1

SOMEBODY THINK OF THE (MIGRANT) CHILDREN: AN ANALYSIS OF THE

RIGHT TO PRIMARY EDUCATION OF MIGRANT CHILDREN IN IRELAND

A. INTRODUCTION

Numerous provisions, such as Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article

14 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the European

Convention of Human Rights, provide for the broad right of all persons to education. However,

as highlighted by Kilkelly, the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child1 in 1989

was the first express recognition in the international sphere that all children have a right to

education.2 This right is found in Article 28 CRC and Article 29 CRC elaborates further,

stipulating inter alia that the aim of education is to enable each child reach his or her ‘fullest

potential’. In defining the scope of the right of the education, Quennerstedt deems the right to

have two components; namely that a child has access to education and that the content of such

education be of a certain standard.3 With specific reference to the right to education of migrant

children, she expressed concern that the realisation of their right to education may be adversely

affected by their lack of citizenship of the host country.4

Migration into Ireland is a relatively recent phenomenon and a large influx of migrants have

entered Ireland in the last number of years.5 The most recent census reveals that there are

544,357 immigrants in Ireland.6 The ongoing refugee crisis is likely to add to the number of

1 Convention of the Rights of the Child (adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990) 1577

UNTS 3 (the CRC). 2 Ursula Kilkelly, ‘Religion and Education: A Children’s Rights Perspective’ (TCD/IHRC Conference on Religion

and Education, Trinity College Dublin, 20 November 2010) 3. 3 Ann Quennerstedt, ‘Education and Children’s Rights’ in Wouter Vandenhole, Ellen Desmet, Didier Reynaert,

Sara Lembrechts (eds), Routledge International Handbook of Children’s Rights Studies (Routledge 2015) 203-

206. 4 ibid, 206. 5 Delma Byrne, Frances McGinnity, Emer Smyth and Merike Darmody, ‘Immigration and School Composition

in Ireland’ [2010] 29(3) Irish Educational Studies 271, 272-273. 6 Central Statistics Office, Profile 6 Migration & Diversity in Ireland – A Profile of Diversity in Ireland (Cork, 4

October 2012)

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011profile6/Profile,6,Migration,and,Diversity,entir

e,doc.pdf accessed 29 April 2016.

2

migrants in Ireland. Indeed, Ireland is committed to resettling 4,000 refugees over the next two

years,7 with NGOs advocating for an increase to 22,000 refugees.8 A number of these migrants

are children of primary school age.9 It is the purpose of this paper to consider whether Irish law

extends the right to primary education to these migrant children. In following Quennerstedt’s

assertion that there are two aspects to the right to education, it will first be analysed whether

migrant children have access, both in theory and in practice, to primary education. The content

of primary education will subsequently be examined.

B. ACCESS OF MIGRANT CHILDREN TO PRIMARY EDUCATION

(i) Access to Education by Legislation

It is stipulated in Article 28(1)(a) CRC that primary education should be ‘compulsory and

available free to all’. However, whilst Ireland ratified the CRC in 1990, being a dualist state,

the provisions of the Convention can only be relied upon following transposition into national

law. Therefore, when considering the position of any fundamental right in Ireland, the

Constitution is the natural starting point. An explicit recognition that children are individual

rights holders was only inserted into the Constitution in April 2015.10 The inserted provision,

Article 42A, stipulates that ‘[t]he State recognises and affirms the natural and imprescriptible

rights of all children…’ [emphasis added]. Inclusion of the word ‘all’ has the effect of

extending this provision to non-Irish citizens.11 However, as this provision has not yet been

considered by the judiciary, there is a lack of clarity regarding which rights are ‘natural and

7 Sarah Bardon, ‘Fitzgerald confirms locations of 26 refugee housing sites’ The Irish Times (Dublin, 29

December 2015) <http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fitzgerald-confirms-locations-of-26-refugee-

housing-sites-1.2479011> accessed 29 April 2016. 8 Ruadhán Mac Cormaic, ‘Ireland should take in 22,000 refugees say agencies’ The Irish Times (Dublin, 7

December 2015) <http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/ireland-should-take-in-22-000-refugees-say-

agencies-1.2456622> accessed 29 April 2016. 9 ibid, 13. In Ireland, children generally attend primary school between the ages of 4 and 13. 10 Thirty-First Amendment to the Constitution (Children) Act 2012. See Article 42A.1 of the Constitution. 11 Children’s Right Alliance, Recognising Children’s Rights in the Constitution: The Thirty-First Amendment to

the Constitution (October 2012) 6.

