イギリスにおける親の学校選択をめぐる問題状況 : 地方オンブズマンへの不服申し立て事例より(IV 研究ノート)
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
The Education Act 1980 is known for its clauses concerning to parental rights on their children's schooling. The section 6 provides that every local education authority (LEA) "shall make arrangements for enabling the parent of a child in the area of the authority to express a preference as to the school at which he wishes education to be provided for his child in the exercise of the authority's functions and to give reasons for his preference". The subject of this paper is to clarify the present conditions on the problem of parental choice which has been caused since the Act become effective. 1) The statutory clauses on parental choice One of the distinctive features of the parental choice clauses is that the reasons for choice anticipated by the LEAs were not restricted to denominational education. That is, the parental choice seemed to be recognized as a right to access to various kinds of education. There are some provisions for restriction to parental choice. The duty imposed to LEA and governors of a county and voluntary school to comply with parental preference does not apply if compliance with the preference would prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources. If parents were refused a place at a school of their choice for their child, they could appeal against allocation of place to an appeal committee constituted by LEA or governors of the school. Furthermore, if they did not succeed their appeal, they still have chance to make representation directly to the Secretary of State, to bring an action to the court and to submit their complaints to the local commissioners (or "ombudsmen"), who are the investigators of "maladministration" in local government. 2) The present conditions concerning to the problem of parental choice The following cases represent the typical problems on allocating places described in the ombudsmen's reports on the journal "Education". (1) Complaint concerning to the priority among the reasons for choice of school A disputed point drawn from a case about the way Hertfordshire County Council handled the allocation was whether the criteria listed by the council as being relevant to allocation would be reasonably put in order and the complainant's reasons (school's reputation and geographical proximity) would be properly considered or not. (2) The provision for restriction and the onus of proof There was confusion about the function of Durham Council's Appeal Committee when parents complained that their five-year-olds were refused places at the infant school of their choice. Confusion among members of the Committee about where the onus of proof lay seemed to have diverted them from making enquiries needed to examine the claim that the efficient use of resourses would be prejudiced. The Evans case is the first one in which judicial consideration has been given to the procedural provisions of the Education Act 1980. In the High Court on May 1984, Justice Forbes held that the Appeal Committee had misdirected themselves and that the decision should be quashed. The disputed point is also concerned to the onus of proof. (3) For a discussion to the relation between Parental Choice and Equal Educational Opportunity A father complained about the way South Glamorgan County Council restricted the intake to a secondary school. This, he said, meant he was denied the freedom of choice to send his son to the school. But in this case the Council's argument was upheld by the ombudsman that because of efficient use of resourcesat other schools. M. G. Nichols (director of education, Wirral) said in hisarticle; "when we emphasise 'parental choice' and emphasise the right of parents to appeal against admission limits, what do we do to the equal rights of other parents ?" It will be possible to argue the relation between parental choice and equal educational opportunity from the view-point of the meaning of the provisions for restriction of the Act.
- 日本教育行政学会の論文
- 1986-10-10