David QuinnIf there is no preference for children of past pupils, families with deep roots in the area lose out says David Quinn
Fine Gael TDs are fired up by a proposed piece of new legislation from Education Minister Jan O’Sullivan that alters laws regulating the admissions policy of schools.
What has them agitated in particular is the law that would limit to 10% the number of school places that can be set aside for the children of past pupils.
One Fine Gael TD who refused to be named was quoted as saying: “It’s a traditional Labour ideological thing because all they can see is a couple of rich-boy schools in Dublin that have this past-pupil network, when in fact the past-pupil thing is important throughout the country.
“People want to send their kids to the school they went to if they are still living in the area where they grew up. That’s what [Labour] don’t realise. It’s an ideological agenda,” the deputy is reported as saying.
Before looking at the merits of the arguments for and against this proposal, let’s first of all consider the fact that this TD is more upset by this than by Labour’s agenda on abortion and the radical redefinition of marriage and the family. Is that not ideological also?
Why would Fine Gael roll over on matters as fundamental as the right of life and the right to a mother and a father and then get worked up over the admissions policy for schools?
Why would they see Labour’s ideological agenda at work in its approach to education but not to the first two more important issues (as important as education is)?
I think part of the answer comes down to the power of lobby groups and what seems more immediate to people.
While there is a powerful pro-life lobby group, there is also a powerful pro-choice lobby group and the later has the all-important support of the media.
Powerful
There is an extremely powerful pro-same sex marriage lobby with the full and complete backing of the media and combined these have captured the entire political system.
The public are still pro-life in the sense of not wanting abortion-on-demand, but they have grown more sympathetic towards abortion being available where a woman has been raped, or a baby will die at birth. They can imagine a partner, wife or daughter being in this situation, or being in the situation themselves if they are a woman.
The same-sex marriage debate still seems more abstract to many. How will it affect them if two people of the same sex can marry? They don’t yet see that the change to the Constitution the Government wants attacks a child’s right to a mother and a father.
But effectively declaring in our deepest law – the Constitution – that the family of two men and a child is just the same as a man, woman and child is very, very big deal.
At the moment, however, the admissions policy of schools seems more immediate to a lot of people. We’ve all been to school and if we have children they will go to school too. In the event of excess demand for school places some criteria has to be used to decide who gets in and who doesn’t. But what should the criteria be? What’s fair?
Currently, a school is allowed to admit the children of past pupils without limit. Former Education Minister Ruairi Quinn suggested this be reduced to a maximum of 25% of the total school intake.
An Oireachtas committee on education suggested reducing it to zero. Jan O’Sullivan has opted for 10%.
Some Fine Gael TDs believe Labour is simply having a go at fee-paying schools which it sees as an affront to equality. Fee-paying schools obviously admit many children of past pupils.
This is a sort of agreement through time. The agreement is that ‘if you go to this school, your children can too’. In return for this, it becomes easier for the school to raise money from past pupils because they will retain a family connection with it.
As far as Labour is concerned, this perpetuates ‘privilege’.
However, there are only a few dozen fee-paying schools in the country and changing the admissions policy regarding children of past pupils will affect every school, fee-paying or not.
Those schools also have a sort of agreement through time with their local communities. They also tell past pupils that they now have a family connection with the school which will be respected if they wish to enrol their children in that school in the future.
This establishes a very strong, family-based link with the local community. This isn’t some kind of ‘old-boys’ network’, it’s a family-based network.
Of course, no admissions system is perfect. When a school doesn’t have enough places newcomers to an area will lose out to children of past pupils.
On the other hand, if there is little or no preference allowed for children of past pupils then families with deep roots in the areas lose out.
What about the Church’s role in this? Denominational schools will still be allowed to give preference to children of the faith of the school for admission purposes.
But it will be hard for the Churches to avoid giving an opinion on the matter of children of past pupils because the Churches manage the vast majority of our schools.
What is their attitude? Can they remain above the fray? If they side with the Government they will annoy many parents. If they go against the Government that will have consequences of its own.
It seems to place them in a genuine no-win situation.