Complaint

The complaint submitted to the Office concerned the refusal of a post primary school to enrol a young person. The complainant, her mother, contended that the refusal was based initially on the fact that the girl was pregnant and subsequently on the grounds that she was a single young mother.

The young person had attended two previous post-primary schools changing from one after her Junior Certificate and the other because she did not settle there. When she became aware that she was pregnant and she decided then to return to school. She approached the school and she was provided with an enrolment form and information about subject choices and the uniform. She understood that she had been accepted. At the same time, her mother contacted the school to let her know that she was pregnant. The young person was then informed by the School Principal that they would not accept her as she was pregnant.

The young person enrolled in another school for the duration of her pregnancy and after her baby was born she sought to enrol in the school again to complete her Leaving Certificate. Again the young person was informed that they the school does not accept single mothers.

Examination

Having decided to investigate the matter the Ombudsman for Children’s Office wrote to the School to request information relevant to the matter under investigation including its enrolment policy, its complaints procedure, details of the management structure and copies of relevant correspondence. None of the information sought was provided by the School. A meeting sought with the school’s representatives was not forthcoming.

Following its investigation the Office found that the School does not have a written enrolment policy; its decision to refuse to enrol the young person in this instance was based on the school’s ethos; the school’s refusal to enrol the young person because she was pregnant and then a single mother has resulted in her being treated unfavourably and suffering discrimination on the ground of her family status.

The School does not have a Board of Management and a single person acts as the school’s owner, manager and patron. As a result, there is no scope for a complaint from the decision to refuse admission to the school to be independently determined meaning that there is a lack of fair and impartial process for addressing any complaint.

The Department of Education and Skills provides funding and policy direction for schools but it has no legal powers to instruct individuals to follow a particular course of action with regard to individual complaints. No procedures have been prescribed under section 28 of the Education Act 1998 resulting in no regulated complaints process in schools.

The Office has established that there is work ongoing in the Department of Education and Skills to provide a statutory basis that can better ensure that school’s enrolment policies are non-discriminatory. It is clear from this investigation that such improved regulatory procedures are necessary.

This Office made recommendations directly to the school in relation to its enrolment and admissions policy, and it also recommended that the school should write to the young person involved to acknowledge her experience of its actions and to apologise for how she has been treated.

The Office also recommended that the Department of Education and Skills should carry out an inspection of the School in order to evaluate school policies, specifically enrolment/admissions and complaints procedures and to review the management structure including issues of accountability and governance with respect to complaints and appeals. The Department should also consider the matters raised by this investigation in its consideration of the proposed regulatory framework for school enrolment.

Outcome

Further to the Office’s intervention the Department of Education and Skills committed to bringing forward firm and clear guidelines in relation to admissions policies. They also committed to submitting the school in question to an additional inspection as soon as possible.

At the time of publication the school had not issued an apology to the young person in question.

Posted in: Investigations Education