Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Mar 2006

Vol. 615 No. 5

School Discipline: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved by Deputy Enright on Tuesday, 28 February 2006:
That Dáil Éireann:
—concerned at growing indiscipline in Ireland's schools;
—noting the findings of the interim report of the task force on student behaviour that the disruptive behaviour in our schools included threats against teachers and their property, fighting, assault and the carrying of dangerous weapons on school property;
—noting especially that some examples of student behaviour notified to the task force were of such a serious nature as to be considered criminal behaviour; and
—accepting that the discipline problems in our schools reduce the performance of students as a whole, and lead to the potential loss of teachers from the profession;
calls on the Government to:
—immediately publish the final report of the task force on student behaviour, under the chairmanship of Maeve Martin;
—outline its legislative response to tackling school discipline problems, in particular, its response to the difficulties posed by section 29 of the Education Act 1998; and
—put in place specific measures to make schools good places to teach, and to learn, including the implementation of a national anti-bullying strategy.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
—supports the measured and focussed manner in which the Minister for Education and Science has approached the issue of student behaviour in our second level schools;
—notes the fact that a Task Force established by the Minister has now completed its work;
—commends the fact that funding has been provided in 2006 to commence the implementation of the recommendations of the Task Force; and
—notes further the Minister's intention to publish the Report and set out her intended approach to implementation in March 2006.
—(Minister for Education and Science)

I wish to share time with Deputy Cregan. I am delighted to be able to address the House on this issue. As a former school teacher I have had direct experience of disruptive behaviour. As a former pupil, I have also had direct experience of it as have many other Members, I am sure.

It is a curious time to introduce this topic on Private Member's Business by virtue of the fact that the final report has not been published. The interim report has been published but this has the feeling of half-time entertainment while the real event is waiting to be rolled out. A great range of types of behaviour is in danger of being described by this motion, from so-called messing, natural high spirits and exuberance that one would expect of young people right up to violent behaviour that is the real concern of many. While acknowledging this range of behaviour, we must also acknowledge that it is only at the very top end of the scale that a problem exists. The rest is manageable by teachers, or at least should be, as part of their professional abilities.

The stress that disruptive behaviour places on teachers can be very difficult to bear. I have seen the damage it does to their private and personal lives when they are targeted by children who see a weakness in them. It is an issue that must be taken seriously and for that reason, I welcome this debate.

I have noticed a common problem in that a set of students is well behaved for one teacher but badly behaved for another. This demonstrates that often the teacher in question will require some help to avoid disruptive behaviour within the classroom. The continuous professional development of teachers has attracted an increase in funding of 15%, to €27 million. I was surprised to see the TUI so critical of the funding that has been secured for this area, when the task force finally reported. There are so many other investments in this area, for example, the money being spent under targets for home, school, community liaison and the school completion programme. There is no doubt all of this investment will eventually filter down and result in better behaviour in classrooms.

Many parents complain about the damage done to other students when disruptive behaviour occurs but that can be overestimated. It is somewhat like the anti-social behaviour issue. At a low level, it is ordinary children having a laugh, but at a higher level, as was seen on "Prime Time", it is criminal behaviour. Anti-social behaviour has become a catch-all description for so many things and the term "disruptive behaviour" has the same capacity to describe a large number of things. We must be careful and acknowledge that we are dealing with a reasonably limited number of problematic situations.

When I was a teacher some time ago teacher counsellors were introduced. I am not sure if they are still in place following the pilot scheme that was introduced in the late 1990s.

One of the TUI recommendations is to separate children when they are recognised as being disruptive but that should be a last resort, if a resort at all. I strongly recommend that students should be dealt with within their own schools. Otherwise, one is simply transferring the problem and stigmatising children when it is the duty of a school to try to deal with such problems itself and not to separate children out or send them to other schools.

What stands out for me is the need to have a flexible response to the problem of disruptive students. One could set down codes of behaviour and strict requirements for parents, teachers and students but ultimately, every situation is different and every school should be able to respond with flexibility and within a framework. I hope the report from the task force is published soon.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this important debate. I wish to refer to the four terms of reference set in place for the task force. It was asked to examine the issue of disruptive students' behaviour as it impacts on teaching and learning, to consider the effectiveness of strategies currently employed to address this issue, to advise on existing best practice, both nationally and internationally, in fostering positive student behaviour and finally, to make recommendations on how best to promote an improved climate for teaching and learning in classrooms and schools.

The task force was set up in February 2005, not because student disruption was at a crisis level in our schools but because the Minister anticipated the work of the task force would be a consolidating influence in contributing to the orderly and harmonious patterns of behaviour that characterise the majority of second level schools. The Minister wants the work of the task force to help provide a basis of support and guidance for those schools that are troubled by persistent indiscipline.

The task force began its work by inviting, by public advertisement, submissions from interested individuals and groups and over 150 were received. The task force prioritised collaboration with the partners in education as a guiding feature of its work. It held 19 plenary sessions in 2005, at which each of the partners in education took part. This process of consultation with the education partners has provided an opportunity for all of the major stakeholders in our education system to be intimately involved in the work of the task force and to inform its final report and recommendations.

I welcome the fact the task force delivered its interim report in June of last year. In the context of that report, it should be stressed that while there was serious concern about disruption levels in some schools, there was also very encouraging and positive evidence that the majority of students in the school system are engaged, compliant and well behaved. In considering the effectiveness of the strategies currently employed by schools, a range of measures and variables is at work. Chief among them are the quality of school personnel, the culture and ethos of the school and the structure and supports in operation.

On the issue of the continuous professional development of teachers, departmental commitment was clearly demonstrated by the budget allocation for in-service training for the current year of almost €27 million. This represents an increase of 15% on last year. The leadership development for schools service provides professional development for school leaders at primary and post-primary level. The National Educational Welfare Board has commenced work on developing guidelines for schools on codes of behaviour, as provided for under section 23 of the Education (Welfare) Act 2000. A working group on student councils has recently completed very valuable work and has produced much material, including a website to support schools in the establishment and operation of effective student councils.

The post-primary curriculum currently provides a variety of programmes designed to meet the needs of a diverse cohort of students. It includes the junior certificate programme, transition year and the leaving certificate programmes, applied and vocational. The Department provides a variety of support services which assist schools in developing and implementing school plans and policies in support of the delivery of subjects such as social, personal and health education and civic, social and political education. All second level schools receive a quota of hours to provide guidance and counselling to their students. The National Educational Psychological Service is a support service to schools for individual students who encounter difficulties. Under the delivery of equality of opportunity in schools, a continuing emphasis should be placed on the development of effective transfer programmes by building on the existing work of the community liaison system and the school completion programme. Other areas, such as extending access to guidance counselling and student councils, will also be facilitated through the action plan.

The interim report suggests that promoting positive behaviour in schools depends on a number of factors including the following: effective and visionary leadership, professional development of teaching skills and methodology, a broad and balanced curriculum that motivates and raises self esteem, access to a range of in-school activities, co-operation between schools and parents, access to a range of behavioural supports and provision for a minority of students of supports not ordinarily available in mainstream classrooms.

