RegulatoryFrameworkforSchoolEnrolment

Asubmissiononbehalfofthe

NationalAssociationofBoardsofManagementinSpecialEducation

October2011

2

RegulatoryFrameworkforSchoolEnrolment

Asubmissiononbehalfofthe

NationalAssociationofBoardsofManagementinSpecialEducation(NABMSE)

October2011

ExecutiveSummary

NABMSEisdelightedtocontributetotheconsultationonenrolmentandtoexplorewhatmaybethemosteffectivelegislativeandregulatoryframeworktoemploy.Webelievethatthecentralityofthechildmustanimatethisconsultationand,infact,bethe litmus test of any proposal thatmay emerge. This submissionwill, therefore,returnagainandagaintothis‘touchstone’oftheneedsofthechild.

NABMSE carried out an extensive consultation of our membership. Thisconsultationprovedinvaluablein,firstofall,highlightingthecoreissuesinrelationto enrolment but also in the most constructive approach that members took tocrafting responses to the Discussion Document and to offering practical, realisticandinnovativeproposalsaroundkeyconcerns.

InrelationtotheprincipleofsubsidiaritytheDiscussionDocumentontheonehandappearstoresolutelysupportthisprincipleinstatingthattheBoardanditsPatronneedtohavetherequisitepowertocarryoutitsrolesandresponsibilitytofunctionas an effective Board or Patron while, in the view of many of our members, theproposals infactreducequiteconsiderablythescopeoftheBoardor itsPatrontoact. Indeed the apparent introduction of new layers and proceduresmay furtherimpedetheeffectivefunctioningofspecialschools.Thereisdeepfrustrationinthisareaas there is in theconstant struggle,withdepleted resources tomeet the realneedsofstudents.Itisfurtherfeltthatwhilethecurrenteconomicclimateisindeedchallenging,itisvitaltorecognisethatcraftingnewlegislationandregulationsneedtotakethelongview.

We strongly advocate that any legislation or regulation explicitly states thedeliverables expected from Department agencies and other bodies concerned sothat trueaccountabilitycanbedemonstratedatall levels in theprocess. It isvitalthat the expectations of all the parties are highlighted in this endeavour aroundenrolment.

In addition to responding to the specific proposals in the Discussion Document,NABMSEalsowentontoaddresskeyconcernsinrelationtoenrolmentthatimpacton children with special educational needs such as access to school places,designation,theroleoftheNCSEandtheSENO.

3

1.Introductionandcontextforthissubmission

ThecorepurposeofNABMSEistouniteBoardsofManagementinSpecialEducation

in the Republic by providing a means for the expression of their individual and

collective experience on matters affecting the education of children with special

needs.Ourcoreobjectivesare:

To promote the highest standard of education for personswith special

needs.

To achieve adequate deployment of resources to support education for

personswithspecialneeds.

To encourage and facilitate communication and co­operation between

personsengagedintheeducationofpersonswithspecialneeds.

Toarrangeorassistinarrangingandprovidingconferences,discussions

and meetings on subjects of general or special interest in the field of

managementinspecialeducation.

To promote the study of best practices with regard to their impact on

enhancingtheabilitiesofpersonswithspecialneeds.

NABMSEhas123schoolmembersacrosstheRepubliccateringforchildrenacross

the full spectrum of special needs. NABMSE is delighted to contribute to the

consultationonenrolmentandtoexplorewhatmaybethemosteffectivelegislative

andregulatoryframeworktoemploy.WeareinunisonwiththewishoftheMinister

forEducationandSkillswhenhestates:

Ensuringequalityofeducationalopportunityistheobjectiveofallcivilisedsocieties.A

critical element in achieving this objective is to have school enrolment arrangements

that support access through inclusive, transparent and fair enrolment policies and

practicesinourschools.(DiscussionPaper:Foreword)