3

imprescriptible’.12 It is currently uncertain whether the right to education is deemed to be a

‘natural and imprescriptible’ right. Hence, it is hoped that the judiciary shall interpret this

phrase in light of the CRC.13

Although O’Mahony recognises that Article 42A has a positive symbolic value,14 the provision

has been criticised elsewhere for failing to follow the far-reaching recommendations of the

Joint Committee.15 It is particularly regrettable that the proposal to extend the right to education

to all children was overlooked.16 This omission adversely affects migrant children as it has

prevented their right to education from securing constitutional protection. That said, the

Constitution does impose an obligation upon the State to ‘provide for free primary education’.17

Although children’s rights terminology is absent from this provision, it has the practical effect

of bestowing a right to free primary education to children. O’Higgins CJ has confirmed this,

stressing that children have the ‘corresponding right … to receive what must be provided

[pursuant to Article 42.4]’.18

It remains unclear whether migrants can rely on constitutional provisions which do not

explicitly recognise them.19 Thus, it is uncertain whether migrant children can derive a right to

free primary education from the Constitution. The European Union has indicated that migrant

children should be granted similar access to education as nationals.20 Nevertheless, it is

unfortunate that the recommendations of the Constitutional Review Committee to amend the

12 Conor O’Mahony ‘Legal Analysis of the Children’s Referendum: Article 42A.1’ (Human Right in Ireland, 23

October 2012) <http://humanrights.ie/constitution-of-ireland/legal-analysis-of-the-childrens-referendum-article-

42a-1/> accessed 29 April 2016. 13 Children’s Rights Alliance (2012) (n 11) 23. 14 O’Mahony (2012) (n 12). 15 Children’s Rights Alliance (2012) (n 11) 8. See also Aisling Parkes, Children and International Human Rights

Law: The Right of the Child to be Heard (Routledge Research in Human Rights Law 2013) 51. 16 ibid. 17 Article 42.4 of the Irish Constitution. 18 Crowley v Ireland [1980] IR 102, 122. 19 Arnold suggests that the judiciary may be able to hear complaints from non-Irish citizens; Samantha Arnold,

‘The Right to Family Life in Asylum Support Accommodation’ [2013] 16(2) Irish Journal of Family Law 49, 50. 20 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and Council of Europe, Handbook on European Law relating

to the Rights of the Child (Publications Office of the European Union 2015) 144.

4

Constitution to state that ‘[e]very child has a right to free primary … education’ was given

insufficient consideration.21 Such amendment would have ensured that migrant children have

an explicit constitutionally enshrined right to primary education.

Nevertheless, certain State obligations are prescribed by legislation. Indeed, the Education Act

1998 stipulates that the State is obliged to:

provide that, as far as practicable, … there is made available to people resident

in the State a level and quality of education appropriate to meeting the needs

and abilities of those people…22

The term ‘resident’ indicates that this obligation extends to migrant children, albeit those

legally residing in Ireland. Furthermore, section 10(1) of the Education (Welfare) Act 2000

provides that the State must ensure that every child resident ‘attends a recognised school or

otherwise receives a certain minimum education’.23 With specific reference to primary

education, section 4 of the Schools Attendance Act 1926 requires that parents ensure that their

children attend school. Persons not legally resident, such as asylum seekers in direct provision,

are also entitled to primary education.24

These measures ensure that, in theory, migrant children have access to primary education.

However, the legislation was not drafted utilising children’s rights terminology and renders

children dependent upon others, namely the State and their parents, to respect and vindicate

their right to primary education. Such measures reiterate the unwelcome affirmation that

children are mere passive objects as opposed to individual rights-holders.