Personal behaviour is important and we encounter it in many walks of life, whether in driving behaviour or behaviour in schools. People must be responsible for and take account of their behaviour. I am glad we have a Minister who is a former teacher, a caring person, who is well briefed and keen to ensure our children get the best possible education with the supports and grant-in-aid put in place. Our teachers have a difficult and stressful job and by and large do a good job. I commend the Minister on her work in this area.

I wish to share time with Deputy Peter Power.

I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on this motion about school discipline. School discipline and how it is handled has changed. During my school days if one came home and told one's mother and father that one had been slapped at school, one was asked what one was up to and got another slap. The position has changed for the better.

I share many of the sentiments expressed in the first part of the Fine Gael motion. Few could fail to be concerned about growing indiscipline in schools, and it is a problem. I would not like the problem to be overstated. Certainly the level of school discipline has changed since my time at school and certainly the tactics employed to maintain discipline have changed utterly. While we all welcome the end of corporal punishment, how a teacher maintains order in a modern classroom must be a difficult task. The problem must not be overstated.

The Minister has explained clearly that the task force on student behaviour was not set up because student disruption is at crisis level but rather to reinforce the fact that the majority of our second level schools are orderly and harmonious. The interim report of the task force confirms this. While problems exist in some schools, the majority of students in the school system are engaged and behaved and are thriving in our excellent education system. This is due in no small part to the determination of the Minister and the Government to increase resources.

During the next two years there will be 500 extra teachers in primary schools to reduce class sizes and tackle disadvantage, and capitation rates for primary and second level schools will be increased. The Progressive Democrats, along with our colleagues in Government, have urged that such increases be well ahead of inflation to ensure that new funding not only maintains standards but delivers real improvements. Teachers need support in their work. They are to be commended on the often unrecognised work they do in classrooms day in, day out. The Progressive Democrats Party, along with its Fianna Fáil partner in Government, seeks to provide for the continuous professional development of teachers.

Reference was made to the budget allocation for in-service provision for 2006 of €27 million, an increase of 15% on the amount for 2005. I welcome this development.

Students must feel they have the support needed to succeed in their studies. Today's students must deal with tremendous pressure, especially as they approach junior and leaving certificate examinations. A range of support services are provided in schools. These are intended to help schools develop and implement school plans and policies. The support in schools is to deliver civic, social and political education. In addition, secondary schools receive an extra quota of hours to provide guidance and counselling to students. I understand the National Educational Psychological Service is available to schools to help individual students who encounter difficulties. My only concern is that students may not be fully aware of the help available to them if they experience difficulties. I encourage schools to ensure awareness of such services is raised in an appropriate way, sensitive to the concerns of students who are at difficult stages in their studies.

The motion calls on the Minister to publish the final report of the task force under the chairmanship of Maeve Martin. I am satisfied not only that the Minister intends to publish the report and set out the intended approach to its implementation in March 2006, but that €2 million has been allocated for 2006 to enable the implementation of the report. That scheme will commence this year.

These developments illustrate the Government's commitment to researching issues in the educational system properly and resourcing the findings of that research. Contrary to the impression given by Members opposite, we are determined to put in place the necessary reforms and resources to provide the best education system possible. This includes providing a safe and harmonious environment in which teachers can work and students can learn. I commend the Minister and the Government on the approach adopted in this regard.

I wish to share time with Deputy Curran.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is normal at the start of a debate such as this to welcome the placing of a motion before the House. While I welcome any motion on education, is the timing of this one appropriate? Reading through the motion, there is little in it with which one could disagree. I would have thought it would have been preferable to have had a fuller debate when the Martin report, the final report of the task force on student behaviour, was published. While I welcome any motion that advances further discussion on education, we could have had a more enlightened and better discussion if we had had the benefit of the recommendations of that report. When we see what is proposed, we can decide to have a more enlightened discussion.

There are two issues on which I wish to concentrate, the first of which is parental responsibility. There has been little discussion of parental responsibility in the debate so far. Ultimately, in all these matters, whether it is anti-social behaviour in communities, bullying in the streets or indiscipline in classrooms, much of it comes from the home environment. How is it that in hundreds of classes and hundreds of schools throughout the country the majority, more than 90% according to the report, are fully compliant students engaged in the learning process and only a few cause disruption and indiscipline? How is it that the majority of students can go to school and engage in the learning process and a few can go to school and cause disruption? No matter what recommendations or initiatives are introduced by the Government, there will always be that intangible element to the debate that students ought, in the first instance, to go to school with some modicum of self-discipline that has been inculcated in the family environment. That is vital and not enough emphasis has been put on it in the debate.

Another aspect that should be dispelled is the suggestion that schools that derive their cohort of students from socially deprived and disadvantaged areas give rise to the majority of indiscipline. That is a notion that ought to be dispelled. Indiscipline, bullying and disruption can occur in any classroom in any school no matter what area of the country. My final point relates to the issue of teachers' ability to control their classes and establish a properly regulated and happy class environment in which young pupils can fulfil their potential. All of us, regardless of our background, know that some classes, regardless of their configuration or the nature of the students, suffer from rampant indiscipline because the teachers are simply unable to stamp their authority on them. However, in other classes there are no problems whatsoever. The students who run riot in one classroom, and who can reduce teachers to tears and practically assault them, are like sheep 40 minutes later in another classroom. This leads one to question the authority that certain teachers impose on their classes. I do not blame the teachers but one must acknowledge that some have difficulties in this area. A key part of the strategy should be the continuous professional development of teachers. As discipline becomes more difficult to handle and as society changes, teachers should be given, on an ongoing basis, the most up-to-date information, training and skills to control their classes.

I welcome the motion and look forward to the publication of the task force's report and to discussing how best to implement its recommendations.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on student behaviour and discipline. As the last person from a group of five to speak, I note that all the good points have been made. Deputy Cregan nearly echoed my sentiments word for word and the €27 million has been referred to.

Deputy Enright stated last night:

The Department guidelines entitled, Towards a Positive Policy for School Behaviour and Discipline, were published in circular M33/91 in 1991. It is time to revisit the guidelines and make changes where necessary.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Deputy. The report of the task force will allow for the types of structural changes required and there will be quality research to guide us in making those changes.

On first reading the motion, one might think there is a crisis. There is a long standing problem, but we should not consider the matter in terms of crisis, nor should we regard the Minister's setting up of the task force as a response to a crisis. She mentioned specifically last night that she set it up in the first instance because she recognised the potential for indiscipline to become a serious problem. She was asked to set up the task force by the unions, including ASTI and the TUI, and she was swift in doing so. She said she established the task force not because student disruption is at crisis level in our schools but to ensure that we spread examples of best practice more widely. The Department has the right polices and supports in place to enable schools to provide a positive learning environment for all students.

Circumstances have changed significantly since the early 1980s when corporal punishment was banned. Some Members, such as Deputy Enright, went to school at a time when there was no corporal punishment.

Technically, anyway.