Afundamentalvalueforthespecialeducationsectoristhecentralityofthechild–

thisvalueneedsbeatthecoreofallourdiscussion,ofallourproposals,ofallour

considerations intermsof legislationandregulation.Weseethatthiscentralityof

4

the child must animate this consultation and, in fact, be the litmus test of any

proposalthatmayemerge.Thissubmissionwill,therefore,returnagainandagainto

this ‘touchstone’ of the needs of the child. As a civilised society with an

extraordinaryrecordofcaringforitsmostneedy‐thoughrecognisingtheinstances

of failure that occurred at different levels in realising this core value of care –

NABMSEwants to celebrate the best practice of inclusion, provision and equality

that exists in the special education sector and to enhance where possible the

optimum overall experience of each child. The Education of Personswith Special

EducationalNeeds(EPSEN)2004isacrucialpieceoflegislationthatenshrinesthe

State’scommitmenttothespecialeducationsectorinitsmissiontoensurethateach

childinitscareisgiventheoptimalopportunitytofulfiltheirpotential.Westrongly

advocateitsfullenactment.Whilerecognisingthecurrentfinancialrealities,wealso

recognisethatthislegislationisforthelongtermanditsimplementationshouldnot

besolelygovernedbythechallengesofthepresent.Werecognisethatenrolmentis

a very significant gateway for the child that needs careful attention in its

configuration.Tounderline the significanceof these issues and inpreparation for

thissubmission,NABMSEcarriedoutanextensiveconsultationofourmembership.

An in‐depth consultation meeting was held in mid September of our members

acrossthecountry.Thisverywellattendedsessionprovedinvaluablein,firstofall,

highlighting the core issues in relation to enrolment but also in the most

constructive approach thatmembers took to crafting responses to theDiscussion

Document and toofferingpractical, realistic and innovativeproposals aroundkey

concerns. Careful planning went into devising the format of the consultation to

allow members contribute in the most comprehensive and positive manner

possible. Appendix 1 provides the consultation framework employed for the

session.Thissubmissionwillhavethreemainsectionsdealingwith:

TheLegislativeproposals

TheRegulationproposals

SpecificissuesofconcerntotheSpecialEducationsector

5

2.LegislativeProposals

ThereisarangeofproposalsinthissectionoftheDiscussionDocumentand,while

thissubmissionwilladdressmanyoftheseindetail,afewgeneralobservationsare

offeredtocontextualiseourresponses.Thesecommentswillthenbefollowedbyan

outline of the responses to the particular proposals offered in the Discussion

Documentregardinglegislation.

2.1Subsidiarity

The Discussion Document on the one hand appears to resolutely support the

principleofsubsidiarityandthattheBoardanditsPatronneedtohavetherequisite

powertocarryout itsrolesandresponsibilityto functionasaneffectiveBoardor

Patronwhile,intheviewofmanyofourmembers,theproposalsinfactreducequite

considerablythescopeoftheBoardoritsPatrontoact.Theproposalsbothinthe

legislative and regulatory sections are more prescriptive and centralising rather

than stating principles and facilitating appropriate delegation. Stating that these

proposals for legislation and regulation are being promoted to ‘provide the

maximumdiscretiontoschools’(p.20)doesnotinfacttranslateintoanymeaningful

localautonomyorsubsidiarityasthegreatmajorityoftheproposalsarefocusedon

limiting thescopeofregionaland localbodies.MembersofNABMSEareunited in

their frustration at the possibility of further layers and administrative burdens

being placed on school administrations andBoardswhile limiting the proper and

effectivefunctioningofschoolcommunities.

2.2Reciprocity

There was, in our consultation for this submission, a genuine welcome for the

general thrustof theDiscussionDocumentto improveanddevelopourenrolment

frameworks. The intent, clear in the Document, to address concerns of equality,

justice and access echo the strong desire ofNABMSEmembers to effectively deal

with issues such as appeals procedures, cooperation between schools, fairness of

enrolmentpoliciesandpractices.Howeveritwasstated,onmanyoccasions,atour

6

consultationthattheexpectationsofschoolauthoritiestodealwithcomplexstaffing

arrangements,resourceallocationsandthelikeisveryoftenfrustratedattimesby

inexplicableand/orunjustifiabledelaysatcentral level.Webelievethatputting in

place a new enrolment frameworkwill not function effectively, however laudable

the content, if there is not a sustained level of cooperation on all sides in

implementingtheproposals.Thereforewestronglyadvocatethatanylegislationor

regulationexplicitlystatesthedeliverablesexpectedfromDepartmentagenciesand

otherbodiesconcernedsothattrueaccountabilitycanbedemonstratedatalllevels

intheprocess.

