School gets order quashing direction to enrol autistic boy

A national school has secured court orders, on consent, quashing a direction from the Department of Education requiring it to enrol an autistic boy in an autism specific class next September.

The department has also agreed the boy’s mother’s appeal against the school’s refusal to enrol him will be heard by a differently constituted committee of the department, the High Court heard.

In judicial review proceedings initiated earlier this month, Lucan East Educate Together National School claimed the direction requiring it to enrol the boy was “irrational”. It said it involves the child being “leapfrogged” over at least 12 other children who also unsuccessfully applied for places in the class, which is limited to six pupils.

The direction was issued by the Secretary General of the department after a committee of the department granted an appeal, brought by the mother of the boy, against the school’s decision.

When the matter returned before Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley, she was told by Feichín McDonagh SC, for the school, the sides had agreed orders on consent could be made, including orders quashing the direction, remitting the mother’s appeal for a fresh hearing before a differently constituted committee and paying the school’s costs.

Michael Lynn SC, for the mother, a notice party, said this outcome was a source of distress for her as she had secured an enrolment direction which was now quashed. The judge said the mother was entitled to her legal costs against the department.

Previously, the court heard three of the six places in the autism-specific class had been allocated to children with links to the school. In line with the school’s admission policy for the austim-specific class, the remaining three places were allocated to the youngest of the remaining applicants on foot of a policy grounded in the fact children with autism benefit from the earliest possible intervention.

The boy whom the department has directed must be enrolled was about 15th in order of priority for places, it was stated.

Mr McDonagh argued Section 29 of the Education Act, under which appeals can be brought over an enrolment refusal, provides schools cannot be required enrol pupils if that would conflict with their admission policy. In making this direction, the department argued the enrolment policy for this class conflicted with the school’s general admissions policy for mainstream classes which was on an oldest child first basis, he said.

The school disputed that view and contended, even if there was a “disconnect” between the admission policies, that was not a basis upon which the direction to enrol could be made. All the committee could do was decide if the child qualified under the enrolment policy and it could not override or make a decision inconsistent with that policy, he said.

The department had suggested, given the demand for places in the autism class, the school should set up another autism-specific class but the school cannot and does not wish to do that, counsel added.