In my time in school there was corporal punishment. There were always problems with student behaviour and banning corporal punishment did not contribute to them. When I attended school, we lived in fear of many of our teachers. The removal of corporal punishment changed the whole environment and there have been many positive consequences. For example, pupils are now more confident than they were when I was in school. There have been very significant changes but I appreciate that there are many problems arising from student disorder in schools.

Deputy Peter Power's point that indiscipline occurs under some teachers but not under others was interesting. This is why supports and a range of services are necessary. Many and various factors can make a student disruptive, including his or her home environment or a learning problem such as dyslexia. Disruption can be a symptom masking something else. On the factors that lead to disruption, Deputy Enright stated:

. . . the Minister has failed to provide real educational alternatives for young people displaying challenging behaviour. While we must support the right of schools to expel in certain situations, we must also address the needs of those students who do not fit into the school system. A more dramatic response is required. We should examine the establishment of a small network of new schools which would be designed for students with very challenging behaviour, who have been expelled or dropped out from mainstream second level schools.

I would not support this policy.

They work well already.

I do not know if the Deputy has thought this out, or where she envisages that these schools will be located.

What is Deputy Curran's alternative?

I do not know whether she intends having them in towns and villages or having a few in cities around the country. One should consider the logistics and the stigma attached to those attending. At a time when we are by and large trying to introduce pupils into mainstream services, the Deputy's proposal represents a step backwards. If it is Fine Gael policy, it needs to be clarified. I was certainly disappointed with it. It involves saying there is no hope for certain pupils, taking them from their existing environment and putting them somewhere else, where they could be stigmatised. We should identify students with behavioural problems at a very early stage and make efforts in each case to identity the causes. Removing pupils from their existing environment is not the solution.

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on this important debate on indiscipline in schools. I commend our teachers, the INTO, the TUI and ASTI for their commitment, bravery and professionalism in dealing with this major issue. I commend the vast majority of students and pupils who go to school each day without causing any disruption or hassle for their teachers and parents. I pay tribute to those pupils from very severely disadvantaged areas characterised by poverty, syringes on stairways, major anti-social behaviour and bad housing who still come to school each day and make a great contribution thereto. These heroes and heroines are often forgotten about by the wider society. For more than 20 years I had the honour and privilege of teaching some of them. I salute them and commend them on their courage and integrity. It is up to all Members in this House to stand by them.

The carer children should also be praised and thanked for their efforts and dedication. I refer to the beautiful child in the violent or dysfunctional family who not only gets up every morning for school on his or her own initiative but who also cooks the breakfast for his or her siblings and brings them to school safely. This is the reality for many children and they need to be helped in a positive, non-intrusive way. Sadly, we lose some of these children in their later teenage years through suicide and drugs. This nightmare for children has to end. Teachers on the front line are important because they are among those who spot these pupils. I commend teachers who put their lives on the line when dealing with cases of child sexual abuse. Many teachers have been assaulted or threatened because they have defended the rights of children in such cases. The Government and the educational authorities are responsible for supporting such teachers.

Our schools should not tolerate violence or the carrying of weapons. Bullies and violent students should be suspended, rather than victims being forced out of schools. This is the core issue for me. Schools which dither on this issue are not doing their teachers or pupils any favours. Emphasis should be placed on suspension, rather than expulsion. My civil liberties instinct tells me that a child should be given a second chance. We need to bear in mind that many children change. I urge Deputies to listen to this debate and to ensure pupils and teachers in our schools are assisted.

I would like to share time with Deputies Cowley, McHugh, Connolly, Healy and Gogarty.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Like Deputy Curran, I suppose I am on the grey wing of the House because my memories of school are dominated by corporal punishment. On my first day at school, at five years of age, I was very excited about the whole concept of going to school because all my older friends were there etc. As I arrived at the school, I saw a nun with a blackthorn stick beating lumps out of a child. My sister likes to tell the story of how I ran up to the nun, kicked her and ran out of the school. I did not return to the school for a further two years because I was terrified. I suffered under the strap and the cane during my school days. Some people of my generation think such punishment did not do us any harm, but it did not do us any good either. We live in much more enlightened times now, fortunately. It is clear that indiscipline is a problem in our schools. There is growing concern among teachers, parents and students about the effects of that problem on classes.

The Minister for Education and Science has been urged to bear in mind that the failure to implement the findings of earlier reports on school discipline has had a negative impact on schools. Research conducted by Dr. Maeve Martin of the task force on student behaviour in second level schools found that student disaffection and behaviour difficulties are more prevalent in areas of significant socioeconomic deprivation. Selective enrolment procedures invariably mean that problem students are more likely to be dumped on public sector schools than on other types of schools. Other Deputies have spoken about the phenomenon of difficulties outside the school manifesting themselves in the classroom. ASTI research relating to the problem of indiscipline found that over the course of a school year, 71% of teachers taught in classes in which some students engaged in continuous disruptive behaviour. There are fears the task force on student behaviour will underestimate the extent of the problem of indiscipline in schools, which is undoubtedly a societal problem. It is important not to underestimate the negative impact that a minority of disruptive students can have on other students. Teachers require professional development in classroom management to help them to deal with this sensitive problem. Teachers and students must be allowed to teach and learn in an environment that is free from disruption and indiscipline.

I am concerned that the interim report of the task force on school discipline has not prioritised the issue of class sizes. A significant starting point in addressing that issue would be the implementation of the 2001 McGuinness report's recommendation that the pupil-teacher ratio should be reduced. The Government has failed to implement that recommendation to date, however. It should be noted that mainstream classes are not always the best place for our children. Withdrawal and cooling-off rooms have been used with considerable success in Britain. The neglect of special needs students is exacerbating the problems caused by large class sizes. The National Educational Psychological Service, which does not have enough psychologists working in our schools, should be sufficiently resourced so students with intellectual disabilities can be dealt with properly rather than treated as nuisances. It is hardly surprising that the behaviour of some students with special educational needs can be disruptive, given that they are faced with inappropriate curriculums in over-sized classrooms and do not receive enough classroom support. In such circumstances, it is inevitable that students and teachers are disrupted.

I call on the Government to initiate a new national anti-bullying campaign. The 1993 guidelines on countering bullying behaviour are obsolete in the modern era of mobile telephones and e-mail, which are being used as new tools for bullying. Students are afraid to report bullying and most teachers are not trained in how to handle such situations. The Government must act to ensure the right of all students to a positive and safe learning environment is protected. I urge the Minister to ensure the final report of the task force, which was due at the end of last year, is published as soon as possible.

Going to school is an imperative. A report on the literacy difficulties of young offenders, published by Dr. Mark Morgan and Ms Mary Kett in 2003, found that literacy is central to participation in society and avoidance of social exclusion. When I was visiting the Rossport five in prison last summer, I was impressed by Mr. Micheál Ó Seighin, who told me that many young offenders came to him because they wanted to learn how to read and write. There are strong indications that approximately 10% of pupils leave primary school without the basic skills they need to cope with the everyday demands of reading and the normal demands of secondary school. According to the action plan of the National Forum on Primary Education: Ending Disadvantage, intervention at an early stage needs to be a priority of the State in this regard. It is not acceptable that just €200,000 was allocated for reading discovery in 2003.