2.3Section29AppealsProcess

There was much support for a reconfiguring of the Section 29 appeals process.

TherewasagreementwiththereflectionsoutlinedintheDiscussionDocumentthat

theprocesscanbecumbersomeandoverwhelmingformany.Theexperiencethatis

emergingfromtheSection29processisthatmoreandmoreschoolsareeffectiveat

followingallthenecessaryprotocolsandthatthisformofaddressingproperaccess

is not a meaningful ‘normative’ approach to deal with genuine cases of student

placement. It is proposed that an effective and meaningful mediation approach

could be deployed at regional/local levels to address issues of placement. This

‘mediationservice’would intervenebeforeanyescalation toaSection29process.

Therearemanyexamplesofeffective informalmediatedapproachesthatcouldbe

put on a formal footingwith the necessary oversight to ensure transparency and

effectiveness while at all times preserving the ultimate right of appeal. Such

mediatorsorfacilitatorswouldneedtohaveclearindependenceandabsenceofany

conflict of interest or role to ensure their intervention will be of a meaningful

nature.

7

2.4Inter­schoolCo­operation

Our consultation demonstrated much support for the value of inter school co‐

operation.Themanyinstancesofbestpracticeinthisareaatpresentinthespecial

educationsectorareindicativeofthevalueofcollaborationinmeetingtheneedsof

the child in the optimum context. While the principle of co‐operation is fully

accepted,thereareanumberofconcernsinrelationtoitspracticeincluding–the

role of the SENO in determining placement needing clarity in any co‐operation

arrangement to ensure that the criteria used by the SENO are demonstrably

objective; the issue of resources following the student where a co‐operation

arrangementisagreed.Thereareparticularissuesintermsofmainstreamschools

involvement in co‐operation with other schools be they mainstream or special

schools–theissueofresourceiskeyamongthese.Weseemuchmeritintheideaof

building local/regionalco‐operationandclusteringarrangementswhere identified

mainstream schools come together with special schools to look at provision for

children with special educational needs to ensure shared responsibility and

optimumprovision for thechild.An innovativesuggestionarounddualenrolment

between hospital schools and a special school merits further exploration. In this

areaof inter‐schoolcooperationnewandexistingunits inmainstreamandspecial

schoolsshouldbeintegratedratherthanbestandalone

2.5EnsuringCompliance

NABMSE wishes to state that member schools have an exemplary record in

complyingwiththemanyandvariousregulationsaroundenrolment.Theneedsof

the child are at the core of their policy framing and the implementation of

procedures.Neverthelesstheclearchallengesinrelationtomeetingtheneedsofthe

childandtheprovisionofresourcescannotbeoverestimatedbutshouldinnoway

be construed as a means to avoid compliance with the requirements and best

practice.Thereareanumberofconcernsaboutthefocusonnon‐compliance,among

them the often frustrating experience of the allocation of resources from the

relevantgovernmentagenciesandthegatheringofthenecessarydocumentationin

8

relationto thestudent.Any legislation in thisareawillneedtohaveregardto the

reasonable expectations that canbehadof school authorities and theproper and

efficient functioningofstatutorybodies. Therewas littlesupport foran ‘enforcer’

individualroleinthisarea.Itwasfeltthatalesscentralisedroleisrequiredandthat

theprincipleofsubsidiarity,advocatedintheDiscussionDocument,wouldpointto

theproperengagementwithPatronandManagementBodiestopromoteandensure

complianceaheadofacentralisedagencybypassingothermoreappropriatelevels

ofauthority.

