JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Thursday, 7 Jul 2005

Boards of Management of Primary Schools: Presentations.

Chairman

On behalf of the members of the Joint Committee on Education and Science, I welcome Canon John McCullagh from the Church of Ireland Board of Education, Mr. Paul Rowe and Ms Jane McCarthy from Educate Together, Sr. Marie Carroll and Ms Antoinette Buggle from the National Association of Boards of Management in Special Education, and from the Gaelscoileanna Ms Nóra Ní Loinsigh and Ms Clare Walsh.

I draw attention to the fact that while members of the joint committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

There will be a presentation by each of the groups represented. Because of the large number of groups present I ask each organisation to stick to a maximum time limit of ten minutes. Once the presentations are complete, there will be a question and answer session with members who I am sure will have a number of questions about various aspects of the presentations.

Canon John McCullagh

I thank the joint committee for the invitation to make this presentation.

The Church of Ireland Board of Education, of which I am secretary, serves not only Church of Ireland schools but also Presbyterian, Methodist and what are called federal schools, that is, schools with joint patronage, a significant number of which are small rural schools. Many have a principal who must combine two full-time roles, that of class teacher and administrative principal. It is appropriate that the committee should be looking at issues of management during the 30th anniversary of the inception of boards of management.

Boards of management involve parents, teachers, the patron and community representatives and operate in partnership as corporate bodies. It is a system which has served schools, school communities and the Department of Education and Science well during the years. However, the system is based on voluntarism. Each board member has been prepared to make a significant voluntary contribution of time and talent to the work of a board of management. The days when boards of management merely met three times a year — the statutory minimum — are long gone. Each board member will undertake a particular role in conjunction with management, in addition to his or her normal contribution to the board's deliberations.

The Education Act 1998 marked a significant development in the role of boards of management. Until that year they operated under the rules for national schools and the constitution for such boards. Little else of their role was reflected in legislation. Therefore, the Education Act 1998 brought about a fundamental change. It has produced huge challenges for schools, administratively and institutionally, in the past seven years. It has been an energising but energy-sapping time; creative but also difficult for all involved in educational management, including patrons, boards of management, principals, teaching staff, parents and students, although they may not be aware of it.

As these developments have been taking place, it has been overlooked that the system continues to be dependent on the professionalism and goodwill of boards of management. There is a danger that their willingness and that of their individual members is being taken for granted. I was asked to address a meeting of new boards of management in Cork in 2003. I brought various visual aids which were piled up in front of those listening to me. I informed members of the audience that they had a duty of care to staff, students, parents and visitors and that they were required to comply with the provisions of the Education Act 1998 and the Education (Welfare) Act 2000. They now also have to comply with the provisions of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004. I informed them that they needed to be familiar and comply with circulars issued by the Department of Education and Science, by new bodies such as the National Educational Welfare Board, the Special Needs Council and the NCCA.

When I brought the list up on the powerpoint presentation slides, one unfortunate chairperson, a lady, interrupted me to ask who was responsible and had a duty of care to her and her fellow board members. While I was telling them about their duties, they were worried about the fact that they carried all the responsibility and wanted to know where it was leading. The appropriate answer was that the patron or patronage body had the responsibility and a duty of care to the board of management but the chairperson in question drew attention to the fact that voluntarism was under threat from the increasing burden of legislation and other requirements.

Trinity College Dublin has repeatedly run a seminar called Suing Primary Schools which is constantly over-subscribed and highlights the justifiable anxiety of board members. In addition to requirements under law, there is an endless list of burdens, including recruitment, insurance, community relations, educational development, industrial relations, financial management and fund-raising.

In an eight member board of management seven are volunteers. I do not say boards of management are performing badly. I simply draw the joint committee's attention to the increasing anxiety felt by board members that will make it harder to get people to serve on boards long enough to build up the expertise and ability to continue. It is not a negative picture as schools are managed effectively. There is a spirit of partnership between boards, principals, teaching staff, parents and pupils.

In early June I had the privilege of attending the opening of an extension and refurbishment of a national school in Monasterevin. The board had received a devolved capital grant and undertaken the work. It had done so with the chairperson and the principal being on the site every week throughout the summer, with the two having effectively undertaken to be the project managers. The treasurer had been busy trying to balance grant payments against the stage payments to the builders. The board and the local community were involved in fund-raising to cover the gap between the grant and the cost. The result is a tribute to the Department of Education and Science for providing the devolved grant and to the local community. It is an example of effective management, with a fine building existing which is a fine service to the pupils. Thankfully, there is no debt on the project.

State funding is required for training. In the current session, no State funding has been forthcoming for boards of management. Training has been provided through management bodies but in the past, with central funding, it was possible to provide more frequent training on a partnership basis. In other words, the organisations represented here together with CPSMA, INTO and NPC planned and ensured the delivery of high quality balanced training throughout the country in the past. This was funded by the Department at a cost that was not large, although it was significant that the funding was available for people to come together, to pay for experts and to provide for the cost of board members attending the training. It was a small acknowledgement that people, some of them travelling quite a distance, giving up their time should not have to pay for travel expenses. The Minister referred to funding but to date it has not been forthcoming. Training has continued to be provided by the individual education partners.

In particular, the role of treasurer has become very onerous and technically demanding. In small schools, payment of part-time caretakers and secretaries must be made by the treasurer. The funding comes from the State but the treasurer must arrange tax and PRSI deductions and remit them. This must be carried out in the correct manner.

There is a useful book on self-evaluation for schools, entitled Looking at our School, which is produced by the inspectorate. It refers to the quality of procedures for the management of the school’s financial resources and efficiency of expenditure planning. If such terms are mentioned to the average treasurer, the person will look askance as many do not have accounting expertise. These people carry out these tasks with goodwill and to the best of their ability. Ideally, schools need a skilled administrator or accounting technician who would perhaps serve a cluster of schools and provide administrative backup for principals. This would ensure that boards could achieve a benchmark set out in assessing schools. The trouble is that the current ancillary services grant leads to boards paying at the level of or just above the minimum wage. At the very least, funding for expert training must be made available for treasurers and other roles discharged by board members.

Training is complemented by an advisory service in schools that I represent. The efficiency of this service is dependent on the briefing and opportunity to interface with the Department of Education and Science, and the opportunity to be consulted and briefed on current developments. We welcome this as the process has always been beneficial. Regrettably, we were not briefed this year in advance of the introduction of the general allocation model for special education provision, and this made it more difficult to advise the schools on this service. We welcome the general allocation model and it will be beneficial. However, many glitches were evident in working out clusters etc. which may have been overcome if consultations had taken place in advance.

We acknowledge the improved capitation grant and other funding. The benefit of the increase is rapidly eroded with increases in local service charges, insurance, heating and lighting etc. The removal of the local contribution was a welcome development, but in reality the majority of schools still undertake significant fund-raising because central funding is not sufficient to provide the range of equipment and services required. While the increase in capitation grant in recent years is welcome and we congratulate the Minister, the increase must be on an ongoing basis. The resources must be enhanced, particularly now that the general allocation model is in effect. Funding must be given to schools to provide necessary supports for teachers providing special education services. The current grant, when it was introduced, was very small.

Small schools have utilised the concept of clustering for sharing services. A potential benefit could come from using clustering for shared management. Many schools belong to different clusters for different reasons. Clustering for management would need stability and a commonality of ethos if it were to work effectively. Some work has been done in this area and the opportunity for piloting should be considered and further developed.

I referred to the raft of legislation and compliance requirements. In an ideal world, it would be wonderful to seek these for simplicity and clarity. It is very difficult for a board trying to carry out its duties to look at legislation, no matter how well drafted. It is ludicrous that the rules for national schools were published in 1965, although they have been amended periodically since then. The only printed edition remains the 1965 version. There is no up-to-date edition, yet the rules are quoted in many types of legal situations. This is a very simple thing but it is time consuming. We have discussed with the Department the need to allocate one person, probably someone like a barrister, to work through the rules and update them. This task must be done as one cannot be expected to drive a modern car with a manual for a model made in 1965.

With regard to the complaints procedure, which I know some of my colleagues will refer to, a structure is in place where a parent raises a complaint. We have discussed and worked on a revision to this procedure over a number of years. Much of this work was complete but the process stopped because of a drafting issue. We are therefore still working with a format formulated a long time ago and which needs to be urgently revised.

I have referred to boards of management in general and in particular as corporate bodies. I am not overlooking the person charged with daily management of the school and who is responsible for the creation, with the board, of a school environment supportive of learning. This is the role of the principal as the ex officio member, and the principal is clearly pivotal to the delivery of management. The board supports the principal and ensures that the vision and tradition of the school and its community are reflected through the life of the school. In the context of this presentation it is impossible to examine this role in detail, but I have no doubt the committee has looked at and will again consider the issues surrounding principalship.

It is worth noting, as I have a particular concern for smaller schools, that the advent of administrative days, as opposed to the terrible term "release days", for teaching principals has been a welcome development. Training is still hindered in some small schools by a lack of principal's office or even a staff room which might be used as the office or by insufficient secretarial support. This is again a small issue but it points to a need to make boards of management and principals as efficient as possible by giving them the most effective resources and training.