It is considered essential to retain professionals, especially teachers, in areas of disadvantage. It has been argued that if the educational welfare service is to work adequately, a further 95 educational welfare officers are needed to complement the 84 officers who are currently in place. I was horrified to discover the a child in County Mayo can be absent from school for at least 60 days before action is taken. That is clearly not acceptable. As no educational welfare officer is available in the county, reports of absenteeism will not receive a response for 60 days. The educational welfare system was established to identify the reasons for absenteeism. Many family and social problems can be identified on foot of regular absences from school. The children of County Mayo should be given the same opportunities as the children of every other county because all children are equal under the Constitution.

There is just one consultant child psychiatrist to cover all of County Mayo. It is clear, based on the population of the county, that there is an immediate need for at least one more child psychiatrist. That mentally troubled children have to wait more than two years to be assessed by a child psychiatrist tells the full tragic tale of neglect. It is no wonder there is indiscipline in our schools. It is a disgrace that vulnerable children are waiting for so long without being seen, especially as we are all aware of the implications of such a delay. Children who need psychiatric services should receive them immediately, rather than having to wait for two years, by which time it may be too late if they have grown up with their problems.

I am happy to have an opportunity to speak briefly in support of Fine Gael's Private Members' motion on school discipline, which is an important matter that needs to be addressed urgently. I agree we should note the interim findings of the task force on student behaviour, which reported serious difficulties in our schools, including threats against teachers and their property, fighting, assaults, the carrying of dangerous weapons on school property and the taking of drugs on school property. It is obvious the anti-social behaviour in our schools is a reflection of what is happening in our wider society. The vast majority of students want to learn, but they encounter serious difficulties in doing so because of the disruptive behaviour of a small number of students. I urge the Minister to publish the final report of the task force immediately, Not only should the task force be funded, but funding should be provided to all bodies involved in this area. Deputy Grealish suggested that the €2 million that was allocated in the budget was an indication of the Government's commitment in this area. If that is a commitment, it is a minor one. We need real commitment and political will to effect real change in this area. Schools should be given the resources they need to deal with ill-discipline.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. Anything that causes 40% of those working in a profession to consider early retirement is a major problem. Some 67% of the members of the teaching profession who have taken early retirement have done so as a result of stress and depression. If this problem was encountered on the same scale in the nursing, medical, dental or legal professions, or in the public or Civil Service, there would be a public inquiry and rightly so. Students can be quite ruthless in targeting people and they know when to twist the knife. That leaves teachers in a dangerous position. There are a number of reasons for this behaviour, such as the student's domestic situation. It can be a case of "monkey see, monkey do". Bullying at home can be transferred to a school setting, because the student thinks that is normal behaviour. Another problem arises when a condition remains undiagnosed, such as dyslexia or attention deficit disorder. This is where the National Educational Psychological Service comes into play. We must provide proper resources to psychological services so that they get the opportunity to tease out these difficulties. We must put support mechanisms in place for teachers, such as an early warning system, so that problems can be identified and reported as soon as possible. School management should have strategies and policies in place to support the teacher and nip the problem in the bud. It is a case of a stitch in time. We could call for more parental support, but in situations like these, many parents may only inflame the situation. Teacher training policies will have to address this problem.

We must take action to make the teaching career attractive once more. It was once an attractive career and we must try to get back to that.

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this motion. In particular, I will address the part of the motion that seeks to put in place specific measures to make schools good places to teach and learn. I recently attended a meeting with primary school principals and deputy principals from the INTO branches in my constituency, at which they expressed great frustration at their current situation. Their demands are very modest, but if implemented, they would make schools better places in which to teach and learn. They would also help remove the extreme frustration felt by principal teachers in the discharge of their duties. The tasks that cause greatest stress to principals and deputy principals include non-educational tasks, paperwork required by the Department and other agencies, special education needs, conflicting demands on teaching principals between class teaching and school leadership, and lack of resources including IT, secretarial, care-taking, special needs assistants, resource teachers and physical work space. Other issues include people management problems such as those concerning parents, boards of management, disruptive pupils and so on, a new revised curriculum and the proliferation of a litigation culture.

While most principals feel these activities fall within their remit, with the exception of non-educational responsibilities, it is the increased volume and complexity of activities required to be done concurrently which causes the problem. Much of this increased workload has arisen from new legislation which places new responsibilities on principals without providing any new resources to enable them deal with them. I want to put forward a few proposals which would make schools better places to teach and to learn. We need to provide adequate accommodation. Clear roles and responsibilities should be set out for deputy principals and post holders, as well as for boards of management. Funding should be provided from central funds for part-time teachers and caretakers. A clear channel of communication must be set up between the Department and principals and deputy principals to eliminate their frustration in trying to contact the Department of Education and Science. I heard a story about a teacher who spent two hours in a classroom on a mobile phone, trying to get through to a relevant official in the Department, while trying to teach a room full of schoolchildren at the same time. That is chaotic and it is not good for our students or our teachers and does not help make our schools good places to teach and to learn.

On behalf of the Green Party, I support the motion calling on the Government to publish immediately the final report of the task force on student behaviour, to outline its legislative response to tackling school discipline problems, and to examine the difficulties posed by section 29 of the Education Act 1998.

In some schools, parents claim that their children are being bullied, when the reality often is that children have not spent time with their parents who are working all day and they do not know how to play with other kids. That causes its own problems in an increasingly litigious society. There may be differences in nuances, but all of the Opposition parties are in agreement on this issue. Bullying and indiscipline are growing problems. They are part of a wider social malaise, but they cannot be tolerated. While everything must be done to tackle the root cause, the difficulties being experienced by a minority of students must not be allowed to disrupt other students. However, let us not wash our hands of these students. It will cost them and the State dearly in the years to come.

Last night, Deputy Enright spoke of addressing the needs of students who do not fit into the school system. While I agree with the Minister that referring to students "not fitting in to the school system" is the wrong choice of words, let us not be pedantic. We must address the issues facing those students whose educational needs cannot be met by the mainstream system. This should take place in a classroom context in the first instance, with all of the necessary supports being provided. In this context, the first thing to be done is to provide a parallel system to enable certain students to continue their education at the school within a model that suits their educational requirements. This could be suitable in certain cases, particularly with regard to the old personality clash issue, minor incidences and low-level bullying.

However, it may be that the factors that lead to a student being disruptive are such that a separate facility is required within each geographical cluster of schools. We need a facility where a disruptive student can learn in an environment suited to his or her needs, while at the same time allowing students, whose education has been disjointed because of the disruption, to benefit from classes without interruption. I disagree with the Minister when she suggests that a network of facilities is unnecessary and simply amounts to dumping students. I visited Edgeware School in Sydney, and having spoken to current and former students at the school, I am convinced that it is a model that deserves serious attention. As a member of the education committee delegation that visited the facility, I would like to share with the House some of the inspirational stories that we heard.