3.ProposalsforRegulation

ThefollowingresponsesfromNABMSEinthissectionwillcorrespondtotheorder

oftheheadingsintheDiscussionDocument.

3.1CharacteristicSpirit

Webelieve that it is essential to outline the characteristic spirit in the enrolment

policyandthatthevaluesofinclusionandmutualrespectarekeyinthesepolicies.

The special education sector is particularly recognised for its commitment to

inclusionandrecognitionofdiversity–thefocusisalwaystheneedofthechildand

thedesiretomeettheseneedsinthemosteffectivewaypossible.

3.2FinancialContributions

Wefullysubscribetotheviewthatnofinancialcontributionorexpectationofsame

should be linked to enrolment. At the same time we recognise the tremendous

challengesschools in thespecialeducationsectorhave toput inplace, inorder to

securetheresourcesnecessarytomeettheneedsof itsstudents.Therolesplayed

byPatronBodies,parentsandlocalcommunitiesareenormousinbridgingthegap

betweenstateprovisionandactualappropriateneed.

9

3.3Enrolmentofpupilswithspecialeducationalneeds

NABMSEfeelsthatthereisarealneedtoeffectivelymonitorequalityofprovisionin

thisarea toensure thatall schoolsareoptimising theirability tomeet the special

educational needs of pupils. The proposals around co‐operation and dual

placements, highlighted earlier in this submission, are relevant here. Further,

NABMSEproposes thataparticular setofguidelines for the framingofenrolment

policiesbedrawnupandtheactivationofprocedurestorecognisethechallengesof

thespecialeducationsector.NABMSEfeelthatmulti‐partydiscussionsshouldtake

place from themoment an enrolment application ismade for a childwith special

educationalneeds–ameaningfuldiscussionwithall theprofessionals concerned:

principal, teachers,Board,HSEor its relatedagencies, theDESand theNCSE. Plans

arrived at through such discussions will be more effective that individual

determinations. Many of our proposals in this submission will assist in the

developmentofsuchaframework.

3.4NotificationRequirements

Theparticularcircumstancesof thespecialeducationsector requireamuchmore

flexible approach given the necessities of gathering relevant documentation,

applyingforandreceivingapprovalforresourcesetc.Weadvocatepreparingaset

ofguidelinesandproceduresaroundnotificationandotherenrolmentpracticesthat

reflecttheparticularcontextofthespecialeducationsector.Weproposethatthese

guidelinesbedrawnupinacollaborativemannerwithgovernmentagencies,Patron

andManagementbodiesandschoolcommunityrepresentatives.

3.5ApplicationProcess

NABMSE believes that, if particular attention is given to the development of

transparent and effective protocols for childrenwith special educational needs, a

moreequitableandjustexperiencewillbeaffordedtoallconcerned.

10

3.6Decision­makingprocess

The value of transparency is again crucial here. The effective use of criteria and

detailed explanation is essential in assisting the process of decision‐making and

decision ‘receiving’. The process of decisionmaking and ‘receiving’, if carried out

effectively, aids the prospect of a more constructive experience of the follow‐on,

dealing with the consequences of a refusal and the exploring of options. For

example, the issuingof lettersofoffer isapositivepractice inenablingtimelyand

relevantinformation–theselettersandtheproceduresandpracticesaroundthem

should promote transparency and effective communication in relation to all the

relevantmatterstodowiththeplacementofachildinaparticularschool–allthe

moresignificantintermsoftheparticularneedsofachildwithspecialeducational

needs.

3.7AppealsProcess

In addition to earlier points on this issue, NABMSE feels that it is the value of

frequent and transparent communication throughout the enrolment process that

canlessenthefrequencyofrecoursetotheappealsprocess.Werestateourproposal

ofmoreintermediarystepsintheappealsprocesstoavoidunnecessaryrecourseto

the Section 29 framework. Guidance is required to all involved in the Section 29

process to assist following a ruling, to ensure that the placement options for a

studentare clear.Theprofessional report iskey in theenrolmentprocess forany

childwithspecialeducationalneedsandthereforeneedstoplayacrucialroleinthe

appealsprocess.The issueofhowaschool isdeemed tobe ‘full’needs tobe fully

objectiveandtransparentsothatallconcernedcanhaveconfidenceandtrustinthe

system.