Chairman

I now call on Mr. Paul Rowe and Ms Jane McCarthy to make a presentation on behalf of Educate Together.

Mr. Paul Rowe

I thank the Chairman and members for this opportunity to address the committee once again. One of the messages received from all the presentations this morning is just how much primary management bodies are working together on some of these major areas of concern. There is considerable confluence in the positions put forward by everyone here.

Ireland stands out from all countries in the developed world in having the management of its entire primary school system carried out by volunteers. In the past 30 years, the form of management has radically changed from an essentially hierarchical structure based on individual managers to one in which almost all schools now have representative, collective boards of management. As Canon John McCullagh pointed out in some detail, there has been a dramatic increase in the legal, financial and administrative functions that have to be performed by the boards of management of national schools. One of the abiding underlying difficulties that boards encounter is financial, due partly to the shortfall between the grants available to them from the Department and the real costs of running schools. It is also partly due to the retrospective way in which moneys are paid to schools on an annual basis. We would like the committee to examine this aspect in some detail.

These increasing burdens now exert considerable pressure on boards of management. In many schools, despite the best efforts of boards, additional pressure is being placed on principal teachers by default. Where, in smaller schools or in very new and developing schools, a principal is also a full-time class teacher, the additional demands are becoming excessive. If a principal is a teaching principal also managing a major development project in a new school, the situation is further exacerbated.

All patrons of national schools are reporting increasing difficulties in attracting volunteers to sit on boards and, in particular, to fill the onerous roles of chairperson and treasurer. They have also been reporting a steady decline in the number of applications for vacant principalships. This is evidence of a structure that is in need of urgent support. It also indicates that we must take a fresh look at the way things are done.

It is with regret that, in the context of the many other advances and improvements in the way the Department of Education and Science is supporting schools, we must inform the committee that primary school management bodies have received insufficient support from the Department in carrying out their role at such a time of rapid change. While we acknowledge the considerable progress in many other areas of primary education, in 2002 all funding for the training courses for boards was withdrawn and the patron bodies have felt compelled to conduct such training entirely at their own expense. The patron bodies have the ultimate legal responsibility for what happens on boards of schools. Rather than allow a situation where many untrained volunteers are taking on the role of members of boards of management, they have provided such training at their own expense.

The role of a board of management of a school is extremely large in nature. Canon John McCullagh has detailed the scope of that role. It is one of critical importance to the success of the national school system. The role of volunteers is critical in this process. The work done by volunteers from the parent body, staff and community in running a national school is a valuable asset to the system. Schools that are well managed, with a vibrant base of volunteering parents, can access resources that no amount of State funding can provide. The existence of this well of goodwill and support should be seen as a major resource for the State in developing society into the future.

Involvement in their children's education is often the first public commitment by many parents. Even modest State investment in the training and development of this social capital can immeasurably enrich many other local community organisations. In addition, pupils who see such involvement are provided with role models and a living example of positive social commitment that will promote active citizenship and social responsibility. It is, therefore, abundantly in the State's best interest to cherish, protect and promote this volunteering role. We ask that the role of volunteers in our education system be supported, acknowledged and celebrated.

I will now comment on what Educate Together regards as the important changes on which the committee might concentrate in its deliberations. These include clarity in regulations. Canon McCullagh has referred to the ancient rules for national schools with which we must work. A dedicated area on the Department's website specifically for boards of management, with clear access and clear search mechanisms allowing a member of a board to immediately access all the regulations relating, for example to staff recruitment and selection, would be of tremendous help.

An information pack should be provided for all board members. The information currently provided for all board members is part of what we call the Catholic Primary School Management Association CPSMA handbook. This is produced by the CPSMA and used by all management bodies, greatly to the credit of the CPSMA. It should be provided by the Department for all board members on the day they take office. Dedicated personnel should be provided in the Department to deal with and answer questions about particular areas of schools. In the primary payments section at present, no one is charged with covering the Dublin area in a dedicated fashion. This may be the result of people being on term leave or annual leave but all boards of management are undergoing intensive selection processes for new teachers.

There should be one application for all grants based on the current year's enrolments. There is a plethora of different grants about which a chairperson of a board must first know and then apply for in different applications, using different rules and regulations. In this process, it is quite possible for a chairperson to miss a grant to which his or her school is entitled. There should be a process similar to the one by which citizens make annual tax returns whereby there is one application which deals with all the different grounds, with supporting information, if necessary, and one payment in the first term of the school year.

These are administrative changes which would not necessarily result in a huge amount of State expenditure. The fact that all grants are paid retrospectively means that boards of management must first raise money. In the case of a new school, it must raise the seed capital to start the whole process, make an application and then eventually pay that money back in a retrospective fashion. The payment of grants on a current year allocation is critical. There is reference here to the allocation for special needs provision, which is a very welcome change in the current system. However, this allocation is based on the enrolment figures for the year 2003. New schools do not have figures from 2003. New schools at the developing stages have at least 24 new children every year and yet many grants are based on the previous year's allocation.

Another example is the ICT grant. Provision in this regard was given to all schools in 2000. Since then, new schools have had no ICT grant and yet the Department is promoting the idea that all circulars will be distributed through the website. That means new schools without access to grants for hardware to connect up to the broadband service that will be provided are unable to access the information provided. On the standardised accounting procedures, we have volunteer treasurers throughout the country who use a plethora of different accounting systems, including Excel spread sheets and perhaps accounting packages donated by the local branch of an insurance company or bank. The State does not provide any clear form of accounting procedures. If the Department provided a standard package, training for that package and a set of procedures which all boards could follow it would immeasurably improve the system as a whole.

With regard to adherence to deadlines and schedules, as already stated, almost all primary school boards are going through the incredibly complex process of selecting new staff. The panels were only released on 27 May. This means that all boards of management and principal teachers are working through the holiday period and conducting the vital function of selecting staff for schools.

There is a welcome increase in the number of qualified people available this year for national schools but to give the committee an example, 460 applications had to be processed in our school in Swords in respect of four posts. Even with the short-listing process, we are talking about two full days' work. The latter are donated on a voluntary basis by the chairperson and an independent assessor in those situations. If the deadlines had been adhered to, all of that work could have been done within the current school year or with a small overlap.

The second requirement is direct funding for management bodies to provide services. We must have sufficient experienced personnel in order to provide advice services for national schools. Educate Together has one dedicated staff member providing confidential advice services for chairpersons and principals of national schools. It is vital that we be in a position to employ experienced, highly qualified professional people who can be the first point of call for chairpersons and principal teachers who are encountering difficulties or who have serious queries. We must be provided with resources to be able to continue to provide that service. Canon McCullagh referred to the need for training courses. That is also an urgent requirement. Another function is mentoring services, where retired volunteer chairpersons are made available to new chairpersons, etc.

On comprehensive training support, we would like the committee to advocate the drawing up of a formal qualification for a member, a treasurer and a chairperson of a board of management and that a properly organised course be put in place to train people to perform those roles. For that to happen, we must address the State's policy towards voluntarism as a whole. Guaranteed time off work, expenses, tax incentives to attend meetings and recognised courses must be provided by the State in its review of its policy towards volunteering. A very effective White Paper on volunteering was published a number of years ago.

I will conclude my part of this presentation by stressing the need to create a special qualification and status for professional school secretaries. That should be seen as the key mechanism whereby administrative support for the role of the principal teacher in a school, particularly in a small school, could be provided. The school secretary must be fully qualified to deal with all the rules and regulations laid down by the Department and handle that entire administrative role, take responsibility for it away from the principal teacher and allow him or her to concentrate on leading the pedagogic and educational programme of the school. Until that is done, we will consistently find ourselves with declining numbers of teachers applying to become principals. Ms McCarthy will make the other part of the presentation.

Ms Jane McCarthy

The area I would like to examine is that of new and developing schools within the Educate Together sector. Many of our schools have developing status and many of them are new and emerging schools. We believe there are specific issues that need to be raised in respect of those schools.

The first of these that I wish to examine is accommodation. Under existing regulations, boards of management and patron bodies are asked to provide temporary accommodation for a growing school for a period of seven to ten years. We believe the planning unit of the Department of Education and Science is better resourced to work on the accommodation needs of new schools and that where the viability of a new school is accepted, the Department should take full responsibility for the provision of appropriate accommodation for such a school. In many of our developing schools, principals and members of the boards of management have been literally on-site for entire summers. Unfortunately, this summer will be no different.

The second point about which we wish to comment is the development of community. New schools are being developed throughout the country in areas of rapid growth, such as the greater Dublin area and east Meath. Cork will probably be the next large developing area. In these areas there is great need for the development of infrastructure as well as schools. Boards of management of schools in these new areas often find themselves playing a major role in the development of the new local community. One of the major issues we come across, particularly in terms of the assimilation of immigrant families, is a need for many services within the community. As a management and patron body, we find that boards of management in schools in these developing areas require, much more so than in the past, huge levels of support.

The third point we would like to examine is the concept of partnership. Boards of management are charged with the responsibility of running schools. We would like them to be also entrusted to adequately assess the needs of school communities. Should boards of management believe that facilities such as language resource rooms, home-school liaison teachers, parent rooms or perhaps funding for cultural or parenting courses are needed, they should be able to work in a spirit of partnership with the funding body, the Department of Education and Science, and they should have access to a transparent system of application and assessment.