21 Constitution Review Group, Report of the Constitution Review Group (Stationary Office 1996) 332. 22 Education Act 1998, section 6(b) [emphasis added]. 23 Section 2(1) of the Education (Welfare) Act 2000 defines a child as a person between the ages of 6 and 16 who

has not completed 3 years of secondary education. 24 Liam Thornton, ‘Direct Provision and the Rights of the Child in Ireland’ [2014] 17(3) Irish Journal of Family

Law 68, 68-69. Post-primary education is also provided.

5

(ii) Access to Education in Practice

Barriers may, however, be in place which prevent migrant children from accessing primary

education. It is the purpose of this section to consider whether such obstacles exist.

The State outsources primary education and, despite being state-funded, all primary schools

are privately owned and managed.25 Thus, approximately 96% of primary schools in Ireland

are owned and run by religious entities; 90% being Catholic denominational schools and 6%

being other, primarily Protestant, denominational schools.26 From a practical perspective,

O’Mahony rightly stresses that this ensures that parents, and by extension children, are stripped

of any real choice when selecting schools.27 More critically, there are indications that school

admission policies disadvantage and disfavour children of minority denominations.28 Indeed,

this has been recognised as being a significant ‘educational challenge’,29 and has been sharply

criticised by the Children’s Rights Alliance in it parallel report to Ireland’s report to the UN

Committee on the Rights of the Child.30

Allowing admission to primary school to be influenced by religion particularly impacts migrant

children because many are of ‘minority-faith backgrounds’.31 This has the effect of limiting

access to primary school education and precludes migrant children from realising their right to

primary education. This practice could also be contrary to the principle of non-discrimination,

25 Conor O’Mahony, ‘Education, Play and Leisure’ in Children’s Rights Alliance and the Law Centre for Children

and Young People, Making Rights Real for Children: A Children’s Rights Audit of Irish Law (28 July 2015) 131. 26 John Coolahan et al, The Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector: Report of the Forum’s

Advisory Group, (Department of Education and Skills, 2012) 29. 27 Conor O’Mahony, Educational Rights in Irish Law (Thomson Round Hall 2006) [4-33]. 28 Merike Darmody, Delma Byrne and Frances McGinnity, ‘Cumulative Disadvantage? Educational Careers of

Migrant Students in Irish Secondary Schools’ [2014] 17(1) Race Ethnicity and Education 129, 133. 29 Tara M Collins, ‘International Children’s Rights in National Constitutions: Good Sense or Nonsense for

Ireland?’ [2013] 28 Irish Political Studies 591, 604. 30 Children’s Rights Alliance, Are We There Yet?: Parallel Report to Ireland’s Third and Fourth Combined

Report under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Children’s Rights Alliance, September 2015) para

361. 31 Merike Darmody, ‘Power, Education and Migration into Ireland’ [2011] 3(3) Power and Education 224, 225.

See also Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, Observations on the Education (Admission to Schools)

Bill 2015 (November 2015) 15.

6

as enshrined in Article 2 CRC. Any infringement of Article 2 CRC is considered to be an

affront to human dignity and,32 unsurprisingly, the CRC Committee has criticised this

discriminatory admissions policy.33

The publication of the Education (Admission to Schools) Bill 2015 represented a step forward

in safeguarding the access to education of minority-faith children, including migrant children.

Indeed, section 61 of the Bill stipulates that, if enacted, schools will be precluded from

discriminating children on grounds of religion in the admission process. That said, this

prohibition is not absolute as section 62(6)(c)(iv) thereof permits refusal to admit in cases

where it would be ‘essential to maintain the [religious] ethos of the school’. Concern was

expressed that derogation from the prohibition of non-discrimination in this manner infringes

the right to education of children.34 Unsurprisingly, the inclusion of section 62(6)(c)(iv) in the

Bill has been sharply criticised.35 Therefore it is submitted that the Bill adversely impacts the

access of migrant children to primary education. By extension, this serves to undermine their

right to primary education.