11

4.SpecificIssuesfortheSpecialEducationSector

This section will deal with particular concerns relating to enrolment that are

relevanttothespecialeducationsector.

4.1Accesstoschoolplaces

Theissueofschooldesignationisasignificantconsideration,forexampleanarrow

designationcanhamperaschoolthathasgarneredextensiveexperienceandcould

limittheirabilitytoofferaplacetoachildoutsideoftheirformaldesignation.The

suggestionsmadeelsewhereinthissubmissionaroundclusteringandco‐operation

betweenschoolsisalsorelevantinthisregard.NABMSEbelievesthatgreaterclarity

is required in relation to the role of the NCSE, the role of the SENO in decision‐

making and the relationship between special schools andmainstream in terms of

allocatingplacestostudentswithspecialeducationalneeds.Thereisadangerthat

enrolmentpolicieswillbecomesogenericand‘airtight’thatthespecificneedsofthe

childwithspecialeducationalneedscouldbeundermined,howeverunintentionally.

The interplay of needs, resources, suitability, availability, standardisation,

particularity and transparencyneeds to be addressedwhen crafting ameaningful

enrolment framework that is effective for the student, their family, the school

communityandallthoseinvolved.

4.2RoleoftheNCSEandtheSENO

It has been alluded to above that greater clarity and a framework of review and

accountability needs applied to the functioning of the NCSE and the role of the

SENO.TheroleoftheBoardofManagementcouldeasilybesidelinedinrelationto

thepowersoftheNCSEandtheSENO–deeperexaminationisrequiredtoexplore

howtheselevels,intermsofenrolment,canfunctioninamoreintegratedmanner.

4.3EffectiveSubsidiarity

12

The highest value is put on the meeting the needs of the child – therefore it is

proposedthattheprincipleofsubsidiarity–exercisingauthorityattheclosestlevel

tothoseeffectedbyadecisionaspossible–beoperativeintermsofenrolment.Itis

thoseclosest tothedecisionwhocanmosteffectively implementthedecision ina

manner that meets the specificity of each child’s needs. Where legislation and

regulationoutlineguidingprinciplesandnecessaryboundariesandlimits, it is the

localandregionalauthoritieswhooperationalisethevalues,implementthecareand

address theneedsof the individualonadailybasis. It isproposed thatmodelsof

localandregionalcollaborationbeexploredtoinvolvefamilies, localcommunities,

Patron and Management bodies and school personnel in the decision‐making

especiallyaroundchallengingcases.

13

5.Conclusion:FindingsandRecommendations

NABMSE recognises the importance of framing effective, transparent and just

approaches to enrolment and haswelcomed the opportunity to contribute to the

consultation. We have engaged with our membership in an in‐depth manner to

ensureourproposalsreflectboththeconcernsofourmembersandtheirgenerous

andcreativecontributiontonewandemergingideasinthisarea.Asaconclusionto

thissubmission,wewillhighlightthecorefindingsandrecommendationswewish

tocontributetotheon‐goingeffortstoframelegislationandregulationinthisarea.

A.Centrality of the Child. We affirm the excellent tradition and currentreality of schools in the special education sector – their visible and ongoing

commitment to thecentralityof thechild isat thecoreof theirpurposeanddaily

endeavour. Oursector,asothers,wishestoensurethecentralityof thechild isat

thecoreofalllegislativeandregulatoryproposalsinrelationtoenrolment.