The next matter on which I wish to comment is joint facilities. We welcome the concept of and have been involved in examining multi-campus and joint campus sites. We would like to ensure, however, that the development of such new and innovative developments does not place any undue pressure or stress on existing boards of management. In short, we must examine the possibility of developing new forms of management structures so that the existing boards of management do not become even more overburdened that is already the case.

I wish to turn now to the development of an organisation. A school is no different from any other type of organisation or business. The dynamics, culture and ethos of schools — particularly new schools — need to be nurtured and developed. Resources such as training, assessment and facilitation should be available to all on an ongoing basis. That will ensure the delivery of quality education to pupils and guarantee that the State receives the real benefit of its substantial investments in new school buildings. In regard to these issues, Educate Together is in discussions with the Department of Education and Science on a service provider model in which management bodies will be paid to provide the training and negotiate and aid support functions that are needed for new school developments. We thank the committee for its interest in our work over the years and its consistent support.

Chairman

I now call on Ms Antoinette Buggle to make a presentation on behalf of the National Association of Boards of Management in Special Education.

Ms Antoinette Buggle

I thank the Chairman. Members have been distributed with hand-outs which I hope will help them follow the presentation.

We welcome this opportunity to outline to the committee the current and future developments in boards of management of primary schools. We concur in general with what the previous speakers said about the pressures on groups of volunteers. In particular, we wish to speak about boards of management with responsibility for special education. We appreciate that it is Government policy to offer education to children with special needs in mainstream schools, where that is possible, and we affirm the current choices available to parents of children with special needs. We acknowledge that the Department of Education and Science has invested significant resources to enhance the education of children with special needs.

A board of management with responsibility for pupils with special needs has the same mandate as any other board but its role also encompasses a wide and complex area. Boards of management in special education have noted that it is usually the more significantly compromised child who is enrolled in a special school. The changing population of pupils with increasingly complex needs will often require a rapid response both in terms of personnel and environment. The board may need to alter the school building to accommodate bulky equipment, which might include a hospital bed. I stood aghast as one was rolled by me the other day. The service of a variety of therapists such as a nurse, psychologist, occupational therapist, speech and language therapist and a social worker may be needed to enable the school to initiate and maintain an education programme appropriate to the pupil's needs. The number of staff involved in special education require appropriate workspaces within the school building. It includes not only teachers and pupils but a plethora of other people.

The special schools which have been designed for pupils with moderate general learning disabilities are catering for children with severe or profound general learning disabilities. Some of these pupils may also be on the autistic spectrum. Pupils who fall within this range have high space and personnel needs. In these situations the board of management in its efforts to respond quickly often ends up using the school's playground for prefabricated accommodation. Not alone is this counter-productive, it is expensive and it could be argued it is not effective. There is a need for researched and planned refurbishment and extension of existing buildings.

There is uncertainty about the future of special schools and a fear that the bank of expertise which has been built up over a long number of years in special education may be lost due to an increasing number of enrolments. NABMSE member boards seek information on where the special schools fit into the continuum of education. As we do not know if special schools will remain an integral part of the system the boards find it difficult to develop plans for their schools.

We agree with the logic of the way that boards of management are constituted but the level of responsibility, particularly in special schools, makes it increasingly difficult to get people to sit on a board of management. If it is difficult to get people to do that in a mainstream school, one can imagine how much more difficult it is to get them to do that in a special school. The cohort of students in a special school is drawn from a wide area so it does not have the same level of local support that a mainstream school would have. Board members must travel long distances to meetings so a system to reimburse expenses might help. This proposal was mentioned previously.

In the case of a special school the board of management receives a grant to employ bus escorts. This places a heavy burden on the voluntary members as they must find a way to manage them. The bus escorts need to be recruited, trained, their attendance monitored, substitutes organised and their wages, PRSI and PAYE paid and accounted for. Their sick leave, maternity leave, parental leave and industrial issues also must be managed. This is a good deal to ask of a voluntary group and it is in addition to all the other areas of responsibility outlined by the previous speakers.

NABMSE ran regional seminars on the interview process and appointment procedure for staff in primary schools. It was evident from the evaluations that there is a great need for training for boards of management. On the bottom of one of the evaluation sheets was written "I am going home to resign." They are the employers of large numbers of people and keenly feel the weight of this responsibility. The law changes but the board of management has no formal means of upgrading its knowledge. It is left to the various management organisations to do whatever they can to support their members. It is the view of NABMSE that there should be one overall compulsory programme for every board of management at the start of its tenure and that it should be topped up at regular intervals. We suggest that there should be a module for particular sectors.

The culture and ethos of a school stems from its board and the policies it develops. We suggest that it is unfair both to the board and to the school to expect its board members to work to their optimum without the necessary training and support. It is essential that boards of management have sufficient training to carry out this very important work of managing the education of pupils with special needs and that such training should be compulsory.

In regard to the future of boards of management in special schools, we have been encouraged by reports from well informed people who have visited Harbiton School in Belfast. This school uses an outreach system to support the child with special needs and the staff in mainstream schools. It seems to be a model that works and we would like to see some research into how it might work in the Irish context. We believe that the Irish education system may need to adapt to accommodate dual enrolment and teachers working off campus.

We acknowledge and affirm the choices available to pupils with special needs. We emphasise the range of skills necessary to ensure that an appropriate education is provided for pupils with special needs. We reiterate the need for the researched and planned refurbishment and extension of existing school buildings. We request that the expertise within special education be affirmed and integrated into any future planning for pupils with special needs. We request that the promised review of the bus escort system be initiated and completed. We also request that appropriate training and support be made available to boards of management. We request research into models of best practice in the provision of education for pupils with special needs.

Ms Nóra Ní Loingsigh

For those who may need it, an English translation follows the presentation in Irish in the paper that has been circulated.

Go raibh maith agaibh as ucht cuireadh a thabhairt dom teacht chun labhairt leis an gcoiste maidir le boird bainistíochta bunscoileanna. Mise Nora Ní Loingsigh agus táim ag feidhmiú mar phríomhfheidhmeannach ar an eagraíocht Gaelscoileanna faoi láthair. Tá mo chomhghleacaí, Clare Walsh, mar fheidhmeannach san eagraíocht Iiom chomh maith. Tugann Gaelscoileanna tacaíocht do na scoileanna lán-Ghaeilge agus do ghrúpaí tuismitheoirí nó pobail gur mian leo a leithéid de scoil a bhunú. Tá a thuilleadh eolais ar obair na heagraíochta sa phacáiste atá agaibh.

Táim chun labhairt ar phatrúnacht na nGaelscoileanna agus ansin diriú ar ghnéithe ar leith d'obair an bhoird bainistíochta a thagann chun cinn sna scoileanna a bhíonn ag plé linn. Ta 122 bunscoileanna Ghaeilge, nó Gaelscoileanna, sna 26 Contae lasmuigh de na Gaeltachtaí agus ta súil againn go n-osclóidh ceithre chinn eile i mi Mean Fómhair, rud a chiallóidh go mbeidh an Ghaelscolaíocht ar fáil i ngach contae ar an oileán seo faoi dheireadh.

Tagann na Gaelscoileanna faoi phatrúnacht éagsúla, rud atá tábhachtach agus muid ag labhairt ar bhoird bainistíochta. Den 122 scoil, tá 76 cinn faoi phatrúnacht na heaspaig Caitliceacha, trí chinn faoin Aire Oideachais agus Eolaiochta — na sean modhscoileanna, agus 43 cinn eile faoi phatrúnacht Foras Patrúnachta na Scoileanna Lán-Ghaeilge. Is feidir leis na scoileanna faoin bhforas patrúnachta sainmheon reiligiúin a phiocadh dá scoil agus faoi láthair tá scoileanna Caitliceacha, scoileanna idirchreidmheacha agus scoileanna ilchreidmheacha faoina phatrúnacht.

Den ceithre scoil a osclófar i Meán Fómhair beidh trí chinn faoi phatrúnacht an fhorais agus an ceann eile faoi có-phatrúnacht easpaig Eaglais na hÉireann dheoise Luimnigh agus Cill Dalua agus easpaig Caitliceach dheoise Chill Dalua. Seo an chéad scoil sa tír a bheidh faoin sort có-phatrúnacht seo, rud a léiríonn an ceannrodaiocht a bhíonn ar fáil sna scoileanna seo go minic. Mar sin, tá boird bainistíochta na nGaelscoileanna éagsúla ag plé le patrúin éagsúla agus le sainmheon creidimh eagsúla.