We visited Edgeware School in the western suburbs of Sydney, where disruptive children are sent as a last resort. In New South Wales, an effort is made to deal with disruptive children within the classroom in the first instance. That is why I agree with Deputy Enright's motion. As a last resort, we need some form of facility outside the school that is appropriate to the student's needs. Edgeware School is an example of this. The students cannot be dealt with in an isolated situation in their own school, because the children have become dysfunctional long before they reach second level. Once a student has educational needs of such a serious nature, it is very hard to deal with his or her repressed anger and the inability to express it in the right context. When teachers are not seen as recognising that pain, they are seen as being dismissive. A student will not be educated in that context.

In Edgeware, I met a 14 year old boy called Sean. He said he was doing nothing in his old school, but there are just two students in his class in Edgeware. He said that children were being bullied in the mainstream, but not in Edgeware. He could come and go as he pleased as he was given that amount of leeway. If he did not feel like doing mathematics at a certain time, he could do it later. That model of education will not turn him into a PhD graduate, but it will keep him within the system. He is happy enough to go to school now. He gets jobs fixing fences and this allows him to obtain practical skills, to build up trust and respect. The principal is friendly but he is not the friend of the students. This respectful manner is appreciated by the students. I also met a former pupil who went into the army. He obtained a vocational qualification and he sings the praises of the school. In some cases, the children do so well there that they can go back to the mainstream school. However, they need to be provided with some form of opportunity. Leaving them in the school when the approach is not working is a fate worse than death in some ways. They will not be of any benefit to themselves or society. Some of these schools could be produced in a geographical cluster to cater for the specific needs of students. All of society would benefit from that.

I wish to share time with Deputies Neville, English and Ring.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion and I thank my colleague, Deputy Enright, for putting it before the House. Changing values in society have led to an increasing problem of disruption in schools. The past ten years have seen increasing instances of anti-social behaviour. ASBOs, an acronym unheard of in this country eight years ago when the Education Act was passed, are now seen as a necessary mechanism to help address the mounting tide of anti-social behaviour.

Some of those responsible for anti-social behaviour outside school at night are sitting before teachers in classrooms the following morning. They form a small minority disrupting the education of the majority of students in the classroom. The interim report on student behaviour found that up to 10% of second level students engage in constant, low-level disruption. In the average classroom of 30 students, therefore, this means that two to three students are behaving in this way all the time. The report also highlighted some more serious breaches in discipline. A worrying trend in behaviour is lewdness and vulgarity, especially directed at young female teachers.

Serious breaches in school discipline can have a profound negative effect on teachers and on the educational attainment of students in the classroom. We must accept that disruptive students do not have the right to undermine other young people's educational opportunities. Many teachers believe that the rights of non-disruptive students are being ignored while the rights of the ill disciplined, out of control pupils are being strengthened by legislation. We must address how to preserve the rights of the majority of motivated, engaged students while, at the same time, safeguarding the welfare of the minority of students who challenge the system to breaking point.

At present, teachers have few options open to them when dealing with continually disruptive students. It is always the aim of a teacher to keep a student in the classroom setting but if it becomes impossible, the teacher has no option but to withdraw the student from that situation. However, to what will they be withdrawn? Teachers have told me that resources are needed for early intervention programmes where somebody would be available with the time, expertise and training to withdraw the student from the class, deal with the behavioural problem and draw up, in consultation with the teacher, a programme for that student's reintroduction into the classroom. Such early intervention would ensure that disruptive students receive the help and support they need while also allowing other students to learn.

In this regard, the provision of only €2 million for indiscipline in last December's budget means the Minister is only committed to token measures and not to addressing the issue. One of the most practical steps the Minister could take to improve the quality of discipline in schools is to reduce class sizes, a Government commitment which has been ignored. The large class sizes in schools exacerbate the problems of negative behaviour. There are almost 5,000 primary schoolchildren in classes of more than 35 pupils and the average class size in this country is 24.5 pupils.

Practical class size in second level schools is 24 students. Can the Minister imagine 24 students doing wood technology, metal technology, engineering or construction studies with access to and operating dangerous machinery? It is a challenging task for a teacher in this environment to maintain discipline but it is almost impossible to deal with a disruptive student. What is required is a general workshop technician who would work alongside the teacher, look after the operation of machinery and help the teacher focus on his or her teaching.

The Minister should review the Department's published guidelines for teachers for dealing with discipline problems. The current circular, which dates from 1991, is wholly unacceptable and inappropriate in today's environment. I also call on the Minister to review section 23 of the Education (Welfare) Act 2000, which requires school management to ensure that each school has a code of discipline in operation. However, there is no standard format for such a code, which leaves decisions by boards of management open to challenge because the Minister is not prepared to provide direction. Teachers need ongoing training and development to relate to their students. At present, once a teacher qualifies, they are abandoned in the classroom. There is no monitoring, support service or assistance.

The Minister talked down this motion. She should look at her record. There is an increase of €2,000 for the National Educational Psychological Service, a service that is not available to half the schools in the country. The National Educational Welfare Board requires more than 200 additional staff just to deal with the current problems of truancy and non-attendance. This Minister has been good at spin and public relations but she has failed in the basic elements of delivery. There is little point talking down to the Opposition when she cannot get her act together. I commend the motion to the House.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this subject. I congratulate Deputy Enright on tabling the motion. In the course of her contribution, she raised the issue of enhanced resources and pointed out that half of all primary schools do not have access to NEPS. Many young children who need extra assistance from an early stage in their education are being left behind by the Government. By the time these children reach second level, they have become increasingly frustrated with the system and this contributes to disruptive classroom behaviour.

The Minister of State, Deputy de Valera, is in the neighbouring constituency to mine and one could say she is a good neighbour. However, while Deputy Enright said 50% of schools do not have a psychological service, in Limerick only 9% of schools are covered by NEPS. Why are Limerick primary schools being discriminated against by the Government in the provision of educational psychological services? The Minister of State is aware of the importance of these services, especially for children with special needs and for the teachers who need advice to deal with the many difficulties that now arise in schools. These difficulties often lead to the disruptive behaviour referred to in the motion.

I formally call on the Minister for Education and Science to address immediately the fact that the lowest level of service from the NEPS is provided in Limerick, with only 13 of the 148 primary schools assigned NEPS cover. In February 2005, the figure was an unacceptable 33 schools or 22% of Limerick's primary schools. The figure of 9% a year later compares unfavourably with places such as Galway, on the north side of the Minister of State's constituency, which has 72% coverage. Why does Limerick only have 9%? Access to the dedicated psychological service of the Department of Education and Science should not be dependent on where a child lives. Why should children in Limerick have less service than those in Galway?

All schools should have this service. The service is in place to support the personal, social and educational development of all children through the application of psychological theory and practice in education, having particular regard to children with special educational needs. It is a disgrace that Limerick schools have the least service in the country.

The fact that the number of primary schools nationally with direct access to psychologists is averaging 50%, which includes special schools, has been severely criticised. Psychologists assess the requirements of pupils with special educational needs. They should be available at times of critical incidents such as tragic deaths, including deaths of members of a pupil's family from suicide, road deaths and other tragic deaths or tragic events for school pupils. The excuse the Minister for Education and Science put forward in the Dáil last week, namely, that the increases in net numbers must take account of public policy on public sector numbers, is totally unacceptable.

