for Setanta were submitted as a 1000 student facility they were reviewed on the basis of whether it was a building that was adequately outfitted for such a purpose – and it was. It is an adequate (if somewhat crowded) 1000 student facility. It is fit for that purpose. The problem is that the area really needs a 1200 student facility. Once “everyone knew” that the plans for the school were inadequate for need there should have been a halt called to revise the blueprints for that need. Instead, the momentum that had built for the original plans was allowed to overcome common sense. In the future, at given milestones in the planning process, there should be a “needs assessment” so that this sort of error is not repeated.

IMMEDIATE PLANNING NEEDS FOR THE SETANTA "CATCHMENT" AREA
All parties to the Setanta dispute, indeed anyone looking rationally at the current state of the Dublin 15 area, will have to agree that currently we are faced with a situation where the schools in the area are not “fit for need”. The combined array of schools, led by Setanta, cannot accommodate the school capacity requirements or the school choice desires of the area’s growing population. What this will mean, if action is not taken immediately, is that the problems encountered by this year’s class of applicants will be replicated next year (and for the foreseeable future) – replicated, that is, in all aspects except for scope. The impact in future years will likely be much greater than what happened this year unless something is done now. Amongst the suggestions that the APAC would make to address this concern are the following:
Setanta should make an immediate resource assessment in order to determine how to accommodate, at a minimum, a seven stream intake for each of the next five incoming classes.
Following this assessment local officials, working with Setanta’s management, should implement a re-allocation of resources, including increased budget for staff.
As part of this re-allocation effort officials should convert space currently shared with the community centre to classroom space. This would mean changing the space currently allocated for a gym, music rehearsal rooms, dance studios and certain office space from their current designation to classroom designation. The need to accommodate the educational needs of area students must take precedence over the current allocation of these spaces. In the opinion of the APAC much of this space is currently underutilised and can be relocated if necessary.
The re-location and use of certain pre-fab classrooms currently sitting vacant in the Mary Mother of Hope school yard should be actively encouraged.
An addition or annex to the current Setanta building should be developed. This should be sited in the current wasteland found adjacent to the all-weather pitch at the back of the school.
The use of off campus space for special project or TY students should be encouraged to ease any over crowding concerns at the school.
If these actions are not taken immediately it is the APAC’s fear that the district will end up right back in the dilemma faced this year when students were left without a viable choice for admission to any area school.

SPONSORSHIP, "ETHOS" AND LOCATION
The difficulty of dealing with the sticky question of sponsorship arose in the dispute between the parents in the Dublin 15 area and Setanta in a number of ways. The most obvious way involved the presence of an “Educate Together” school near the Setanta campus. This would have been a natural fit to take on the overflow from Setanta but it quickly became apparent that the philosophy associated with the Educate Together model was not accepted by parents in the region. The Educate Together model was quite bespoke, geared to those who rejected such things as school uniforms, felt having student representatives on school boards was worthwhile and felt grading systems counterproductive. Make no mistake – the APAC recognises that there is merit in all those positions and is making no value judgements other than the very reasonable observation that this simply doesn’t sell very well in the Ongar/Littlepace area. At the same time the Educate Together school was being constructed a similar sized school was located in Tyrellstown and was designated a Catholic sponsored school. Local representatives and area parents seem to indicate that this was exactly the opposite of the siting decision that should have been made. The APAC would recognise that there is always great value in hindsight but would point out that the current sponsorship model, which has been roundly criticised, makes these sort of conflicts inevitable. We would urge authorities to limit the concept of “sponsorship” (other than VEC “sponsorship”) to programmes or curricula that can be chosen by a given student rather than ceding entire buildings to a “sponsor” group that cannot fill a school from the area it is deemed to serve. If this approach were to be taken there is a much greater chance that “catchment areas” will be able to address not only the physical demands for schools but the philosophical desires of the populace as well. This model is not that different from having students who elect an honours curriculum and those pursuing an ordinary programme in the same building. Given the fact that school buildings are a scarce resource (in the Dublin 15 area certainly but elsewhere as well) this option allows the most efficient use of that resource.

THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PARENTS
The APAC noted with admiration the high level of concern parents had for their children throughout its operations. However – we continually heard of anecdotal stories where parents that had secured multiple admissions for their students failed to notify the schools when they decided they were not going to send their children there. This meant that schools that had reported full enrolment did not know otherwise until the first day of school when an empty desk indicated there was an open space. There should be some way of enforcing a requirement on parents to notify schools of whether their child will attend a school in which they have enrolled. The easiest way to do this would be to assess a “no-show” fine that could be enforced after the fact. This should be heavily publicised and, given that this recommendation is coming from a parent’s organisation, the authorities should take great comfort that there will be strong support for this approach.

FEEDER SCHOOLS/SIBLINGS
The APAC, having considered all alternatives, strongly supports the concept of feeder schools being given the first priority when filling out the enrolment for secondary schools. The benefits of this approach are self-evident. If there are sufficient places available this gives parents a great feeling of security. The feeder school process encourages a stronger sense of community. The ties that create a consistent relationship between schools allows principals on both the primary and secondary level to effectively set expectations for students. With proper management the worst case scenario (where there are not sufficient places even for feeder schools) can be dealt with in a considered, structured and compassionate manner because the various parties will know each other. Finally, feeder school systems facilitate proper planning because the enrolment of feeder schools can be matched most effectively to the capacities of secondary schools. The practice of granting priority to siblings (other than feeder school based siblings or twins) is counterproductive in that it creates increased reliance on “guesswork” when approaching each year’s admissions process. It was this uncertainty that created the greatest difficulty in the Setanta situation and it is that same type of uncertainty that should be avoided at all costs when establishing a protocol for school admissions. A strong adherence to the feeder school priority principle gives the best chance to avoid that crippling uncertainty.

THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS
The APAC recognises that disputes will happen. The nature of the admissions process is such that this is inevitable. The key to allowing this to not become a destructive experience is to give the parties to the dispute the security of having been given a fair hearing. Current practice is not ideal for creating this impression and current proposals for change (as outlined in the Education Bill) are even worse when it comes to giving aggrieved parents the feeling that they have access to a valid forum. The APAC would recommend the following changes to the Section 29 Appeals process. There should be a mandatory mediation process required of all parties to a dispute prior to proceeding to a formal hearing. This would give the opportunity to air issues and set expectations. There should be 14 days set to apply for mediation. The timeline for appeal should only begin after the mediation process has finished. There should be a recognised right to discovery that applies to an appellant. Access to minutes of board meetings, relevant correspondence, documentation and, when deemed appropriate, the ability to question witnesses should be inherent to any process. Discovery materials should be forwarded to the appellant in a timely fashion giving them at least one week prior to the hearing for review. Conflicts should be avoided when appointing appeals panellists. In the Setanta situation one of the panelists not only had a prior professional relationship with the Setanta principal but was himself the principal of a school where David McGuinness was a board member. How this person could ever have been deemed a valid member of a supposedly impartial panel boggles the mind.11 The current proposal to have principals make enrolment decisions and only the boards of management handle the appeals is strongly opposed by the APAC. Boards are traditionally dominated by principals – the idea that a board would constitute an impartial panel when reviewing the actions of their own principal is laughable and would only lead to more, not less, litigation. This proposal should be abandoned and the use of a standing impartial tribunal should be strongly considered.

NEXT STEPS
When the APAC first formed it was decided to try to do more than just work on the immediate problem facing Setanta parents. The hope of all concerned was to make some kind of an effort to prevent the same sort of painful incident from occurring again. This report, based on the experiences of the group and our follow up investigations, is the result of that commitment. It is offered in good faith and in the hope that it will be used in that spirit to improve the admissions process for all concerned. While it is understood that not all recommendations contained herein will be implemented and that change takes time the APAC feels it is important to monitor the efforts taken to improve the admissions process. We would ask recipients to take the time to review the report and respond with their observations, questions or suggestions. The distress caused by the recent ordeal, for parents but particularly for children, demand that the process is improved. The members of the APAC remain available to assist in that effort and thank all for their efforts to bring about constructive change.

NOTES AND APPENDICES
(All material relating to notes and appendices are available upon request)


1. See communication received from Mary Mother of Hope National School.


2. The only evidence we are able to see that there is any record of feeder school appointment is to be found in the documents issued by the secondary school.


3. Please see the minutes of Setanta and the Setanta Admissions Policy referenced at Note 7.


4. See response of Setanta Principal Eileen O’Rourke indicating that the release of minutes must be approved by the VEC.


5. See website for D. McGuinness.


6. See purported minutes of Colaiste Pobail Setanta, December, 2013.


7. As an example of how slipshod some boards appear to be in documenting their decisions we would point out that throughout the course of their dispute with the Setanta Board parents were continually told that the Board had decided to reduce the intake amounts for 2015 from 240 to 210. At the same time parents were being told by board members and school principals that they were unaware that such action had been taken. When finally granted access to the minutes of the December meeting referenced in Note 6 above it turns out that while the possibility of such a reduction had been discussed it was never passed. Contrast the decision taken to remove Castaheany Educate Together from the feeder school list with the alleged “decision” to reduce intake. No recorded vote, no communicated decision. Boards must be educated on how to avoid this confusion.


8. We include the 134 page publication governing board procedures and would urge concerned parties to extract and publish a governance code based on the principles contained therein. We would also reference the ASTI materials concerning the roles of teachers on boards of management: http://www.asti.ie/operation-of-schools/management-of-schools/boards-of-management/ .


9. The APAC cites to four policies for reference – Setanta, St. Peter’s of Dunboyne, Coolmine Community School and Celbridge Educate Together. All are different, some (Setanta and Coolmine) appear to have used a similar template but, crucially for the dispute arising this past year, differ in some important details. There are many other types out there with wide variety. The question is – why?


10. Certain admissions policies did take a stab at defining the term and the Castleknock/Luttrellstown joint admissions approach seems to encompass the concept without necessarily making use of the term. However – this is the sort of thing that proves the point being made – this is an extremely critical term of art that can mean something entirely different depending upon which school’s policy you happen to be looking at. There should be a standardised approach.


11. See the supplemental response to the Setanta parents appeal documentation which addresses the question of “publication”. This gets to the heart of why partial disclosure may, in fact be worse than no disclosure at all and certainly falls behind the achievable standard of full disclosure of all known relevant facts.


12. This recommendation does not come out of the blue. The concept had been embraced in certain of the policies reviewed by the APAC (Note the St. Peter’s Admission Policy) and had been specifically called for by a parent’s group set up in the Dublin 15 area in the recent past (see attached report from the Riverwood Residents Association). It is interesting to note that the Riverwood report is aimed specifically at the board of both the Lutrellstown and Castleknock Community Schools. David McGuinness sits on both of those boards.


13. The guidance and procedures set out in the Association of Community and Comprehensive Schools (ACCS) report provides a useful basis for the construction of a rational set of rules of procedure for an appeal process. The report also contains much material that should be reviewed when drafting an effective school admissions policy. http://www.accs.ie/documents/Appendix%201.pdf