Discriminatory admissions policies was not the only facet of access to education that was

highlighted by the Committee on the Rights of the Child as an area of concern. Indeed, the

Committee noted that, in essence, education was not available free of charge to children due to

‘the “de facto” cost of education and materials in public … schools’.36 These costs include,

inter alia, the mandatory purchase of specialised ‘crested uniforms’ and schoolbooks as well

32 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, ‘General Comment No 1: The Aims of Education’ (17 April 2001)

CRC/GC/2001/1, para 10 (General Comment No 1). 33 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, ‘Concluding Observations: Ireland’ (29 September 2006) UN Doc

CRC/C/IRL/CO/2, para 61; UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, ‘Concluding Observations on the

Combined Third and Fourth Periodic Reports of Ireland’ (29 January 2016) UN Doc CRC/C/IRL/CO/3-4, paras

63-64. 34 Coolahan et al (n 26) 77-78. This criticism was made in respect of section 7(3)(c) of the Equal Status Act 2000.

This provision, however, essentially has the same effect as section 62(6)(c)(iv) of the Education (Admission to

Schools) Bill 2015. 35 Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (n 31) 18. 36 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2006) (n 33) para 58.

7

as the payment of a ‘voluntary contribution’.37 The latter is a misnomer as evidence suggests

that children may be denied access to school facilities until payment has been made, making

the contribution mandatory as opposed to voluntary.38 Such costs particularly affect migrants

of limited financial means and limits access of these migrant to education. Irrespective of the

financial position of migrants, it cannot be denied that, contrary to Article 28 CRC, they do not

have the possibility to avail of free education.

Whilst legislation does provide that all children, including young migrants, are obliged to

attend primary and secondary school until the age of sixteen, access to this schooling is not

unimpeded. Indeed, obstacles in the form of restrictive admission policies and the requirement

to pay hidden costs particularly affect migrant children’s access to education. In addition to

impinging upon Articles 28 and 29 CRC, Article 2 CRC, which pertains to non-discrimination,

could be said to be infringed.

C. THE CONTENT OF PRIMARY EDUCATION IN IRISH SCHOOLS

In its first General Comment, the Committee on the Rights of the Child also asserted that the

content of education is an important component of the right to education. 39 Content includes

the teaching of ‘fact, values and skills as well as the processes in teaching and learning’.40 The

content of education is integral to ensuring that children receive an ‘effective education’ which

enables them to reach their maximum potential,41 one aim of Articles 28 and 29 CRC.42 In

analysing the right to primary education of migrant children, it must be examined whether the

content of the education is appropriate is to their needs. This paper will focus on the linguistic

and religious content of primary education.

37 Children’s Rights Alliance (September 2015) (n 30) paras 353-356. 38 ibid. 39 General Comment No 1 (n 32) para 3. 40 Quennerstedt (n 3) 207. 41 O’Mahony (2006) (n 27), para 4-16. 42 General Comment No 1 (n 32), para 1.

8

(i) Linguistic Content

General Comment No 1 indicates that education should be ‘tailored to the different needs of

different children’ which should correlate to the ‘child’s social, cultural, environmental and

economic context’.43 In the case of migrant children, this could indicate that they have the right

to education in their mother-tongue. Such an interpretation of Article 29 CRC would have a

significant, potentially crippling, effect in Ireland because, as noted supra, there has been a

vast increase in immigration.

O’Mahony has posited, however, that the judiciary is unlikely to extend the educational rights

in Article 42.4 to impose an obligation upon the State to provide for free primary education in

a language other than the official languages of Ireland.44 That said, section 6(k) of the