Ag diriú isteach ar na boird bainistíochta, is gá a shoiléiriú gur obair dheonach atá i gceist leis an obair a bhíonn ar siúl acu. Mar sin, tá ceann de na gnéithe is tábhachtaí maidir le riaracháin bunscoile sa tír seo ag titim go hiomlán ar oibrithe deonacha. D'fhéadfadh ceist bheith ann sa todhchaí nach mbéadh daoine ar fáil, go háirithe agus daoine ag obair nios déine na mar a bhíodh siad roimhe seo. Cheana féin bíonn deacrachtaí ag roinnt Gaelscoileanna teacht ar dhaoine le bheith ar a mboird bainistíochta. Go háirithe bíonn fadhbanna le teacht ar chathaoirligh ós rud é go mbíonn gá acu le heolas ar an nGaeilge agus ar an gcóras oideachais chomh maith le tuiscint ceart ar an nGaelscolaíocht. Aon dul chun cinn a dheantar maidir Ie bainistíocht scoile, caithfear féachaint ar inmharthanacht an chorais deonaigh mar atá sé.

Bíonn sé i gceist go n-oibreoidh bord bainistíochta Gaelscoile trí mheán na Gaeilge mar is ón obair a dhéanann siad a thiocfaidh sainmheon Gaelach na scoile fein. Go minic bíonn an pobal Ghaeilge áitiúil bainteach leis an scoil a bhuní agus bíonn deis ag an mbord a nionadaithe pobail a fháil ón bpobal seo. Ceanglaíonn sé seo an scoil leis an bpobal seo agus bíonn an bord bainistíochta bainteach leis an nGaeilge a chur chun cinn sa phobal áitiúil go minic chomh maith le laistigh den scoil féin. Seo obair bhreise nach mbíonn ar siúl i scoileanna eile de ghnáth. Bíonn ar na Gaelscoileanna teacht suas le seifteanna chomh maith ar conas an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn ina scoil fein i measc na ndaltaí agus i measc pobal na scoile i gcoitinne. Tá Gaelscoileanna ag cur polasaí Gaeilge le chéile faoi láthair a bheidh mar threoir do scoileanna conas a leithéid a dhéanamh, rud a thabharfaidh tacaíocht do na boird bhainistíochta agus d'fhoireann na scoile. Tá tábhacht ar leith le cur chun cinn na Gaeilge lasmuigh den scoil le comhthéacs eile a thabhairt do na daltaí an Ghaeilge a úsáid. Mar sin, bíonn gaelscoil ag cur chun cinn dhá shainmheon ina scoil — sainmheon na gaelscolaíochta agus an sainmheon creidimh, agus is ar an mbord bainistíochta a thiteann an dualgas plé leo seo maraon leis na pátrúin.

Is grúpa deonach a bhunaíonn scoil, agus i gcoitinne ní bhíonn aon tacaíocht ar fáil ón Roinn Oideachais agus Eolaíochta dóibh, cé go bhfuil feabhas tagtha ar dheontais le cabhrú leis na grúpaí seo le cúpla bliain anuas. I gcoitinne, ní bhíonn aon tacaíocht airgid eile ar fáil do na grúpaí seo, agus bíonn orthu na mílte euro a bhailiú le cinntiú nach mbeidh an iomarca fiacha ar an scoil agus í ag tosú. Cé nach bainistíocht scoile atá i gceist go díreach anseo, is gá na coistí bunaithe seo a lua de bharr an mhéid oibre deonaí a dhéanann siad le cinntiú go mbeidh scoileanna ar fáil mórthimpeall na tíre. Oibríonn siad ar shainmheon na scoile, cóiríocht shealadach na scoile, daltaí a earcú, iarratais a chur chuig an Roinn Oideachais agus Eolaíochta, poiblíocht a dhéanamh ar an scoil agus mar sin de. Chomh maith leis sin, go minic is iad na daoine céanna a bhíonn ar na boird bhainistíochta tar éis don scoil tosú.

Nuair a thosaíonn na scoileanna ag an tús, bíonn brú ar na boird bhainistíochta de bharr go mbíonn orthu díriú ar fhás agus ar fhorbairt na scoile chomh maith le riarachán na scoile i gcoitinne. De bharr chúinsí teangan, ní thosaíonn Gaelscoileanna le ranganna níos airde ná na naíonáin de ghnath, agus mar sin, tosaíonn na scoileanna le haitheantas sealadach. Dá bharr, bíonn ar an mbord díriú ar aitheantas buan a fháil sna blianta tosaigh. Ar a bharr sin, go minic, bíonn deacrachtaí le cúrsaí cóiríochta. Cuireann sé seo an-bhrú ar ghrúpa beag daoine ag am a mbíonn an scoil ag iarraidh í féin a chruthú don phobal áitiúil agus don Roinn Oideachais agus Eolaíochta. Is ar an ghrúpa seo is mó a bhíonn traenáil de dhíth. Cuireann Gaelscoileanna maraon leis an bhForas Pátrúnachta traenáil ar fáil do na boird bhainistíochta nua, ach bheadh gá le níos mó acmhainní le traenáil níos leanúnaí a chur ar fáil.

Tá tábhacht ar leith ag baint le ról na dtuismitheoirí sa Ghaelscoil nó in aon scoil nua, os rud é gur iadsan a bhunaíonn an scoil de ghnáth. Bíonn siad an-bhainteach le saol na scoile, idir imeachtaí a reachtáil, airgead a bhailiú, sri. Tugann sé seo an t-uafás tacaíochta do na scoileanna agus na boird bhainistíochta, ach in amantaí is féidir leis bheith dúshlánach. Tá sé riachtanach go mbeadh na boird bhainistíochta in ann cinntiú go dtugtar meon na dtuismitheoirí san áireamh i bpolasaithe na scoile agus go gcoimeádtar ar an eolas iad maidir le hobair na scoile.

Is féidir le dúshláin éagsúla teacht chun cinn sna scoileanna ó am go chéile maidir leis an ngaol idir na páirtithe éagsúla atá bainteach leis an scoiI. Is féidir le himpleachtaí móra bheith ag a leithéid de choimhlint i scoil, agus bhí cúpla scoil a raibh i mbaol a ndúnta dá bharr. Tá géarghá go mbeadh traenáil cheart leanúnach déanta ar bhoird bhainistíochta le soiléiriú a thabhairt do na baill éagsúla ar a ról féin agus ar ról na mball eile, agus ní gá acu traenáil a bheith acu i réiteach coimhlinte le bheith in ann deileáil leis na coimhlintí ar féidir teacht chun cinn. Baineann cur i bhfeidhm an chórais gearánta leis seo chomh maith agus an rol atá ag an mbord anseo. Is soiléir dúinne in amantaí nach mbíonn boird ar an eolas maidir leis seo agus conas í a chur i bhfeidhm. Tá an traenáil seo tábhachtach fhad is a bhíonn an scoil ag fás agus ar féidir le coimhlint teacht chun cinn idir na daoine a bhunaigh an scoil agus an bord bainistíochta atá sa scoiI.

Tá go leor scoileanna i gcóiríocht mí-oiriúnach. Tá 39 Gaelscoil le haitheantas buan gan cóiríocht buan, nó tuairim is trian díobh, agus tá scoileanna eile atá ag feitheamh ar an bhfoirgneamh le bheith tógtha dóibh. As an 39 scoil seo, tá tuairim is ocht gcinn i bhfíordhroch-chóiríocht. Cuireann sé seo an-bhrú ar bhoird bhainistíochta scoile agus ar an bhfoireann, agus cuireann sé bac go minic leis an churaclam iomlán a chur i bhfeidhm. Ní oibreodh éinne eile sna cúinsí ina n-oibríonn roinnt muinteoirí sa tír seo. Tá dul chun cinn á dhéanamh leis an bhfadhb seo, ach tá baol ann fós go dtabharfaidh tuismitheoir éigin an dlí i gcoinne scoile de bharr chúrsaí slandála an fhoirgnimh scoile. Léiríonn sé seo an phráinn atá le foirgnimh chearta a thógail do scoileanna agus le féachaint an féidir aon athruithe a dhéanamh ar an reachtaíocht le scoileanna a thógail ar chostas níos ísle ná mar a thógtar iad faoi láthair.

Táim tar éis roinnt de na dualgais a bhíonn ar bhoird bhainistíochta a chur os bhur gcomhair, agus roinnt de na dúshláin ar gá dóibh plé leo. Tá sé tábhachtach go mbeadh bord bainistíochta ann le tacaíocht a thabhairt don phríomhoide agus don fhoireann teagaisc le cabhrú leo an scoil a riaradh. Caithfear féachaint ar shlite éagsúla le cinntiú go mbeidh pé bord atá ag scoil oilte a dhóthain leis an bpost a dhéanamh, ach caithfear a thógaint san áireamh go bhféadfadh go n-eireodh sé níos deacra sa todhchaí teacht ar dhaoine a bheidh sásta a n-am saor a thabhairt dá leithéid. Tá dualgais níos mó ag teacht ar scoileanna an t-am ar fad, agus caithfear a chinntiú go mbeidh slí ann le leanúint leis an obair seo le cinntiú go mbeidh dóthain tacaíochta ann do phríomhoide na scoile ach go háirithe. Bíonn an eagraíocht Gaelscoileanna ag plé leis na gaelscoileanna go léir, agus ba mhaith linn bheith páirteach in aon phlé amach anseo a bheadh ann maidir le hathrú i mbainistíocht scoile.

Go raibh maith agaibh as ucht éisteacht liom agus fáiltím roimh aon cheisteanna atá agaibh.

Chairman

I suggest that we take three members' contributions at a time and then get the delegations' opinions and responses.

