One headmaster of BRA said that he judged any crisis in the school by its propensity to set tea cups rattling on their saucers in the living rooms of Jordanstown.

The current saga of BRA’s admissions criteria may qualify.

Its present Principal went into print early and declared that the school would not use academic criteria this year and also published independently the substitute criteria.

These were subsequently incorporated into the Education Authority [“EA”] website and promptly lawyers on behalf of Holy Cross Boy, indicated that they proposed to judicially review them. One issue was children who were entitled to Free School Meals [“FSM”] and there was also a whiff that BRA was discriminating on religious grounds.

From the documentary evidence available, it is not clear whether the BRA board formally approved the published criteria. They were certainly susceptible to challenge, as I noted in my last blog.

Now, new criteria have been published by EA. The BBC characterised these as giving priority to FSM pupils.

The relevant , changed criteria are these:

“3. Belfast Royal Academy will apply the following admissions criteria in the order set out below: 

1. those children registered for the AQE Common Entrance Assessment on the date when registration for 

the AQE Common Entrance Assessment 2021 closed (see Note A). 

Applicants who are entitled to Free School Meals (FSME): Priority to be given so that the proportion of such children admitted is not less than the proportion of first preference FSME applications received within the total number of first preference applications received. The calculation of this proportion will be based on the first preference applications received by the School on or before the 12 April 2021 (no later than 4 pm) and the proportion will be applied in the manner set out in DE Circular 2016/15. 

If the School is oversubscribed following the application of criterion 3 (i), then all applicants who meet criterion 3 (i) will be prioritised for admission by applying the following criteria in order:”

Criteria 3(2) and so on appear to be, with some exceptions, the same as previously published:

1. “present members of the School in its Preparatory Department who have been registered since the Autumn term of the 2020/21 academic year (see Note B); 
2. those children who have a child of the family currently in attendance at Belfast Royal Academy; 
3. those children who have had a child of the family who previously attended the School (dates to be 

supplied);

1. those children who, at the time of their application, have a parent/guardian who is a member of the 

permanent teaching, administrative, or ancillary staff of Belfast Royal Academy; 

• those children who are pupils at a specified feeder primary school subject to the information set out 

below (see Note C); 

• those children who have or had a parent or guardian who attended the School (dates to be supplied); 
• those children who are the eldest or only child of the family or a twin (see Note D); and 
• those children who are the eldest boy or eldest girl of the family (see Note D).”

Let’s consider Billy from the Ballygomartin, who is in receipt of FSM. His parents entered him for the AQE, so he qualifies for consideration to admission to BRA.

The next section of criterion 3 (i)  purports to set out how he will be qualified or not as a FSM applicant.

It does not actually say that FSM children will be admitted first or in priority to other applicants. It is in most respects a straight copy of the model criterion set out by the Department of Education in Circular. The use of first preference applications appears to be  in contravention of the statement set out earlier:

1. “The Board of Governors will not use as a criterion the position of preference given to the School by the applicant on the Transfer Application. Therefore, an applicant who has listed Belfast Royal Academy as a second or subsequent preference school will be considered in the same way as those who have placed this School first on the list, where the applicant does not secure admission to his or her first preference school”. 

Leaving that difficulty aside, the next question is ‘do FSM children get priority admission?’ On one reading of criterion 3 (i) it might be said that they do. Billy’s parents would , however, have no idea how the number of FSM applicants will be calculated. 

All is well until one considers the next statement:

“If the School is oversubscribed following the application of criterion 3 (i), then all applicants who meet criterion 3 (i) will be prioritised for admission by applying the following criteria in order:”

It appears that “all applicants who meet criterion 3(i) will be prioritised”. That surely must include Billy. So Billy must now show that he meets one or more of the subsequent criteria, in order to gain a place.

It can hardly have been the intention of BRA to design such an outcome.

It would have been simple to state that:

An applicant must have applied to sit AQE

The first children to be admitted will be FSM children in accordance with the following criterion.

Thereafter, the ‘old’ criteria will be used.

Two other matters are noteworthy. If a child does not qualify under the FSM criterion, [if that criterion is actually workable] is that pupil excluded or might he/she be admitted under another criterion?

BRA has extended its list of feeder schools by four and , magically, Holy Cross Boys School now appears. Mrs Woods told us that the list of feeder schools had been calculated using historical data. The appearance of a further four schools has not been explained.

Courts dealing with admissions criteria have been at pains to underline that criteria should be fair and transparent. That means that a person of average ability can read and understand them, there should be no ambiguity and a parent should therefore be able to make an informed choice for their child.

Sadly, BRA’s latest iteration fails these tests.

BRA issued a lengthy statement about the saga, seeking to explain the circumstances and taking a swipe at the “press and  media”.  President Reagan is credited with saying: “when you are explaining you are losing”.

Parents and the wider BRA family may be dismayed by the lack of acuity shown by the Principal and the Board. Some will, no doubt, wonder if the Holy Cross Boy judicial review was settled and if so, what were the terms? Is it coincidence that his school has been added to the feeder school list?  Can anyone make any sense of criterion 3(i)? Will further judicial review threats result in other re-drafts?

The tea cups may begin rattling outside of Jordanstown.