I will concentrate on the aspect of the motion concerning bullying and the lack of any co-ordinated national strategy to tackle it. Bullying is not a new phenomenon. It has been part of society since the beginning of civilisation. However, the harm caused by bullying and its effects has only been properly realised in recent years. The main consideration we must examine is the harm caused and the hurt felt due to bullying. The effects of being bullied might not surface for some years with certain people. Bullying can and does tarnish a person for life, and can be and is a reason for many suicides.

These are some reasons why we, as politicians, must see bullying as the major problem it is. When we talk about bullying in schools, we must consider the issue in distinct ways, in particular with regard to cause and effect. There have been numerous research studies into the causes of bullying, which vary from person to person. Some, because of a human defect or low self esteem, wish to forcefully intimidate others. Modern technology including mobile phones and e-mail has unfortunately made the practice so terribly easy it is frightening. The effect of this is that somebody fails to develop to his or her full potential as a person. He or she feels inadequate and cheated, and can find it hard to relate to others.

The extent of bullying in schools and the workplace is extremely difficult to quantify. The sad side of bullying is that many often suffer in silence, a situation we have all witnessed at school and in the workplace. Often, it will take a tragic event before what is going on surfaces.

One often subconsciously thinks of the bully as one who is strong and the person being bullied as weaker. This, like so many other concepts of bullying, is wrong. It is now, more than ever, vital that those with responsibility, such as teachers, have access to and are trained to the highest standards and best practice in recognising and dealing with bullying. I accept that this will take resources. No programme worth its salt will come cheap. However, what price do we put on the quality of life or the life of a person?

As many High Court cases have proved, the Government has a duty of care to our young people under the Constitution. Without properly equipping our teachers and boards of management, and without making them implement a strategy with the necessary equipment and education to tackle the menace of bullying, the Government will fail in its obligations, as it is currently failing. The days should be gone, rightly so, when a teacher would say: "Now, now, dear. It will be grand." to a student who tells him or her he or she has been bullied. Bullying can only be tackled by helping the person being bullied and the perpetrator. Time, money and sufficient resources must be dedicated to preventing school bullying. Otherwise, we will still be talking about it in ten years' time. We need the immediate implementation of a national anti-bullying strategy.

We want an education system for all but it is not yet in place. We do not have an all-inclusive education system which gives everybody a chance. Not everybody fits into mainstream education and the result is indiscipline in schools. Pupils are bored and do not fit in — school is not their scene. We need to encourage students to blend in by providing education with which they are happy.

I was insulted when the Minister yesterday referred to certain schools as "dumps", despite the great work they do in Waterford, Limerick and elsewhere to help students who do not fit into mainstream education, who have had difficulties and caused difficulties for others, and who need extra help and direction. Such schools are certainly not dumps. They provide an excellent service and give a fair chance to young people who do not always fit in, for different reasons.

There has been much recent debate on how disciplinary problems affect teachers. We have been told that teachers are highly trained and will be given additional training to help cope with the difficulties of modern education. A booklet due to be published this week details how teachers should adapt in their first couple of years teaching. The booklet contains four or five headings but none deals with discipline or how to control a class. Despite this, the Minister told the House last night that much had been done, that teachers were being looked after and that €27 million was being invested in training courses. However, a simple booklet to help new teachers cope with discipline problems fails to highlight the issue.

A national strategy on discipline is required. Standard departmental guidelines for every school on how to deal with disciplinary issues and correct forms of punishment should be in place. It should not be left to individual schools to implement their own discipline policy. It is a grey area which makes it difficult for boards of management and teachers to act in this regard. National guidelines on discipline are needed to allow teachers to act without fear of the law.

I welcome the motion and compliment the Fine Gael spokesperson on bringing it before the House. I listened to the Minister's contribution to the debate. Perhaps she should do more listening and less lecturing. This is a sensible motion. We, as politicians, listen regularly to constituents' complaints with regard to problems within schools.

Bullying is a serious issue. A school friend of mine was bullied at school but went on to do well in education. However, every time he was interviewed for a job, the effects of bullying caused him to stutter. That poor man was affected but he never received the support he needed from the State when the problem was identified. He went on to get a fine job but it took him many years to do so. He had to go to the private sector to have his problem dealt with. He, rather than the State, paid for the treatment to correct his problem, which had been caused by school bullying.

Teaching is not an easy job. Teachers feel frustrated because they believe the State has not provided the support and training they need. We must be honest in this regard. Society has changed and its structure has broken down, resulting in increasing problems, many of which are brought into the schools. Teachers are faced with problems they did not have to face 20 or 30 years ago. It is a different ball game now. Teachers find it increasingly difficult to control their classes and serious situations have resulted.

Support from the State is not evident. When teachers have a problem, they are vulnerable due to the lack of support from boards of management and the Department of Education and Science. While talking about support, one thing the Government has been good at is providing support to programme managers and those spinning the message to the media. Every year, I am told how much money will be invested in education in deprived areas, where schools will have special finance, special teachers, special this and special that. Why then do so many parents who have children with special needs come to my constituency office to complain that their children cannot be dealt with? Why are these parents frustrated? Why do they feel nobody is listening to them and that there is no support and nobody to help them? Why do public representatives attend so many public meetings with regard to education, particularly education for the disadvantaged or children with special needs? As there are not enough such parents to create a political storm, they feel nobody is listening to them.

The Constitution states that all children should be treated equally but this is not the case. The strong do well and the weak fall behind — all reports point to this conclusion. I hope the Minister and her Department will listen to our case. They should put resources where they are badly wanted, namely, into disadvantaged schools and areas which need support and funding. Teachers are vulnerable. There are so many problems they do not know how to deal with them.

During the Christmas period, I visited a family who suffered a serious tragedy when one member of the family committed suicide. I compliment Deputy Neville and Dr. John Connolly as two of the only people I hear discussing the issue of suicide, which is a serious problem in this country. I recently heard that coroners' reports give the benefit of the doubt in certain cases as they do not wish to upset families. This means there are more suicides than are reported because coroners say a death was caused by misadventure, and it is left at that. Two previous suicides had occurred in the family and on the night after Christmas the mother dropped dead when she heard her son had committed suicide. On the same night her two brothers also died and her husband's brother died in the same week. I never saw such a thing in my life.

Last week I wrote to the Health Service Executive asking that a social worker or other professionally qualified person deal with the family. The HSE sent out the community nurse. While she does a good job and is a very good person, she was not trained to deal with that family. While we have been told each day that the services are available, this is not true. It is time for the Government to provide the money for the services that are needed.

I am glad to have this opportunity to express my support for my colleague, the Minister for Education and Science on the manner in which she has approached the issue of student behaviour in second level schools.

I disagree with the negative tone of Deputy Enright's speech. Concentrating on the separate provision for students who do not fit, so to speak, does not accurately reflect the tone of the interim report of the task force. The interim report accepted that although there was serious concern about disruption levels in some schools, there was also encouraging and positive evidence that the majority of students in the school system are engaged and enthusiastic.