Deputy English

I thank the delegates for attending. Their contributions have been most informative. I apologise that my Irish is not good enough to allow me to contribute in Irish on this subject. I am afraid I will have to speak in English.

All the presentations have clearly highlighted the need for training and proper backup for boards of management. All the groups represented have highlighted a series of problems, including many which go beyond the remit of boards of management. This meeting presents a good opportunity to raise them. As the delegations have been clear, we need to discover how we can do something about the issues raised. That is a matter for us to discuss later.

There appears to be a lot of paperwork and administrative work involved. Having dealt with school boards of management, I often feel one is working with an archaic system. We need to change the way in which things are done in this regard. The way in which the groups represented have to deal with the Department of Education and Science is not modern, fast or efficient. Many of the people whom the delegations wish to join their boards of management are involved in the private sector which is fast and efficient. They do not want to join a system that is slow and full of red tape.

One of my fears is that the required expertise cannot be availed of because such persons will not bother with such a system. We will have to change the manner in which these matters are dealt with and provide for the adoption of a more professional approach and further training. It is hard to see how this work cannot be done on a voluntary basis. It will probably always be voluntary, otherwise the costs would be prohibitive. Personally, I do not have a problem with this because people do not mind doing voluntary work if they receive proper training, advice and support. As running schools is a serious business, professional support and training are needed.

Deputy O’Sullivan

I also welcome the groups present and agree with Deputy English that the joint committee should formulate a package of proposals for the Department of Education and Science, on which we should all agree on a cross-party basis. A number of the measures raised by the delegates are very practical such as the provision of training, the payment of travel expenses, the provision of advice and a website with links to sources of information. Updating the rules would be a practical step that should have been taken a long time ago. Dedicated staff in the Department are also required. The delegates made a series of points which the committee should try to put together and present as a package to the Department.

The national school system was established in the 19th century, at which time a national school model was envisaged that the State would largely finance. Bhí Nóra ag caint faoi na sean-modhscoileanna agus tá an tAire mar phatrún iontu. I wanted to refer to that and to the fact that until relatively recently, the main patron bodies were the churches. The largest number of schools would be under church patronage. The recent growth of the Educate Together and Gaelscoil movements has brought new diversity but, in some ways, it has also given rise to new challenges. I have a general question for all the delegations as to whether it is time for the Department to re-examine the system.

There are many advantages in having the current variety in the system but such variety is not always available to every child. Living in certain places, they may have one choice only or perhaps two choices at most. Is it time for the Department to undertake a major review of the system and should we be looking at the model of an modhscoil, where the Department has more direct involvement? I would be interested in our guests' views on whether, perhaps in return for more support, there could also be more involvement on the part of the Department, for example, where there might be vacant school rooms under one patronage and the need for such school rooms under another patronage or where campuses might be shared. Would our guests support the concept of shared campuses?

Rapid changes have taken place in recent times. The State and ourselves, as politicians, have not received an overview of these and have just responded. In my opinion, the State has responded inadequately, particularly to the newer models' need for support. In particular, we would have raised the Educate Together issue where little funding support is provided. The Gaelscoileanna have a somewhat similar problem, although perhaps not quite to the same degree, with the lack of support for the setting up of new schools in particular. The latter was raised in both presentations.

While that is the bigger picture, in the short term the committee should focus on the original suggestion of developing proposals. However, I would be interested in members' views on whether, in the longer term, we need more departmental involvement in pulling the different units together and perhaps in sharing resources. If there are spare prefabs in one school, for example, it seems extraordinarily difficult to get them transferred to another school that needs them. That is just a simple example but there are many other examples where perhaps the Department of Education and Science could have greater involvement. I would be interested in our guests' views on that area.

Deputy F. McGrath

I welcome the groups. Cuirim fáilte speisíalta roimh muintir na Gaelscoileanna. I also want to use this occasion to commend the people directly involved in the boards of management on the different aspects of Irish education.

I feel strongly about a point raised earlier, namely, the role of teaching principals, particularly in Church of Ireland schools and smaller schools. As a former teaching principal in disadvantaged schools, I know exactly from where they are coming. It is crazy to ask somebody to teach a class and to also manage a school. I strongly support the view that we must assist teaching principals as a priority in order to improve the educational service for children, staff and parents. It is our responsibility, as legislators, to ensure that teaching principals are given maximum support.

I also share the concerns about the "take it for granted" syndrome. It was stated that voluntarism is under threat. We need to support people who volunteer to serve on boards of management. All the groups are basically stating that they need State funding for the training of boards to assist them to be professional in their jobs. From their experience in the different sectors, how much funding would resolve this issue? Are they in a position to provide a broad figure so that the committee could work on this issue?

Ms McCarthy mentioned the question of immigrant children and the urgent need for extra supports for them in our schools. This is an important matter. The experience with most immigrant children has been positive. According to teachers and parents involved in the schools, these children's work ethic, abilities and capacity to integrate with other children is amazing. It just happens naturally as well. We must facilitate this in terms of the question of boards of management.

Would Ms Buggle, who is directly involved in special education, support choice in education for parents of children with disabilities? Is she satisfied with the level of support for the services for children with disabilities in special schools? I ask this because in the past two or three days I have been dealing with the case of a young girl with Down's syndrome who will be starting primary school in September in a class of 26 and whose application for resource teaching hours has been refused because she passed all the assessments. She will not get the resource teaching hours because she is an able child with Down's syndrome. If she started in a special school in September, I think she would get those resource hours and speech and language therapy. There is an evident problem for children with disabilities who attend mainstream rather than special education schools. Is Ms Buggle satisfied with the overall level of support available in the schools she represents?

I welcome and support the ethos of the Educate Together schools and thank Mr. Rowe for the recent submissions. A difficult question I like to ask, which comes up regularly with all Deputies, relates to the number of children from disadvantaged areas who attend Educate Together schools. It seems that an extremely low number of such pupils attend these schools. Is there a danger that Educate Together schools might become elitist in some way? This question arises because those of us who support the concept, ethos and vision of Educate Together must also ensure that the poorer families in society are not excluded. Does Mr. Rowe have a strategy or policy to ensure a greater pupil mix in Educate Together schools? There is the other extreme in disadvantaged areas, where many of the poorest children attend the same schools, where the mix is being lost, where the schools are being ghettoised and where the cycle of disadvantage is being made worse? Has Mr. Rowe a strategy to ensure inclusion of pupils from disadvantaged areas and children with disabilities?

Labhair Nóra Ní Loingsigh mar gheall are coiríocht scoileanna. Dúirt sí "As an 39 scoil seo, tá tuairim is 8 gcinn atá i bhfíor droch-choiríocht". An bhfuil Gaelscoil Cholmcille, i Whitehall, sa grúpa sin agus cá bhfuil na scoileanna eile?

Chairman

Returning to the delegations, Ms Buggle will begin the replies to the members' questions.

Ms Buggle

I was asked a direct question about choice for the parents of children with learning disabilities. Of course we support choice. It has always been our endeavour to encourage people to make choices that are right for their children because a special school may not be the place for the child. There are children in mainstream schools who, regardless of the kind of supports given to them, are not in the right place either. I am speaking from personal experience. I have a son with serious disabilities and if he had been eligible for education — at that time he was not because he was severely disabled — there is no way I would have let him attend a mainstream school. I would not have envisaged any kind of support being sufficient in a non-segregated setting.

We are very much behind choice for children but only with the right supports. The Deputy spoke of the case of a girl with Down's syndrome who will soon be attending a mainstream school. If she does not have the supports, is she well placed? A poor placement is worse than no placement because everyone imagines that the child is being served.

NEPS is engaged in assessing children's capacities through conducting psychometric assessments but there is little assessment of need and little capacity for writing programmes to support children within the system. That is what children need. A child with a disability needs a structured individualised education plan, IEP, in order that the child, the parent and the staff will know whether he or she is succeeding.

I was asked whether we are happy with support in special schools. We are happy that there is the intent to support them. The Government established NEPS and then stated they could not attend to children in special schools. I am a member of the special education council. One of the first issues considered by SENOs, when they were first appointed, was mainstream primary and second level schools and, finally, special schools. The latter often view themselves as the Cinderellas of schools in that while there is the intent to assist them, nothing ever happens.

I was also asked whether the girl referred to earlier would have had the required supports had she attended a special school. It is highly unlikely that she would have had the support of a speech and language therapist because there are too few of them. The chances of her having had the support of an occupational therapist would have been dependent on how closely the particular school was linked with a service providing agency. The waiting list for generic services and physiotherapy is lengthy. The stand alone schools are at an enormous disadvantage because once NEPS was introduced, the generic services withdrew from them. Such schools are not linked to service providers that have allocations of therapists available to them.

We are not happy with the service. We are disgusted with the abolition of support for training for boards of management. Who would set up a plant at great cost, one which provides a precious product — the education of any child — and allow it to be run by volunteers? I know a woman who, although a member of a board of management for three years, spoke only once to say "Thanks" at the end of her term of office. I am familiar with another board member whose only spoken words during his three years in office were an invitation to the chairperson to walk him to his car. I am trying to illustrate that ongoing training is needed.

