Here are the guidelines from the department. https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/d3c55-department-of-education-guidance-on-the-use-of-face-coverings-in-primary-schools/
I would bet there'll be no successful challenge to this.
Why?
It's not that difficult to understand in fairness.
Why not?!
high profile issue , virtual guarentee of winning
its not only the very wealthy who mount such challenges , we have a strong constitution
What's the constitutional challenge that would be winnable in the Supreme Court?
What's the specific constitutional grounds for winning?
It could be a point of importance, i.e. calling NPHET personnel to court as expert witnesses to provide evidence to justify the recommendations that they made.
Doomed to failure I'd think( but I only have a layman's understanding of the law). Therefore I wonder why any lawyer, let alone "plenty" would take such a case on pro bono? What benefit would it be to them that they'd want to take it on free of charge?
kids have a right to an education under the constitution , its unambiguous
no way would NPHET do that , it would have happened by now in other instances were that the case and NPHET would happily attend if they thought they could sway a case
To stay for how long? Decades? If Omicron turns out to be not as bad as was feared and the vaccination campaign for under-12s is successful then the mask requirement might cease in all schools.
There are no witnesses in the Supreme Court.
Parents are the primary educators under the constitution. A right to education isn't being denied. Wear a mask and in you go. 🤷♀️
What it actually says is:
Art 42.4: The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.
The state provides free (haha) education. There is no mention in the Bunreacht of a "right to education". It's not an absolute right and like most things as it is subject to rules.
thats your interpretation , they wont prevent kids who refuse to wear masks from getting an education , they may succeed for a while but universal compliance wont be achieved by way of denying entry outright
Then in the High Court!
The Supreme Court is the place for constitutional challenges.
Any word on compliance among pupils and teachers in secondary schools so far?
Not an interpretation. That's what the Bunreacht says:
Art 42.1: The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
It's the place for final decisions on such challenges. Presumably, the challenge would be commenced in the High Court.
Caused no problems at second level
Indeed. After all, pupils whose parents won't get them to wear masks and thus undergo home schooling instead would be in a position no worse than what those pupils who have to stay at home because of serious health problems (e.g. cystic fibrosis) are in during the pandemic.
I'm in secondary. Can only speak for my own experiences and those I've heard from colleagues in other schools. Compliance is good, some reminders needed to get students (amd some teachers) to keep noses covered and occasionally we need to provide masks to students who break/wet/lose their own. I have two students in my tutor group who have sensory issues and their parents rang us looking to find a solution on masks. Initally they wore visors but when we switched to masks only following advice that visors weren't adequate we set up plans for these students.
One got a "mask break pass" which they presented to the teacher when they needed to go outside and get a break from their mask, the other mother was really proactive with trial and error of different types of mask and eventually found one her son could happily tolerate. That student was also offered a mask break pass but he felt he didn't need it. First student rarely uses her pass these days.
Management in our school has been very proactive about encouraging us to take students outside for 5 min mask breaks as the need arises and we take a "remind not reprimand" approach to correct mask wearing etiquette.
By the way, I think kids wearing masks in primary school is awful and another example of NPHET nonsense, but I just don't see it as the constitutional hurdle the government will fall on.
It was a joke, back in the box there.
well firstly you cannot know that for sure but secondly and more importantly , a person aged fifteen is at a very different stage of development to someone who is five or six
Why would we even need a legal challenge? This isn't the law, this is advice from a tosspot civil servant.
If they want to exclude kids from school, they can get up to phoenix park and make miggeldy sign his name to a law.
Until then it's advice.
Good point, only speaking from my own experience. I'm not aware of any secondary schools it caused issues in. Are you?
A five or six year old isn't being asked to wear a mask. But while you raise comparisons, an 11 or 12 year old at primary is at a similar developmental stage to a 12 or 13 year old at secondary.
not all secondary students are 15 and no 5 or 6 year is expected to wear a mask. Majority of 3rd class will be 9 - with the odd 8 year old turning 9 during the school year.
Masks in primary school appear to be a highly emotive polarising topic but to be fair the gap is 9 years old vs 12 year olds ( 1st year ) - so 3 years give or take not 10.