B.Subsidiarity.Theproposals both in the legislative and regulatory sectionsfocusmoreontheprescriptiveandcentralisingratherthanthestatingofprinciples

and facilitating appropriatedelegation. Stating that theseproposals for legislation

andregulationarebeingpromotedto‘providethemaximumdiscretiontoschools’

(p.20)doesnotinfacttranslateintoanymeaningfullocalautonomyorsubsidiarity

asthegreatmajorityoftheproposalsarefocusedonlimitingthescopeofregional

and local bodies. We recommend the greater application of the practice of

subsidiarityinframingtheproposalstoensurethateachlevel,beitBoard,Patron,

NCSE or Department of Education and Science has a level of authority that is

requisitetotheirappropriateresponsibility.

C.Reciprocity.Webelieve that putting in place a new enrolment frameworkwillnotfunctioneffectively,howeverlaudablethecontent,ifthereisnotasustained

level of cooperation on all sides in implementing the proposals. Therefore we

14

strongly recommend that any legislation or regulation explicitly states the

deliverables expected from Department agencies and other bodies concerned so

thattrueaccountabilitycanbedemonstratedatalllevelsintheprocess.

D. Section 29 Appeals Process. There was much support for areconfiguring of the Section 29 appeals process. It is proposed that a credible

mediationapproachcouldbedeployedatregional/locallevelstoaddressissuesof

placement. This ‘mediation service’ would intervene before any escalation to a

Section29process.

E. Inter­school Cooperation. While the principle of inter‐school co‐operationisfullyaccepted,thereareanumberofconcernsinrelationtoitspractice

that we have highlighted above. We see much merit in the idea of building

local/regional co‐operation and clustering arrangements, where identified

mainstream schools come together with special schools to look at provision for

children with special educational needs to ensure shared responsibility and

optimumprovisionforthechild.

F. Compliance. NABMSE wishes to state that member schools have anexemplary record in complying with the many and various regulations around

enrolment.Therewaslittlesupportforan‘enforcer’roleinthisarea.Itwasfeltthat

alesscentralisedroleisrequiredandthattheprincipleofsubsidiarity,advocatedin

theDiscussionDocument,wouldpoint to theproperengagementwithPatronand

Management Bodies to promote and ensure compliance ahead of a centralised

agencybypassingothermoreappropriatelevelsofauthority.

15

G. Designation. NABMSE feels that there is a real need to ensure that allschoolsareoptimisingtheirabilitytomeetthespecialeducationalneedsofpupils.

Theproposalsaroundco‐operationanddualplacements,highlightedearlierinthis

submission, are relevanthere especially as they apply to the issueof designation.

Further, NABMSE proposes that a particular set of guidelines for the framing of

enrolmentpoliciesbedrawnupand theactivationofprocedures to recognise the

challengesofthespecialeducationsector.

H. Clarity of Roles. NABMSE believes that greater clarity is required inrelationtotheroleoftheNCSEandtheroleoftheSENOindecision‐makingandthe

relationshipbetweenspecialschoolsandmainstreamin termsofallocatingplaces

tostudentswithspecialeducationalneeds.Werecommendgreaterexaminationto

explorehow these rolesand levels, in termsofenrolment, can function inamore

integratedmanner.

I.Resources.Thespecialeducationsectorhashadanextraordinaryrecordof

stretchinglimitedresourcesandseekingsupplementaryfundingthroughlocaland

regionaleffortsinordertomeettheneedsofthechild.NABMSEstronglyadvocates

thattheStateneedstomaintainthefundingcurrentlyavailableandseekstoextend

the support that the sector clearly needs, in particular, in the enactment of the

EPSENAct.Inframingnewlegislation,itistobeseeninthecontextofanextended

period of time and not to be driven only by the current challenging economic

climate.

www.nabmse.org

16

APPENDIX1

DiscussionQuestions–ConsultationonEnrolment

ThursdaySeptember15th2011,KildareEducationCentre

Objective of the Consultation – ‘Ensuring equality of educational opportunity istheobjectiveofallcivilisedsocieties.Acriticalelementinachievingthisobjectiveisto have school enrolment arrangements that support access through inclusive,transparent and fair enrolment policies and practices in our schools.’ MinisterQuinn,DiscussionPaper,DES,June2011

Views or comments ‘on options for the regulation of enrolment’ are invited frominterestedpartiesbasedontheDESDiscussionPaperpublishedinJune2011–seeDESwebsite–www.education.gov .ThisDiscussionPaperwill formthebasisforourconsultation…inparticularPartTwoonPrimaryLegislationandPartThree onRegulation. Other significant issues are also addressed below in aseparatesection.