The law changes and boards of management are as susceptible to the law as everybody else. Boards of management are corporately responsible for their actions in terms of engaging, dismissing and managing staff and in terms of running schools. A compulsory system of training is needed. Members must be obliged to complete at least two days training on a particular date. It must be that structured.

Canon McCullagh

I will respond to Deputy O'Sullivan's comment on the involvement of the Department of Education and Science. Members will be aware of the Cromien report, which stated that the Department should focus on policy rather than on delivery. The Department has, to some extent, moved in that direction. However, perhaps behind the Deputy's comment is the question of whether we still need denominational education. My colleague, Father Dan O'Connor from CPSMA, has a particular view on this.

The reality is that all national schools are open to all children. A Church of Ireland school is obliged to prioritise enrolments for children of that ethos. In other words, the first children to obtain a place in a junior infant class must be those coming from the local community who find that ethos acceptable. Following that, the remaining places are filled. That is the normal pattern for any school. Church of Ireland, Presbyterians, Methodists and the broader Protestant community have, in a sense, treasured their schools, which are very much connected to parishes or congregations that reflect a tradition while continuing to welcome others. Such schools are not confessional. People often believe denominational schools are confessional. Our schools are not confessional in that they do not produce or aim to produce card carrying Church of Ireland members, Methodists or Presbyterians. There is no such statement of characteristic spirit in our ethos.

The religious education programme currently being introduced in our schools draws on Alive-O, the Roman Catholic programme. We have received much support in terms of our being allowed to use some of the art work from Alive-O and so on. Veritas and the Episcopal Commission on Catechetics have given us great encouragement. The programme used is not a Church of Ireland programme, however, rather it is a programme designed for schools. Schools under Protestant patronage, be it Church of Ireland or Methodist, are taking a multi-denominational approach to education. They are, and must be, welcoming schools. That is a legislative imperative. As a church, we have a duty to be welcoming to all and to be respectful of all.

During the 1950s, I attended the Zion national school which, although a Church of Ireland school, had many Jewish children enrolled. They fitted in and I do not believe they felt that their tradition or religion was undermined or not respected. That tradition continues to the present day. There is a multi-denominational element to a Church of Ireland school coupled with a respect for those who have no denomination or religious belief.

On whether the State should become more involved, the reality is that the State does not have the ability to do so. Those who spoke earlier have acknowledged the need to maintain voluntarism. If the boards of management resigned overnight, I do not believe the Department of Education and Science would be in a position to run the schools. It does not want to be involved in chairing the model schools and is using retired inspectors to do so. It is withdrawing from schools of which the Minister is patron.

We welcome diversity and have welcomed the development of Educate Together and the Gaelscoileanna, which have indicated that they reflect a wide diversity of traditions within the different schools. However, we do not need the State running a State system per se. Speaking from a second level angle, the introduction of comprehensive schools was quickly followed by the introduction of community schools through community involvement.

Mr. Rowe

In response to Deputy O'Sullivan, it is clear that the Department of Education and Science wishes to withdraw as much as possible from the day-to-day management of schools. This is strongly underlined by the changes in the model schools.

The Deputy asked if it is time the Department re-examined the entire system. We agree that the time has come for a major review. We have corresponded with the Minister in the past two years in respect of the fundamental constitutional liability involved in the structure of primary education, an issue which raises major human rights and constitutional matters. The position of Educate Together has always been that it is a complementary development in the system. The problem with the system is the lack of choice within it, not the denominational nature of different sectors. We would once again like to put on record that we are emphatically in favour of denominational schools and we applaud their efforts and work. Deputy McGrath asked about training and the costs involved. We put what we call "a service provider model" to the Minister earlier this year. This is a detailed programme of services which any management body could provide to a new school in a developing area. It covers issues such as identifying need, studying demographics, monitoring local media, organising public consultation processes, developing the group, formal training, training for enrolment policies, setting up formal structures, mentoring leaders, making the application to the new schools advisory committee, dealing with the sourcing of accommodation and the selection of staff. These are all issues pertaining to the start-up year.

The costs we have put to the Department are for a total of 168 staff days which would be contributed by a management body for a 16-classroom development in a new area. On the basis of the development not being regarded as a priority and the Department not taking responsibility for providing the accommodation from day one — I will clarify this — the costs would be approximately €91,000 in year one. If the Department takes responsibility, the costs would be approximately €76,000. We suggest that from year one to year five, while the school has development status, there would be a need for additional inputs of approximately €28,000 per annum. This would be a targeted level of provision which, while not a bottomless pit, would be directed at the development of the school. After five years, the school would come into a more general allocation of training. The Department is obviously in a position where it could identify key priority projects to which this could be applied immediately. We could provide the committee with the detailed spreadsheet on this proposal.

With regard to other training requirements, we estimate that for approximately every 50 schools we require the services of dedicated professional support. This is significantly more than we are able to provide. This parallels the diocesan advisory structure that exists in the denominational system and comes under the heading of patronage structures or provision, something with which we are not primarily concerned today. However, we see the need for this type of support, for a professional input of a fully qualified staff person for every 50 schools in the system. This is the realistic support structure involved.

One Deputy asked the hard question about the number of disadvantaged pupils in Educate Together schools. I am delighted to be able to answer that question again. We reject emphatically the assertion that our schools do not cater for disadvantaged pupils. The Deputy should be aware, however, that until January 1999 we were unable to open an Educate Together school without being able to purchase the site for such a school. He should know the level of fundraising that requires in any urban area. This restriction represented a massive obstruction to the development of our schools in areas where we could provide easy access for children from disadvantaged areas.

Notwithstanding that, my experience of the north Dublin national school project in Glasnevin, whose principal is Sally Shields, an ex-president of the INTO, and in which my children participated, is that the classes had five or six children from the flats in Ballymun and some from other areas. We emphatically reject the assertion that Educate Together schools, together with the Gaelscoileanna, are middle class developments. This is untrue.

Educate Together is a varied sector of 39 schools, spreading from small rural schools to inner city schools. One school has disadvantaged status, two new schools are opening in the Dublin 15 area and our school in Ennis has had a programme for the education of Traveller children from the first day it opened. A school we are opening this year, and one that opened last year in Castaheany, Dublin 15 and one in Tyrellstown, Dublin 15 have such high numbers of children from disadvantaged families that we are applying for disadvantaged status for them. The Deputy should be aware that no school has been granted disadvantaged status for a number of years and there is no mechanism whereby such status can be granted.

The founding concept of Educate Together schools is that we provide equality of access and esteem to children, irrespective of their social, cultural and religious backgrounds. That is the legal obligation on all of our boards of management.

Ms McCarthy

I will just add one further point. The last time we visited this committee we made a presentation on the new schools structure. Until a school opens its doors, it receives not a penny in State funding. A start-up group in any area — I am currently working with approximately 12 active start-up groups — funds itself through fundraising or personal donations. Therefore, the idea of being able to establish a school in a particularly disadvantaged area is a daydream until a comprehensive system of support is set up for the development of new schools. Currently, the setting up of a school must be financed by parents.

Ms Ní Loinsigh

I want to pick up on what Educate Together said about being elite. Gaelscoileanna are also often spoken of as being elite. Every Gaelscoil is open to any child, no matter whether he or she has special needs or is from certain city areas or a rural area. A reasonable number of Gaelscoileanna are within areas designated as disadvantaged, yet some of these schools are not even recognised as disadvantaged. Some Gaelscoileanna also have Traveller children. I emphasise that we cater for all sectors of society, despite many people's opinion that we do not.

Deputy O'Sullivan asked about shared campuses. Gaelscoileanna have been involved in shared campuses in recent years. In general, we do not have a problem with shared campuses, but if a campus must be shared, it is important that the schools' management systems are taken into account in their planning so that the needs of the schools sharing are understood.

A question was asked about school accommodation and I verify that Gaelscoil Cholmcille is among the list of schools in need of a permanent or better site. I have tried to put together the rest of that list and have managed to get to six, including Gaelscoil Sheoirse Clancy and Gaelscoil Sáirséal in Limerick, Gaelscoil na Cruaiche in Westport, Gaelscoil Iarfhlatha in Tuam, County Galway and Gaelscoil na Camóige in Clondalkin. These are at various stages. Many schools are in reasonable, temporary accommodation. Some schools have accommodation difficulties and some, if they are interested in growing to a second level stream, do not have the chance of doing so.

Deputy Gogarty

I wish to ask a question which might put the cat among the pigeons. It is not as if this information is new and that suddenly in a blinding flash of clarity the Department of Education and Science will be made aware of it by what is said at this meeting.

Have any of the groups made requests to the Department on any key areas in the past two years and been refused? If so, I wish to hear a formal clarification which I can pass on to the Minister. While there are many good people in the Department of Education and Science, it tends to creak along and needs a good kick up the rear end from time to time. I know that groups tend to be very polite and careful in making their point but the information being received here is not new. However, when combined, it might send out a more distinctive message about a need to review the policy on boards of management.

I have some specific questions. Are all groups willing to consider on-line training such as courses provided by Hibernia? Would the groups consider on-line training as a means of saving costs? I listened with interest to Canon McCullagh's contribution on rules for national schools. I must admit I have never seen a copy of those rules. How archaic are these rules and do they need to be modernised?

