Appendix 1 - Developing an Enrolment Scheme

The pro forma scheme which follows is simply an attempt to show what an enrolment scheme in a State integrated school might look like. Nothing is set in concrete; there is room for variation in wording, setting out and the appropriate items to be included. The Ministry will, however, expect to find the following:

1. The scheme should be set out under the three sub-headings of;

• Maximum Roll (and school capacity, if lower)
• Priority in Enrolment
• Pre-enrolment
• and, if relevant, there should be a separate section relating to any approved special programme run by the school.

1. In the "Priority in Enrolment" section, first priority must be given to preference students for whom the school is reasonably convenient. These students must be identified unambiguously. If there is a school hostel, preference students who are boarders at the hostel must be included in the first priority group.
2. In the "Priority in Enrolment" section, non-preference students must always form the last priority group.
3. The scheme must contain some description of how decisions will be made within a priority group if there are more applicants in the group than the number of remaining available places.

The following pro forma enrolment scheme was written before any enrolment schemes existed in integrated schools. Since then Ministry staff have gained experience by working with integrated schools which needed to implement enrolment schemes. This experience has led to the production of the following notes, which may prove more helpful to schools than the original pro forma scheme.

Notes to assist schools

Basically three types of schemes have developed.

1. Something that looks quite a bit like a scheme in a non-integrated school ie an area of "reasonable convenience" over which the board feels able to offer a guarantee to preference students, followed by (i) other priority criteria for preference students outside this area, with an ultimate backstop like a ballot where necessary; (ii) a section relating to non-preference students.
2. A multi-layered concept to describe the area of "reasonable convenience" ie an inner area giving a guarantee of enrolment to preference students and an outer area or areas with a lesser degree of priority. Within each area there are priority criteria with an ultimate backstop.
3. The area of "reasonable convenience" is expressed in the widest terms considered to be appropriate. To enable selection from the large pool of preference students living in this area there are priority criteria with an ultimate backstop. (It has normally been secondary schools which have argued for this type of scheme.)

For types (b) and (c) there would be two further priority categories after the area of "reasonable convenience" has been dealt with:

1. preference students outside the area(s) of "reasonable convenience";
2. non-preference students.

An ultimate backstop would need to operate for each of these categories.

1- Priority criteria accepted by Ministry staff have been:

1. siblings of current students;
2. siblings of former students;
3. children of board employees;
4. children of board members;
5. children of members of board of proprietors;
6. children of clergy who regularly contribute to services at the school;
7. attendance at named contributing schools;
8. children of parents promised enrolment prior to integration. There have been a few cases where prior to integration (in, say, 1999) a school allowed parents to put their child's name on a waiting list with a promise of enrolment at the appropriate time. We have thought it not worth arguing about what will be an ever-declining number of such students. We have accepted this as a sort of "grand-parenting" provision.

2- Suggested priority criteria which Ministry staff have not accepted are as follows:

1. Degrees of priority on the basis of the parents' commitment to the special character of the school eg Presbyterians ahead of other Christians. There can be no degrees of preference; a student is either preference or not. A school's integration agreement may say that "This school was founded under the auspices of the Presbyterian Church but children of all Christian faiths are welcome." That means that if a student's parents are identifiably Christians and accept the Presbyterian ethos which underpins the school, then they have just as much right to enrol their children as died in the wool Presbyterians. For the BOT to give priority in enrolment on the basis of religion would be in breach of the Human Rights Act.
2. Priority to the sons and daughters of former students. This is specifically impossible in the non-integrated context. The issue was debated in the Select Committee when the current enrolment legislation was at the draft stage. The matter was again raised on the floor of the House when the Bill was being debated there. Parliament chose not to approve such a provision. While it would not be specifically illegal in the integrated context, the example of the non-integrated provisions is, we feel, too great to ignore. Furthermore, the Human Rights Commission has expressed a view that giving priority in enrolment on the basis of family association is in breach of the Human Rights Act. The Ministry could not willingly be a party to a provision in an enrolment scheme that would be subject to challenge under the Human Rights Act.
3. Priority on the basis of academic ability, sporting prowess, previous school reports, "ability of parents to contribute to the life of the school" etc. Such criteria are neither fair nor transparent.

3- An "ultimate backstop" is what you have to use when the number of students in a particular priority group is too many for the remaining available places. Forms of "ultimate backstop" which Ministry staff have accepted are:

1. ballot;
2. listing in order of closeness to the school;
3. listing in order of receipt of applications. This may be associated with the operation of a waiting list, which might operate something like this:

Existence of the list would be known publicly and names could be entered at any time. Those parents who have maintained a close association with the school over the years would no doubt wish to "put their child's name down" for enrolment several years in advance of the child reaching the right age. At any one time, there may be as many as ten waiting lists for each of the future years (if parents are sufficiently motivated to look that far ahead with regard to their child's secondary education). Each year the school would still be required to advertise the availability of places at the school in the following year, and set a deadline for applications. Those who apply in response to the advertisement will simply have their child's name added to the existing waiting list in order of receipt of application.

Schools which have opted for the type of scheme described in paragraph 1(c) have found this type of ultimate backstop useful.