The Minister established the task force on student behaviour not because student disruption is at crisis level but to ensure that we can spread examples of best practice and working solutions more widely. The development of the right policies and supports will be based on the true position reflected by those working in the system. The Minister has indicated her clear intention of acting on this issue in a measured and effective manner. To this end, a provision of €2 million was secured in the Department's budgetary allocation even before the task force had delivered its final report, which clearly signals the Minister's intention to act upon this report.

She has prioritised improvements in training and support services for teachers, greater access to leadership development for school principals and the provision of more guidance counsellors. Continual professional development for teachers has benefited from the provision of nearly €27 million this year, an increase of more than 15% on last year. Training available to school principals has been prioritised through a major expansion of the leadership development for schools service. This recognises the positive impact that leadership can have in promoting a positive school climate conducive to learning and teaching. This initiative will be further developed in the years ahead.

The Government will continue to ensure that the voice of students within their schools continues to be enhanced. The supports already provided through the working group on student councils demonstrate this commitment. Many schools have found that giving students a say in school decision making helps to create a spirit of partnership between students and staff, which contributes to the development of a positive environment in schools.

The Minister has demonstrated her determination to enhance the guidance function in schools through her announcement in April last of an extra 100 guidance teachers for the current school year. Under the new action plan for disadvantaged schools, DEIS, 200 schools will receive enhanced guidance and supports. Under DEIS, a continuing emphasis will also be placed on the development of effective transfer programmes. This will build on the existing work of the home-school-community liaison scheme and the school completion programme. Other areas, such as extending access to guidance counselling and student councils, will also be facilitated though the action plan. These are real and concrete improvements which will be supplemented by specific actions to be taken in response to the recommendations of the report of the task force.

The Government is committed to reform of the school curriculum and, where necessary, to make it more relevant and ensure it meets the needs of today's students. The Department already provides a variety of support services such as the school development planning service and the second level support service. These services provide schools with assistance in developing and implementing school plans and policies. Support services also support schools in the delivery of subjects such as SPHE and CSPE which teach students about respect for themselves and others.

The National Educational Psychological Service is also available as a support to schools for individual students who encounter difficulties. NEPS works with principals, guidance counsellors, resource and learning support teachers and members of the pastoral care team in developing effective responses to the problems causing and caused by disruptive behaviour.

Regarding section 29 of the Education Act, Deputy Enright seems to suggest that we should make it easier for schools to expel students. It has always been the Department's position that expulsion should be a means of last resort. The Department has consistently enhanced the supports available to schools to support this position. In some instances expulsion will be warranted and the statistics on appeals over the past three years support the view that where it is a last resort, the decision of the school will stand up to scrutiny and challenge.

I confirm the Minister's commitment to ensuring that the necessary measures are put in place to support schools in dealing with the issue of student behaviour and discipline and reaffirm her intention to publish the report and set out an intended approach to implementation in a few weeks.

I wish to share time with Deputy Enright.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome this timely motion. Unlike some speakers on the Government side, I believe we cannot talk about this important topic often enough. The more often we debate it, the better. When we talk about indiscipline, we do not talk about normal exuberance or other normal behaviour. We are talking about serious transgressions. As I am a member of the Teachers Union of Ireland and have been a guidance counsellor and a teacher, I have a personal interest in the issue. For some time I worked as a guidance counsellor and as a home-school-community worker with students who presented the most difficult of problems which most Members of the House would never have encountered. I came across students who were suicidal. Nobody has dwelt on the impact of alcohol and drugs on some students.

I agree with speakers on all sides of the House who have emphasised that a small number of students are causing the problem. However, one student with a major disciplinary problem disrupts the whole school. As I have been there, I know what I am talking about. Such a student may engage with many different students and not just the members of a 24-student class group. He or she also engages with many different teachers and can cause considerable stress in the classroom.

According to a survey carried out by the ASTI in April 2004, 71% of teachers said they had taught classes in which some students engaged in continual disruptive behaviour. When the Minister speaks about the professional guidance of teachers, what proportion of that guidance is specifically dedicated to coping with disruptive behaviour? Much professional development of teachers relates to the subject matter and how it is taught. We need to take more notice of how teachers relate to students with personal problems and I hope this will be highlighted when the task force reports.

Members have spoken about why students misbehave, which at times relates to attention seeking. Often teachers are not trained in how to cope with attention seeking. They give attention to behaviour that is not appropriate, thereby reinforcing the behaviour. Some students are engaged in power struggles. Some students come in with the intention of being destructive and not just disruptive. Some students have given up completely. I agree with an induction scheme for all young teachers and support along the way, as well as for older teachers, who at times come across issues for which they were not trained and that they have never before encountered. I note from other research that the stress that it is causing to teachers is leading to their wanting to leave the profession. The ASTI has said that 60% of male teachers with disability claims are suffering from depression and stress, and 53% of female teachers. That is a big issue which we must examine. I have seen teachers stressed and crying in staff rooms, totally at their wits' end. Many teachers are talking about leaving the profession as a result. I hope that when the task force report is published we will all attend again to debate and discuss it fully, instead of coming to the House pretending that everything is all right, since that is not the case.

The student council issue has been mentioned. Many areas have no such councils, and some recent research suggested that some boards of management and staff were not aware that a council existed in their school. In general, students did not have a good opinion of the student council. A great deal of work remains to be done. The other area on which we need to work — the two Ministers responsible are here — concerns youth service, which has a great part to play in helping students having problems or being disruptive by picking them up. However, that service is more or less non-existent in this country. Some pockets are doing a great deal of work, but much more could be done. It is not happening, but it must happen.

Years ago I came across a quote that stayed with me: schools cannot compensate for society. That is a fact. We cannot expect schools to solve all the problems. However, we must support teachers and pupils in school and in the work they are doing. One pupil in a class can upset everyone else if his or her behaviour is bad enough. What does one do when one has tried everything and expels a student who is perhaps 13 and a half years old? What happens to that student? Where does the student go? What supports are there for that student in provincial towns across the country? I challenge the Minister to tell us what supports she has for that student and his or her parents.

The home-school-community liaison project is fantastic, and it must be beefed up and supported. I applaud that. There is very little between us on this motion. It would be far better to have a unit for that disruptive student whom the system has failed. That student must receive the support or help he or she needs. It is not there currently. The student, one hopes, would eventually be integrated back into the mainstream. That is not happening. Instead, ever more pressure is being put on schools and teachers to retain the student in the system that has failed him or her. It is causing pressures all over the place — for principals, classroom teachers, the student and families. That must be addressed. I welcome the fact that a task force report is being published very soon. The Minister said it would be published in March. We are already in March, and I would like to see it tomorrow. Let us put it into the public domain so we can debate and discuss it. Why hide it? This issue is very important and must be debated many times over.

My colleague, Deputy English, spoke about bullying, which is going on all the time. With modern technology, text-messaging is creating a new avenue for insidious forms of bullying, and that must be addressed. This is so serious that we cannot debate it often enough. The futures of young people are at risk. We see many of them ending up in jail or in correction homes because systems have failed. As a Legislature, we must start to grapple with this now.

