Ah, lads - Village Magazine

December-January 2014 39

HE current defence of inherited privilege in

the debate about the Education (Admissions

to Schools) Bill is ugly no matter how you

dress it up. There is the call to ethos and tradition,

the soothing reassurance that this is not about

excluding the disadvantaged, and the satisfying

ﬂexing of legal muscle and ‘contacts’. There is

the inevitable support of the Catholic Church.

The Bill requires schools to implement an admissions

policy that respects “principles of inclusion, equality

and the right of parents to send their children to a

school of the parents’ choice”. That seems right and

proper. An accompanying draft regulation sets out

that, where there are more applicants than places

available, priority may not be given to a relative of

a former student of the school. Schools are allowed

to seek a derogation from this which would allow no

more than 25% of available places in any school year

to be ﬁlled by application of a past-pupil criterion.

The Joint Oireachtas Committee on Education

and Social Protection found this derogation too

generous. They suggested it was “unclear as to why

the relevant percentage was set at 25%” and that

“there should be no such derogation, and that a

school should not be permitted to give priority to

a student on the grounds that he or she is the son

or daughter of a former student of the school”.

The Catholic Church rushed to the barricades. The

executive chair of the Catholic Schools Partnership

stated: “We are strongly of the view that admissions

should not be dealt with by legislation”. The elite

ranks of the privately educated then moved in. The

‘Unions’ of past pupils of some fee-paying schools

took up the cause. This was despite

their schools still being able to protect

privilege behind the barrier of high fees.

They did so without consultation

with their alumni ‘members’ on the

assumption that this defence of inherited

privilege would inevitably be supported.

The Belvedere Union wrote to its

members, “This isn’t just a threat to us,

it is a threat to all schools in the country

who rely on the goodwill, generosity and

buy-in of past pupils”. Money in other

words is the tradition, to be defended.

The Blackrock Union wrote to its

members: “Blackrock College has operated a fair

and transparent admissions policy without unjust

State interference” and “The admissions policy has

engendered a positive community spirit through

many generations of ‘Rockmen’ and has never

before been so unjustly challenged by the State”.

Transparent: perhaps, but fair? On what deﬁnition?

Gonzaga Union sought to “maintain its autonomy

in admission policy” but “this should not be

interpreted as a desire to foster privilege or exclude

pupils from entry to Gonzaga”. But – whatever the

desire – it patently is about privilege and exclusion.

A discrimination case taken by a Traveller woman

whose son was not admitted to Christian Brothers

High School in Clonmel has

recently ended up in the Supreme

Court. The complaint was about

the school’s policy of giving

priority to students whose

fathers were past pupils. It was

pointed out that Travellers were

statistically much less likely

to have a father that attended

secondary school. Only 10% of

that child’s parents’ generation

progressed to secondary school

compared to 66% of the general

population. The Equality

Tribunal found this policy to

be discriminatory, though the

High Court overturned the

decision – and the Supreme

Court decision is awaited.

A 2009 ESRI study on the

integration of pupils in schools

considered the eﬀects of

admission practices and polices on the distribution

of ‘newcomer’ pupils across schools. Some of the

selection criteria applied by schools were found to

exclude newcomer pupils including

giving preference to those applicants

with siblings already in the school

and to children of staﬀ or past pupils.

This was already leading to a level

of segregation at primary level.

Those most engaged in this defence of

inherited privilege are fee-paying schools

which couch their defence in terms

of autonomy and freedom from state

interference. This is principle-free self-

serving selectivity, given their equally

stout defence of state interference when it

comes to any challenge to the €100 million

annual subvention to these schools – from the state.

Education is the engine of equality. Particular

scruple is required to avoid the privileged

perpetuating their privilege through weasel

words that underplay the signicance of

exclusionary practices in private education. •

Unions at ‘Belvo’,

‘Rock’ and

‘Zaga’ defend

their subsidised

privileges

Ah, lads

NIALL CROWLEY

The Blackrock

Union wrote to

its members,

“Blackrock

College has

operated

a fair and

transparent

admissions

policy without

unjust State

interference”

“