A.PARTTWO–LEGISLATIONPROPOSALS

2.1.1ChangestothescopeofSection29appealsprocess:­‘overlyburdensome’;‘…alternativeorenhancementtotheSection29process’

Whatappealsprocesswouldyouproposetoupdate/replacethecurrentSection29process?

2.1.2Inter­schoolCooperation:‘torequirecooperationbetweenschoolsinaparticularlocality’

Whatformofinter­schoolcooperationwouldbemostbeneficialandhowmightitbeconfiguredwithoursectorfactoredin?

2.1.3Providingforpupilsthatareunabletoaccessanyschoolplace:‘anewmechanismtodesignateaschool…wherenoschoolplacementisavailable’

Whatformshouldthisprovisiontake–arethereimplicationsforthespecialeducationsectorandtheintersectionwithmainstream?

17

2.1.4EnsuringCompliance:‘whenschoolauthoritiesarenotcomplyingwithlegalobligations’‘…removeenrolmentfromBoard’scontrol’‘independentenrolment/admissionofficer’

Whatcomplianceframeworkwouldbeeffectivetodealwithschoolswhoarenotfollowinglegalandregulatoryguidelines?

B.PARTTHREE:REGULATIONPROPOSALS

3.2Contentofanenrolmentpolicy–drafting&publishingrequirements:‘requirementforBoardstoundertakesomelevelofconsultation’;certainwaystopublishthepolicy‘toanyonewhorequestsit’

Whatlevelofconsultationwouldyouconsiderappropriateindrawinguptheenrolmentpolicy–whodecidesultimately–istherealsoaroleforManagementBodiesinthisprocessastheyarenotmentionedintheDiscussionDocumentinthisregard?

3.2.2CharacteristicSpirit:‘regulations…shouldsetoutthecharacteristicspirit’;‘arequirement…thatpupils…shouldrespecttheethosoftheschool’

Whatshouldtheenrolmentpolicysayaboutcharacteristicspirit?

3.2.3Financialcontributionstoschools:‘regulationscouldmakeclearthatvoluntarycontributionsmayonlybesoughtafterthecompletionoftheenrolmentpolicy…’

What,ifanything,shouldtheenrolmentpolicyandpracticebearoundfinancialcontribution?

3.2.4Enrolmentofpupilswithspecialeducationalneeds:‘mayneedtohaveseparatecriteria’

Howistheplaceofpupilswithspecialeducationalneedsprotectedinthisnewlyemergingframework?Inmainstream,intheschoolsdealingwithdifferentrangesofneeds?Couldtheissueofresourcesbeusedtogetoutoftakingcareofapupil’seducation?

Coulda‘clusterarrangement’ofmainstreamschoolsbeprovidedtoensurethatworkingtogetherandsharingresourcesthestudentwithspecialneedscanbeappropriatelycateredfor?

18

3.2.5Oversubscription:‘bedesirableforallschoolstoincludeintheirenrolmentpolicyofhow,intheeventofoversubscription,placeswillbeallocated’–issuessuchasage;firstcomefirstserved;siblings;relativeofstaff/pastpupil;faith;distancefromschool(TRANSPORTISSUES);languagepolicy;pupilability;randomselectionetc

Whatoversubscriptionregulationswouldyouconsidereffectivetakingintoaccounttheparticularissuesofthespecialeducationsector?

3.3.1Timescalesforenrolmentinschools:‘…regulationstospecifytheearliestdateforthecommencementoftheenrolmentprocess’;

Whatoptionsaroundtimescalesarerelevantreresourceallocationforenrolmentprocesses?

3.3.2Notificationrequirements:‘standardise’

Whatregulationinthisareawouldbemostrelevant?