Drugs are causing serious problems. Of all the issues with which I dealt when teaching and with which my former colleagues are still dealing, the drugs scene in school is the most challenging and the most difficult to cope with. The child using or dealing is caught in a trap, perhaps not of his or her own making, but it is extraordinarily destructive. My colleagues and I have seen too many young people dying at 18, 19 or 20 years of age. The system failed them. There were and are very few safety nets once they have been expelled. Most principals do not want to expel students; it is the last thing that they want, since it causes such stress. We must re-examine, debate and discuss section 29. If it needs to be changed, so be it. I am disappointed at the defensive attitude of the Minister and the Government in this area, which we should open up. Let us shine a light on it, talk about it and discuss it. We should not be so defensive.

That is why I set up the task force.

It is no laughing matter.

I thank all those who spoke on this motion. There have been no attempts whatsoever on this side of the House to overestimate the problem that we face. I warn those on the opposite benches especially that we should not underestimate the scale of the issue. I presume the Minister read the interim report. Last night she was appalled at our motion and described our press release as extremely alarmist. However, we were quoting from the interim report of Dr. Maeve Martin, which is where the motion's contents originated; that point must be made.

The Opposition picked up on a minority of comments.

Allow Deputy Enright without interruption.

The Minister must face reality on this issue. We were merely quoting the report and putting a factual motion before the House.

It was clear it was not the majority opinion.

I made that clear in my speech, Minister, when I said it was 5% to 10% and a minority.

Please allow Deputy Enright, who should direct her remarks through the Chair.

The Minister must face up to indiscipline, which is growing whether we like it or not. We cannot tackle any problem unless we admit its existence. If the Minister of State, Deputy de Valera, found my speech negative last night, I wonder if she too is aware of the reality.

We both spent years in schools.

I was clear in my speech about a small number of students misbehaving. I applauded students' energy, inquisitiveness, questioning, resourcefulness, activity, individuality and creativity, but we must face difficulties where we meet them. I am disappointed at the Minister's lack of willingness to consider alternatives——

I did not say that.

——and her reactive attitude. She is unwilling to engage in real debate or consider any proposals except her own. I must ask whether she or Deputy Curran has ever met the parents of a child who has left school, willingly or otherwise, and found himself or herself with no place else to go. I beg them to open their minds on the issue and think outside the box. Let us help all those who can and wish to stay in school, doing everything we can to keep students there. However, let us also not turn our backs when it comes to those for whom school is not working. Exciting alternatives are available that are already successful in this country. I reject the attempt to describe them as ghettoes or dumps.

It is Deputy Enright who is using those terms.

I have never used that term. The only person who used it last night was the Minister.

She spoke of the child who does not fit.

Please allow Deputy Enright to speak without interruption.

I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle.

Yes, and the word "dump"——

That was her language.

I ask the Minister to allow the Deputy to speak.

Some 18% of students are not staying on at school, and the Minister is doing nothing to tackle that. There is a real need for an alternative, and if one looks at such exciting projects as XLC in Waterford and sees the work that it has been doing — Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned others — one sees that a difference can be made. The Minister's solution last night when interrupting my speech was to call the gardaí. That must be a last resort and not simply a throwaway remark——

They should be called if there has been criminal activity.

——that children with difficulties should be sorted out or looked after in such a manner.

Please allow Deputy Enright without interruption.

Locking them up is the wrong solution. The Minister also spoke about schools having effective codes of behaviour in place. However, many do not have such codes, and the Ombudsman for Children's submission clearly stated that. The Minister did not accept my proposal on student involvement. I am not talking simply about student councils involved in deciding and drafting school codes of behaviour. Not every school has a student council. I want students involved in every aspect of the school's approach to discipline, considering the democratic schools model. That is why that element would have to be piloted; the model is not currently in operation in this country. The Minister should look into this and not simply close her mind. She devoted much of her time last night to school league tables. Clearly, the Minister did not read or could not grasp a simple proposal that was not about league tables. Perhaps she also needs advice on our proposals but she should read them. Under her watch schools have had to focus on third level entry alone because she has ignored all the other valuable work that schools do. Through her inaction real information has been stifled——

Deputy Enright's party wanted us to publish results but I rejected that approach.

Perhaps the Minister deliberately filled her speaking time in that way so that she could ignore the part of the motion that deals with school bullying. Her reason for failing to mention the issue is that she refuses to implement a national anti-bullying strategy.

Every school is required to have a policy on bullying.

What about a national policy?

The Minister keeps claiming that every school must have a policy on bullying, but her claim and the reality are very different things. She does not ensure that schools have an anti-bullying strategy. If they fill in the form and send the report back to her Department, the Minister is happy with that. However, she does not check whether schools have a policy in reality.

The schools are required to follow guidelines.

The guidelines on dealing with bullying were introduced when I was still in school. Let us face the reality.

They are as relevant today as they were when they were introduced.

Things have moved on since then but the Minister fails to accept that.

I am glad that the Minister has finally said she will publish the task force's final report this month, but I want her to get a real grasp of the issue. I have never suggested that indiscipline affects every school or is a problem of crisis proportions but it is a serious problem for those whose children, families, schools and communities are affected. I do not want the Minister to be in a perpetual state of being appalled and alarmed, as she seems to be, but I wish she would open her eyes to the depths of the problem.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 54.

  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Brady, Martin.
  • Brennan, Seamus.
  • Browne, John.
  • Callanan, Joe.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Carty, John.
  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • Collins, Michael.
  • Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Curran, John.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Fleming, Seán.
  • Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
  • Glennon, Jim.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Mulcahy, Michael.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Donnell, Liz.
  • O’Flynn, Noel.
  • O’Keeffe, Ned.
  • O’Malley, Fiona.
  • O’Malley, Tim.
  • Parlon, Tom.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Woods, Michael.

Níl

  • Boyle, Dan.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connolly, Paudge.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Cowley, Jerry.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Enright, Olwyn.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gogarty, Paul.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Higgins, Joe.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McEntee, Shane.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McHugh, Paddy.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • Murphy, Gerard.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O’Shea, Brian.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Pattison, Seamus.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Perry, John.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Twomey, Liam.
  • Upton, Mary.
  • Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Kehoe and Stagg.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 54.

  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Brady, Martin.
  • Brennan, Seamus.
  • Browne, John.
  • Callanan, Joe.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Carty, John.
  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • Collins, Michael.
  • Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Cullen, Martin.
  • Curran, John.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Fleming, Seán.
  • Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
  • Glennon, Jim.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Mulcahy, Michael.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Donnell, Liz.
  • O’Flynn, Noel.
  • O’Keeffe, Ned.
  • O’Malley, Fiona.
  • O’Malley, Tim.
  • Parlon, Tom.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Woods, Michael.

Níl

  • Boyle, Dan.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connolly, Paudge.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Cowley, Jerry.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Enright, Olwyn.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gogarty, Paul.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Higgins, Joe.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McEntee, Shane.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • McHugh, Paddy.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O’Shea, Brian.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Pattison, Seamus.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Perry, John.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Twomey, Liam.
  • Upton, Mary.
  • Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Kehoe and Stagg.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share