Education Act 1998 notes that schools should ‘have regard’ to the ‘promot[ion of] the language

and cultural needs of students’. A broad interpretation of this provision could impose an

obligation upon schools to make available a certain level of tuition in the native language of

migrant children. Ultimately, however, due to the linguistic diversity of migrants in Ireland,

the provision of education through the mother-tongue of migrants would inflict too onerous a

burden upon the State.45

The solution adopted in Irish primary schools is to provide additional and specialised English

language support.46 This supplementary tuition likely aims to aid the integration of migrant

children into Irish society. As the 2011 census revealed that migrants tend to have a relatively

poor command of the English language, providing extra linguistic support ensures that the

content of education is tailored to needs of migrant children.47

43 ibid, para 9. 44 O’Mahony (2006) (n 27), para 4-64. Irish and English are the official languages of Ireland. 45 Daniel Faas, Beata Sokolowska and Merike Darmody, ‘”Everything is Available to Them”: Support Measures

for Migrant Students in Irish Secondary Schools’ [2015] 63(4) British Journal of Educational Studies 447, 454. 46 ibid. 47 Central Statistics Office (n 6) 28.

9

In practice, however, the additional English language training provided to migrant children has

proven to be disappointing as the specialised resource teachers are often inadequately trained.48

Similarly mainstream teachers tend to have insufficient knowledge of the pedagogy of second

language acquisition.49 This limits the development of migrant children’s social and academic

language, precluding them from taking an active role in their education.50 This could arguably

be said to limit the ability of the child to be heard, rendering it contrary to Article 12 CRC.

Sufficient support in primary school education would benefit children throughout their

educational career.

In addition, the provision of additional English language tuition can adversely affect the child

by leading to migrant children being stigmatised and ostracised by their peers.51 Negative

reactions from other student are likely induced by the ‘withdrawal’ system wherein a migrant

child leaves the classroom during the school day to receive language support classes.52 As this

system has the effect of stigmatising migrant children, it is arguably contrary to Article 3 CRC

which attaches importance to the ‘best interests of the child’. Furthermore, a possible by-

product of this withdrawal system could be discouragement in partaking in English language

support classes due to stigmatisation.

It appears that the linguistic needs of migrant students are not met in Irish primary schools. A

lack of proficiency in the English language will adversely affect the right of the child to be

heard as he or she will be unable to express his or herself. Moreover, the provision of

inadequate English language tuition is contrary to the ‘best interests of the child’, a seminal

right of all children. In practice, the linguistic content of education in Ireland does not appear

48 Miho Taguma, Moonhee Kim, Gregory Wurzburg and Frances Kelly, OECD Review of Migrant Education:

Ireland (OECD, December 2009) 41. 49 ibid. 50 ibid, 39. 51 Audrey Bryan, ‘Corporate Multiculturalism, diversity management, and positive interculturalism in Irish

Schools and Society’ [2010] 29(3) Irish Educational Studies 253, 261. 52 ibid.

10

to be CRC-compliant. Ultimately, it could be said that, with regard to migrant children,

education in Irish primary schools is contrary to Article 29 CRC on the basis that such

education may inhibit the 'development of respect for … [the] language … [of] the country

from which [the child] may originate’.

(ii) Religious Content

As illustrated supra, the vast majority of Irish primary schools are under the ownership and

management of religious patronage whereas migrant children tend to belong to minority

denominations. This essentially means that the ‘default position’ for children is to receive

schooling in a religious environment.53 Whilst this impinges access to education, it has a greater

effect on the content of education. Although Article 14 CRC calls upon State Parties to ‘respect’

the right to religious freedom of all children, Kilkelly rightly posits that the CRC does not

require State Parties to provide ‘educat[ion] in accordance with … religious conviction’.54

Until recently,55 the content of Irish primary education was governed by Rule 68 of the Rules

for National Schools 1965 which requires that denominational primary schools follow the

‘integrated curriculum’56 wherein religious ethos and beliefs should ‘inform and vivify the

whole work of the school’.57 The abolition of Rule 65 is beneficial for minority-faith students

as brought about the removal of the requirement to take ‘due regard’ of minority faiths.58

Nevertheless, the rule is likely to remain influential. Although Article 44.2.4o of the Irish

Constitution establishes that children can opt-out of religious education in primary school, the

53 Barbara O’Toole, ‘1831–2014: an opportunity to get it right this time? Some thoughts on the current debate on

patronage and religious education in Irish primary schools’ [2015] 34(1) Irish Educational Studies 89, 90. 54 Kilkelly (n 2) 4. 55 Aine McMahon, ‘Rule prioritising religion classes in primary school abolished’ The Irish Times (Dublin, 28