Some Gaelscoileanna are being started in my constituency. Many parents still do not have focal ar bith and other families are from overseas but are very interested in taking on this very obvious badge of Irishness. I presume the Gaelscoileanna must deal with the pressure of even allowing for a board of management meeting conducted in Irish. Does the level of training required far exceed that required by other boards of management?

Conflict resolution training was referred to. I do not think this problem is specific to Gaelscoileanna but I would be interested to hear why the delegation consider this training important.

Ms Jane McCarthy from Educate Together referred to the model of service provider and the funding crisis for management bodies. I raised this issue with the Minister at a meeting of this committee last month and I understand discussions are ongoing. It might be useful for the delegation to outline to the committee the difficulties caused by this lack of funding, not with reference to constitutional issues but to practical issues such as helping individual boards of management in Educate Together schools.

My other question relates to the bus escort review. Is this a specific extra cost for schools? Should this duty be undertaken by the State as an alternative to providing additional funding?

Deputy Hoctor

I welcome the groups to the meeting and thank them for their enlightening contributions. My first question is for Mr. Rowe and Ms McCarthy from Educate Together. The submission refers to the composition of boards of management and states that almost all schools are now represented on a collective board of management devolving from the hierarchical structure. Are there still schools with a board of management comprised of just one person? Will the delegation qualify the statement that almost all schools now have a representative on a collective board of management?

I have a general question for all the delegations. How is representation of the non-national community allowed for on boards of management? This matter was referred to by Deputy Gogarty. I presume non-national children attend all schools, possibly with the exception of the Gaelscoileanna about which I have a question to ask later.

I wish to know about the implementation of the Stay Safe programme. How is it being implemented in the schools and are there difficulties arising from its implementation? The special educational needs organisers are nearly fully established and I wish to hear how the scheme is working in practice.

Tá cúpla ceisteanna agam do Ms Ní Loingsigh agus Ms Walsh. An mbíonn aon caidreamh idir na Gaelscoileanna agus muintir na ndaoine iasachta ar chor ar bith no an bhfuil doirse na nGaelscoileanna dúnta do paistíó Nigeria agus Slovenia? Tá suim agam sa ceist sin.

Buíochas le Dia tá an clár tógála ag dul ar aghaidh do Ghaelscoil Bhríde i nDurlas Éile agus táimse ag obair leis an mbord bainistíochta ansin. Tá iarracht deánta ag an Aire saghas blueprint plan á dheanamh do na scoileanna as seo amach. Ní bheidh na costaisí ag dul in airde sa todhchaí. The Minister has definitely made an effort to reduce building costs and architects' fees by devising a template scheme whereby, for example, the Gaelscoil in Thurles will be an eight-classroom school which will be identical to that in Deputy Gogarty's constituency, rather than having different plans for every school.

On the question of a pupil who is halfway through a regular primary school and then wishes to transfer to a Gaelscoil, for instance, after third class, is it ever too late to join a Gaelscoil?

Senator U. Burke

I welcome the representatives of the various management bodies. Factors common to all the presentations may be summarised as training, appointments and finance. Anyone who has served on a board of management will be aware of those issues. I am very critical of the managers of a majority of boards because they have inherited a position under the old tradition whereby the local parish priest was the manager of the school. They have failed to change to any degree. The other members of boards of management are appointed in a voluntary capacity. The management does not seem to recognise that within this voluntary body there is a significant amount of expertise that has never been used. As one speaker said, it is a matter of trusting the board of management's opinion and giving it the opportunity to function properly. Most boards of management are stifled because they lack the openness and transparency to function. That was my experience on a board of management.

The board might discuss the smallest repair needed but there would be no agreement until the manager decided to allocate the funding from whatever resources were available. We can blame the Department to a degree for not providing funding at the start of the school year. However, there are resources in the coffers and the treasurer never has the opportunity to function as a treasurer. He or she only signs the cheque which is whipped away before he or she has a chance to see to whom it is made out.

I fully support Deputy O'Sullivan's suggestion that we should look at the composition of management boards because they are not functioning and they feel a degree of frustration. Someone said earlier in this discussion that the Department of Education and Science is willing to hand over responsibility to the boards. That is not so; it is the other way around. We need only look back to Christmas 2003 when the Department sent inspectors into the schools the day before Christmas Eve to ensure the teachers were present. That example does not suggest the Department is willing to give its responsibilities to the boards of management.

The presentations hinted that it is necessary to appoint people with managerial skills or qualifications to chair the boards of management rather than making a hereditary appointment. Sadly, there are no parish priests present because I do not wish to speak behind their backs but I would say the same to them if they were here. The method of appointment should change and in a body whose members are of equal status, the chairperson should be elected from within the group. The hereditary method of appointment is often misplaced, with the greatest respect to the priests.

Managers do not always show confidence in the members of the board and their qualities to appoint teachers because they go outside the boards to form selection committees. They must do so to an extent but they do it with the full knowledge that there is somebody on the board who has the capacity for that task. It would be important for the committee to propose suggestions for a radical reform of the boards of management and their workings.

Two fine examples of the diverse groupings and traditions from which pupils in Gaelscoileanna come are Scoil Riabhach in Baile Locha Riach and Scoil Uí Cheatharnaigh in Béal Átha na Sluaighe. Their locations indicate their concern to identify with the various sections of society from which students come. There is a wide diversity in those areas.

How long can the boards of management of these Gaelscoileanna survive given that they have been put off time and again on the issues of sanction, approval and selection of a site. Scoil Uí Cheatharnaigh is located in eight shopping units, which is unsatisfactory. The Department and the Minister have repeatedly said this cannot continue and the Taoiseach said the same when it suited him to visit. It has gone on for almost ten years. A site has been identified. Eight buildings that look like containers house Scoil Riabhach in Loughrea. I do not know how long the teachers and board of management can allow this to continue before parents become frustrated. Parents may be willing to support the schools for a certain time but not indefinitely and will transfer their children to more secure, permanent and warm schools.

Senator Moylan

I thank the visitors for their presentation. Mr. Rowe spoke about the creation of special qualification status for school secretaries to support the principal. Does that refer to a small percentage of schools or to schools in general?

Given that many parents are well educated professional people, why are they not on the boards of management? Are they too busy, have they no interest or is there a risk of litigation if they get involved?

I compliment the Gaelscoileanna on the work they do, particularly the one in Tullamore. Do the schools afford an opportunity for training in the Irish language for parents on weekends? Mr. Rowe spoke about guaranteed time off work, expenses and tax incentives to attend meetings but do we afford parents an opportunity at the weekend to improve their knowledge of the Irish language if they wish to go on boards?

Senator Minihan

I welcome the visitors and thank them for their presentations. Most of my points have been covered. What can we do to ensure that boards of management reflect the diversity of pupils in the communities, as distinct from the model in place, and achieve a better balance? I endorse the points made about training. As a group we need to move on.

The point was made that it is difficult for a working principal to manage a major project in a school. Do the visitors feel there is a gap in the market for project managers to be brought in on a cluster basis? In Cork for example, if we have a series of schools at a particular phase in moving on with a project, is there a role there for the Department of Education and Science to fund the employment of specialised project managers to work with such a series of schools? How would that work?

I agree that the ethos of the various interest groups should be protected. None of us has a right to change that. All have a right to protection of an ethos and parents have a right to decide in what ethos they want their children to be educated. Equally we must acknowledge the changes in Irish society and its multiculturalism as well as acknowledging the right of parents to choose what type of education they want for their children. There are difficulties in that area. We seem to have an imbalance in how the State views some of the more mainstream organisations vis-à-vis Educate Together, the Gaelscoileanna and so on with regard to funding, site acquisition and even funding of umbrella groups.

Would the witnesses agree there is a need for an examination of this area to ensure a level playing field for all? I do not see why, in an effort to protect one ethos, we should discriminate against another. I welcome the witnesses comments on how the umbrella groups are funded. Does Ms Buggle feel some of the other groups are discriminated against under the present system operated by the Department of Education and Science?

I will ask a question about special needs to draw on Ms Buggle's experience. I do not wish to insult anyone but considering the plethora of legislation we have had and how we are moving towards the rights of parents and children to be integrated in mainstream schooling, in some cases we are dealing with situations where parents have failed to accept the disability of their children and want them integrated in mainstream schooling. However, that may not be in the child's best interests whereas a special school would be. How do we get that balance right? Considering all the legislation we have brought in regarding special needs, have we gone too far in trying to placate people regarding their rights, which in the long term may mean in certain cases we are not acting in the interests of the children involved?

I know Ms Buggle has not got a definitive answer, but I would like to know her views. Is there a situation there which we must redress? Going on Ms Buggle's experience, how does she think we can we get it right?

Ms Buggle

I have no answer to the last question because human nature being what it is, people will sometimes stick their heads in the sand and not realise that while the mainstream system was wonderful for Mary Jones, their own child is not best served there. That realisation takes a little time. We in the special education sector have found that in time, children return to the special school. We try to make the transition as comfortable as we can.