3.3.3ApplicationProcess:‘…guardagainst…subtledissuasion…isineffectarefusaltoconsideranapplicationforadmissiontotheschool

Howcanthisformofsubtledissuasionbeguardedagainstthroughregulation,withparticularreferencetohowthispracticemaybeimpactingpupilswithspecialeducationalneeds?

3.3.4Decision­makingprocess:‘nopotentialundisclosedconflictofinterest’;‘provisionforappeals’;explainreasonforrefusalsandtheirappealrights

Whatguidanceorregulationisneededtomakethedecisionmakingprocessmosteffective?

3.3.5AppealsProcess:‘combinationofanenhancedlocalappealprocesscombinedwithanexternalappellateprocess…’

Whatregulationsshouldbeputinplacetomaketheappealsprocesslessburdensomeontheyoungperson,parent,school…?

19

C.OtherConsiderationsforNABMSEMembersreEnrolment:

a.OPTIMUMACCESS:Howcanenrolmentpoliciesandpracticespromotetheoptimumaccessforpupilswithspecialneeds–inmainstreamschoolsandinthespecialeducationsector?

b.SELF­SELECTION:Howcanthechallengebeaddressedofsomeschoolsusingtheirenrolmentpolicytodefactoself­selectduetonothaving‘sufficientresources’?

c.ROLEOFNCSE:1.1.4TheNationalCouncilforSpecialEducation(NCSE)underEPSEN(2004)can‘designatetheschoolwhichachildwithspecialeducationalneedswillattend’.

WhatrolewouldyouthinkmostappropriatefortheNCSEinenrolmentacrossarangeofissues–guidelines,appeals,centralisation,clusteringofschools,resources…?CanaschoolciteresourcedifficultiesinnotenrollingpupilswheretheNCSEdesignatesthenumbersofstaffrequiredtocaterforthesechildren.

d.CENTRALISEDCONTROL:Whatisyourviewofthemoreprescriptivelegislative,centralisedandregulatoryapproachtoenrolmentproposedinthisDiscussionDocumentoftheDepartmentofEducation?Arearelativelysmallminorityofcasesdictatingagreatercontroleffectingdisproportionallyagreaternumberofgoodpracticeschools?Isthereagreaterroleforlocal,regional,patronandmanagementbodyinvolvement?

e.SPECIALNEEDSSELECTION:HowcanaSpecialSchooldefineitspopulationandnotbefoundtobediscriminatory?E.G.IfaschoolcatersforpupilswithMildGLD.Cantheywritethisintheadmissionscriteriaandrefusechildrenwithotherdisabilities?IfaschoolcatersforpupilswithphysicalandmultipledisabilitiesdoesthisincludechildrenwithphysicaldisabilityandSevereandProfoundGLD?WherethesevereandprofoundGLDisconsideredtobetheprimarydisabilityfromanEducationalPerspectivebutparentsmaytakeadifferentview.Whodecides?WillSpecialSchoolsbecomegeneric?Canaschoolspecifytherangeofdisabilitiesitcatersfor?Amainstreamschoolcannot.Shouldaspecialschool'senrolmentpolicybedifferentfromthatofamainstreamschool?Ifyes,whatfactorsshouldbeconsidered?

f.LETTERSOFOFFER:Lettersofofferfromspecialschoolswhenstaffingresourcesaresuddenlyreduced­howshouldthesebeconstructedandshouldsamplesoflettersbeincludedinenrolmentdocument.

20

D.FINALQUESTIONFOREACHGROUPTOCONSIDER

5.ThisNABMSESubmissiononEnrolmentwillbeeffectiveif….

DiscusstheprimaryobjectivesourNABMSEsubmissionshouldseektoaddress.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

FINDINGSFROMYOURGROUPTOBERECORDEDONAFLIPCHARTSHEETTOAIDTHEGROUPDISCUSSIONANDALSORECORDEDINWRITTENFORMBYA

SECRETARYTOAIDTHEREPORTWRITER.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