January 2016) http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/rule-prioritising-religion-classes-in-primary-schools-

abolished-1.2514202 accessed 29 April 16. 56 Conor O’Mahony, ‘Opting Out of Religious Instruction: Rules under the Irish Constitution and ECHR’

(Constitution Project @ UCC, 24 November 2015) http://constitutionproject.ie/?p=554 accessed 29 April 2016. 57 Rules for National Schools 1965, Rule 68. 58 Dympna Glendenning, Religion, Education and the Law: A Comparative Approach (Tottel Publishing, 2008)

para 9.028.

11

Irish judiciary has affirmed that a complete opt-out is not possible. Indeed, in Campaign to

Separate Church and State Ltd v Minister for Education, Barrington J acknowledged the

distinction between ‘religious education’ and ‘religious instruction’, stipulating that the opt-

out covers the latter but not the former.59 He stressed that the Constitution cannot and does not

protect children from being influenced by the religious ethos of the school.60

O’Mahony asserts that this judgment serves to limit the right to opt-out of religious education

in primary schools.61 Moreover, it appears that even when children do exercise their right to

opt-out, they tend to remain at the back of the classroom and, as a consequence, are still exposed

to religious teaching.62 That said, as with the provision of additional English language tuition,

withdrawing the child from the classroom for the duration of timetabled religion may not be

the optimum solution due to the stigmatisation that may occur as a result. It would, therefore,

seem that the content of education is not tailored to the needs of migrant children of different

religious backgrounds.

Furthermore, Barbara O’Toole expresses concern that religious denominational primary

schools do not adequately promote tolerance and inclusiveness towards other faiths.63 This is

somewhat concerning as General Comment No 1 acknowledges that one aim of education to

promote tolerance and equality.64 This would suggest that the content of education in Irish

primary schools does not correlate with the objectives of the CRC. Nevertheless, it has been

that recognised the establishment of secular state primary schools throughout Ireland is not

realistic.65 Progress has been made in the last few months as it has been announced that Rule

59 [1998] ILRM 81, 101. 60 ibid. 61 O’Mahony (2015) (n 56). 62 Conor O’Mahony, ‘Religious Liberty in the Irish Education System’ in Derek Davies and Elena

Miroshnikova (eds) The Routledge International Handbook of Religious Education (Routledge, 2012) 156, 161. 63 O’Toole (n 53) 97-99. 64 General Comment No 1 (n 32) paras 4, 16, 19. 65 O’Mahony (2012) (n 62) 162.

12

68 will be abolished in the near future.66 However, it is uncertain whether the removal of this

rule will have any significant impact in practice. Another option, recently piloted in a select

number of schools, is to provide religion classes in several faiths which allows each child to

attend the class pertaining to his or her faith.67 This is arguably a more preferable solution as it

facilitates the nurturing and development of all children’s faiths.

The explicit focus on promoting Christian ethos and values, renders the content of education

delivered in primary institutions in Ireland inadequately tailored to the needs of minority-faith

migrant children. Indeed, it could be argued that development of their faith is not given

sufficient consideration. In turn, that could impinge the general development of the child and

is unlikely to be deemed to be in accordance with Article 6 CRC. Therefore, it is submitted that

the content of such education insufficiently caters for the needs of migrant children in Ireland

and arguably undermines their right to primary education.

D. CONCLUSION

It is evident that the right to education is not limited to the text of Article 28 and 29 CRC but

touches upon numerous provisions of the Convention, including, as mentioned supra, Articles

2, 3, 6 and 12 thereof.68 Indeed, the right to education is a seminal right and assists the child in

realising the scope of other provisions of the CRC. It is welcome that, in theory, migrant

children have access to primary education in Ireland, notwithstanding the fact that the measures

have not been drafted utilising children’s rights terminology. It is unfortunate that the newly

inserted Article 42A contains far weaker provisions than the prior proposals and, therefore, it

66 Carl O’Brien, ‘Rule on priority of primary-level religion classes to go’ The Irish Times (8 December 2015)

<http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/rule-on-priority-of-primary-level-religion-classes-to-go-

1.2459167> accessed 29 April 2016. 67 Carl O’Brien, ‘Is this the answer to the school patronage debate?’ The Irish Times (19 January 2016)

<http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/is-this-the-answer-to-the-school-patronage-debate-1.2496735>

accessed 29 April 2016. 68 Mieke Verheyde, ‘Article 28: The Right to Education’ in André Alen et al (eds), A Commentary on the UN

Convention of the Rights of the Child (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006), para. 1.

13

is advised that legislation recognising the right to education of all children be enacted.

Nonetheless, in practice, access to primary education is not straightforward. Although lawful,

restrictive admissions policies can preclude migrant children from accessing education.

Furthermore, hidden costs in the form of ‘voluntary contributions’, crested uniforms and

schoolbooks prevent children from receiving free education.

In addition, the content of education, from a linguistic and religious perspective, tends to be

inappropriate for the needs of migrant children. Cutbacks on the provision of the additional

English language supports will likely have adverse consequences on the development of

migrant children. Similarly, the focus on the promotion of Catholic teaching precludes the

nurturing of the religious beliefs of minority-faith migrants. It is submitted that, as migrants

have limited access to primary education and the content is not tailored to their needs, their

right to education, as contained in Article 28 CRC, is not fully realised. The obstacles to the

realisation of the right to primary education hinder migrant children in Ireland from fulfilling

the aims of the CRC and reaching their ‘fullest potential’.

14

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arnold S, ‘The Right to Family Life in Asylum Support Accommodation’ [2013] 16(2) Irish

Journal of Family Law 49.

Bardon S, ‘Fitzgerald confirms locations of 26 refugee housing sites’ The Irish Times (Dublin,

29 December 2015) <http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fitzgerald-confirms-locations-

of-26-refugee-housing-sites-1.2479011> accessed 29 April 2016.

Bryan A, ‘Corporate Multiculturalism, diversity management, and positive interculturalism in

Irish Schools and Society’ [2010] 29(3) Irish Educational Studies 253.

Byrne D, McGinnity F, Smyth E and Darmody M, ‘Immigration and School Composition in

Ireland’ [2010] 29(3) Irish Educational Studies 271.

Central Statistics Office, Profile 6 Migration & Diversity in Ireland – A Profile of Diversity in

Ireland (Cork, 4 October 2012)

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011profile6/Profile,6,Migration,

and,Diversity,entire,doc.pdf accessed 29 April 2016.

Children’s Right Alliance, Recognising Children’s Rights in the Constitution: The Thirty-First

Amendment to the Constitution (October 2012).

Children’s Rights Alliance, Are We There Yet?: Parallel Report to Ireland’s Third and Fourth

Combined Report under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Children’s Rights

Alliance, September 2015).

Collins T M, ‘International Children’s Rights in National Constitutions: Good Sense or

Nonsense for Ireland?’ [2013] 28 Irish Political Studies 591.

Constitution Review Group, Report of the Constitution Review Group (Stationary Office

1996).

Coolahan J et al, The Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector: Report of the

Forum’s Advisory Group, (Department of Education and Skills, 2012).

Darmody M, ‘Power, Education and Migration into Ireland’ [2011] 3(3) Power and Education

224.

Darmody M, Byrne D and McGinnity F, ‘Cumulative Disadvantage? Educational Careers of

Migrant Students in Irish Secondary Schools’ [2014] 17(1) Race Ethnicity and Education 129.

15

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and Council of Europe, Handbook on

European Law relating to the Rights of the Child (Publications Office of the European Union

2015).

Faas D, Sokolowska B and Darmody M, ‘”Everything is Available to Them”: Support

Measures for Migrant Students in Irish Secondary Schools’ [2015] 63(4) British Journal of

Educational Studies 447.

Glendenning D, Religion, Education and the Law: A Comparative Approach (Tottel

Publishing, 2008).

Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, Observations on the Education (Admission to

Schools) Bill 2015 (November 2015).

Kilkelly U, ‘Religion and Education: A Children’s Rights Perspective’ (TCD/IHRC

Conference on Religion and Education, Trinity College Dublin, 20 November 2010).

Mac Cormaic R, ‘Ireland should take in 22,000 refugees say agencies’ The Irish Times (Dublin,

7 December 2015) <http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/ireland-should-take-in-22-

000-refugees-say-agencies-1.2456622> accessed 29 April 2016.

McMahon A, ‘Rule prioritising religion classes in primary school abolished’ The Irish Times

(Dublin, 28 January 2016) http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/rule-prioritising-

religion-classes-in-primary-schools-abolished-1.2514202 accessed 29 April 16.

O’Brien C, ‘Is this the answer to the school patronage debate?’ The Irish Times (19 January

2016) <http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/is-this-the-answer-to-the-school-

patronage-debate-1.2496735> accessed 29 April 2016.

O’Brien C, ‘Rule on priority of primary-level religion classes to go’ The Irish Times (8

December 2015) <http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/rule-on-priority-of-primary-

level-religion-classes-to-go-1.2459167> accessed 29 April 2016.

O’Mahony C, ‘Opting Out of Religious Instruction: Rules under the Irish Constitution and

ECHR’ (Constitution Project @ UCC, 24 November 2015) http://constitutionproject.ie/?p=554

accessed 29 April 2016.

O’Mahony C, ‘Education, Play and Leisure’ in Children’s Rights Alliance and the Law Centre

for Children and Young People, Making Rights Real for Children: A Children’s Rights Audit

of Irish Law (28 July 2015).

16

O’Mahony C, ‘Religious Liberty in the Irish Education System’ in Davies D and Miroshnikova

E (eds) The Routledge International Handbook of Religious Education (Routledge, 2012) 156.

O’Mahony C, ‘Legal Analysis of the Children’s Referendum: Article 42A.1’ (Human Right in

Ireland, 23 October 2012) <http://humanrights.ie/constitution-of-ireland/legal-analysis-of-the-

childrens-referendum-article-42a-1/> accessed 29 April 2016.

O’Mahony C, Educational Rights in Irish Law (Thomson Round Hall 2006).

O’Toole B, ‘1831–2014: an opportunity to get it right this time? Some thoughts on the current

debate on patronage and religious education in Irish primary schools’ [2015] 34(1) Irish

Educational Studies 89.

Parkes A, Children and International Human Rights Law: The Right of the Child to be Heard

(Routledge Research in Human Rights Law 2013).

Quennerstedt A, ‘Education and Children’s Rights’ in Vandenhole W, Desmet E, Reynaert D,

Lembrechts S (eds), Routledge International Handbook of Children’s Rights Studies

(Routledge 2015).

Taguma M, Kim M, Wurzburg G and Kelly F, OECD Review of Migrant Education: Ireland

(OECD, December 2009).

Thornton L, ‘Direct Provision and the Rights of the Child in Ireland’ [2014] 17(3) Irish Journal

of Family Law 68.

Verheyde M, ‘Article 28: The Right to Education’ in Alen A et al (eds), A Commentary on the

UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006).

UN Documents

Convention of the Rights of the Child (adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2

September 1990) 1577 UNTS 3.

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, ‘Concluding Observations: Ireland’ (29 September

2006) UN Doc CRC/C/IRL/CO/2.

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, ‘Concluding Observations on the Combined Third

and Fourth Periodic Reports of Ireland’ (29 January 2016) UN Doc CRC/C/IRL/CO/3-4.

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, ‘General Comment No 1: The Aims of Education’

(17 April 2001) CRC/GC/2001/1.

17

Legislation

Thirty-First Amendment to the Constitution (Children) Act 2012.

Education Act 1998.

Education (Welfare) Act 2000.

Equal Status Act 2000.

Schools Attendance Act 1926.

Education (Admission to Schools) Bill 2015.

Case Law

Campaign to Separate Church and State Ltd v Minister for Education [1998] ILRM 81.

Crowley v Ireland [1980] IR 102.