On the other hand we sometimes have children who go through the mainstream system in primary school and jog along nicely until they reach second level. Things then turn nasty and it becomes obvious that the child's needs were not best served because no preparation was made for the child's continuing education in a mainstream setting. One might be taking a boy — it is usually a boy — of, perhaps, 14 who has been made fun of for two years and has been bullied. He will have developed a very reflexive attitude to society generally. He then comes into the mainstream school and one does not then have time to redress the deficit in his development. I have no answer, but we are well aware of such situations.

Regarding the umbrella groups, we are funded by the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs on a three-year pilot basis. At the end of that period we have no guarantee that we will continue as an entity and support mechanism for more than 100 schools. I agree with Paul Rowe's assertion that one support professional per 50 schools is essential. This means in our case that we should have two, not that this would necessarily be of much use as we have no certainty about the future, being funded only on a three-year pilot basis. The umbrella groups are an invaluable resource for the Department of Education and Science because we help people to sort issues before they get very bad, or show them the road to go or the circular to use to address the issue so that the Department is not under great strain in that regard.

I was asked about bus escorts. They are a nightmare. They are a wonderful asset because they give us comfort regarding the safety of children travelling on buses, but it was initially thought that the funding given for the job would cover the management of the escorts whereas it does not. The school principal carries the burden and some of the schools which run the bus escort service need 15 extra people to run it. We would love if the Department took back the management of the bus escort service along with the cheque and worked out how best to manage people. Before bus escorts came on stream, the argument put forward by the Department was that nobody knew the children in a school better than the school board and that it was best placed to get the right escorts for the children and have them trained to the necessary level. How does one train 15 people who only work for a few hours a day, or even ensure they attend? That is a story for another day.

Regarding on-line training for boards of management, our biggest issue relates to the equity on the board of the various representatives, given that one has parents, a teacher representative, the principal, two persons from the patron body and two people from the community. The parents are usually the weakest sector. They do not have access. They are only ordinary Joe and Josephine Soap and do not feel strong enough to put their points across.

There is a Deputy from one of the Government parties on my board and he is quite articulate, we have a solicitor who is fairly articulate, and I am on the board and am very articulate, so woe betide the poor parents. This is why we talk so earnestly about training because everyone would get the same training. The parents would learn things they did not know so that when a particular issue would arise in future, parents would feel quite empowered — although I do not like that word — to put their points across.

While in theory, on-line training is good, in practice it is out of place and is not what I would want for our parents. We found that when we took people into hotel rooms, for example, or proper spaces and everyone got a chance to speak, people went away energised and more willing to be volunteers than when they arrived.

Deputy Gogarty

In that context, would Ms Buggle mind if training were done among a number of boards of management?

Ms Buggle

That would be ideal, because it means cross-fertilisation of ideas, with people exchanging their views and telling how they succeeded in particular situations. The other management bodies will probably agree that a big fear of any board is litigation. One is afraid to stir in case one brings the law down on one's neck. People are being trained in how to bring the law down on one's neck. One can therefore understand the reluctance of people to come on board.

Regarding the selection process about which Senator Ulick Burke asked, the panel's make-up is laid down by the Department of Education and Science. One can have only an external assessor, the chairperson of the board and one's principal at the appointment of a teacher. One may not bring in any other bodies. Those to whom I refer are the only people who may be involved from the outset. Before one places the advertisement, one assembles those people to talk about the requirements. One organises the advertisement and the matter progresses from there. I remind Senator Ulick Burke that I have given up four of my annual leave days on that very mission in the past month, not to mention the number I have sacrificed in the course of the year. I use up nearly all my holidays either on behalf of my school or acting as external assessor for other schools. When one speaks of volunteering, it is in the very real sense that one is giving away one's holidays.

Canon McCullagh

On Deputy Gogarty's point, for mediation and conflict resolution there is a procedure agreed between management and the INTO called Working Together. To support that, mediators were trained. One difficulty raised by those bodies in a joint letter to the Department was that the cost of training for mediation has not been funded by the Department, even though we have been pressing for it.

The Deputy asked whether the other issues had been raised again. Various members present are on working parties with the Department. We have been discussing boards of management, teaching principals and so on. We have been talking to and asking senior officials in the Department about the need for training. It has been rehearsed at virtually every meeting and is ongoing.

Deputy Hoctor asked about the Stay Safe programme. In the schools I represent, it has been well implemented and we look forward to the prospect of an extension of vetting to anyone working in the schools rather than simply special needs assistants. It has really been inequitable heretofore that SNAs have been vetted but that it was not possible to vet anyone else who came in to work with children, very often in quite small numbers.

On the concept of hereditary managers to which Senator Ulick Burke referred, I can speak only for the clergy whom I know and most of them would be delighted not to be chairpersons. There is an increasing number of lay chairpersons right across my sector. I have met them at joint training sessions organised for them right across the denominational sectors. The pattern is everywhere. Ms Buggle referred to the appointment procedure.

Some parents do not want to sit on boards of management because they are anxious about a potential liability. A board is corporate and the Education Act is very clear that no liability attaches to an individual where the corporate body acts appropriately. However, we live in a litigious society. Someone might have been on a board at one stage and a matter might arise long afterward, at which point he or she might receive a letter stating that litigation had been commenced against every member of the board going back several sessions.

Hearing that is very frightening. It is then mentioned to others, which frightens them away from the prospect of volunteering. I thank God that the vast majority of schools do not get involved in litigation. However, one eminent judge speaking to boards in Cork said that the reality is that most of them at some stage might well be involved in litigation but that they did not need to worry because the insurance was in place for them. They say that but there remains an anxiety.

How can boards reflect parents' diversity? Parents are elected by their peers. The situation is similar with community representatives, who are co-opted. The core board of six will examine the range of skills among them and then ask whom they might bring in to procure specific skills for the board. In my experience, the devolved capital grant is generally between €200,000 and €250,000, up to approximately €500,000. Sometimes it is a little more if an extension has specific planning issues to fit in with an historic building. The Department would not look kindly on an additional professional project manager seeking a percentage of that. There is already an architect, an engineer, an electrical expert and so on. It is a matter of trying to get the chairperson and principal to share their experience with other schools coming through the system, allowing them to learn the pitfalls.

That brings me back to on-line training. The advantage is that several boards come together, sharing and learning about specific issues and reassuring each other that their problems are not unique. They can show others how they dealt with something and that solves matters. One can visualise a board sitting down in front of a screen with feed coming in from somewhere else. Does one say that the board will sit on sixth class chairs? There is often not the requisite accommodation for an adult meeting. Some boards literally end up sitting on sixth class chairs, which are not the most comfortable things for an adult. I have covered some of the key points.

Mr. Rowe

I will try to run through the questions. Overall, we would be concerned about the impression that there is no vibrancy or tremendous level of participation and support in the board of management structure. In the case of the Gaelscoileanna, our schools are parent-initiated and exist only as a result of a tremendous amount of commitment and voluntarism. We point out that the supply of dynamism to which I refer is under threat and can be protected and supported by changes in departmental policy.

Senator Minihan asked about funding. For the past few hours we have been describing a range of services that the management bodies provide in support of boards of management in schools. These figures are for 2004 and there have been slight changes this year. Some €110,000 goes to the CPSMA and all other recognised management bodies get €39,800. I need hardly explain to members how far €39,800 goes in the context of the services about which we have been talking. Last month we received our 2005 grant, which has increased to €40,800. I have not had time to co-ordinate with my other colleagues but I presume that they got the same grant.

We have no idea on what basis the decision to allocate that grant was made. There are 200 Church of Ireland schools and 40 Educate Together schools. It is not assigned on a pro rata basis. Catholic schools obviously comprise the vast majority but the funding is not pro rata and the basis on which the allocation is made, despite several requests to find out, has never been clarified to us. In terms of project managers, we would underline what Canon McCullagh has said. Essentially we provide a development officer dealing with our entire sector. In the case of Educate Together, some 66% of the schools are in temporary accommodation, looking for permanent buildings. To illustrate that, only one of our schools — at Beechpark Avenue, Castleknock — is currently a permanent building project, but we are putting four new schools into the system this year. Despite the positive aspects to the capital building programme there is still a major issue that needs to be addressed.

On the composition of boards of management, I reiterate the point about the democratic nature of the parent elections. There is an issue, however, because many of our schools have very large numbers of ancillary staff who are not part of the mainstream teaching profession in the sense that they are not members of the INTO. There is no representative for that form of staff grouping within the board of management structure. We are building up a separate union which is not represented within the management structure. There is an issue there which will come up more and more in the future.

On the special qualifications and the status of the secretary, we would like to focus on specific issues which the committee could review. The provision of professional support for principal teachers in schools is a key initiative that could be undertaken to support the system, relieving an enormous amount of pressure, and allowing the whole dynamism of the system to develop.

Senator Ulick Burke referred to the hierarchical nature of management. Obviously, Educate Together, as a secular body involved in multi-denominational education, does not have that scenario. We work closely with Fr. Dan O'Connor of the Catholic Primary School Managers Association, CPSMA. In the Dublin archdiocese, certainly, the vast majority of chairpersons of boards of management in Catholic schools are laypeople at this stage.

The way that chairpersons are selected is an issue. It is purely the prerogative of the patron to appoint a chairperson. There is no mechanism, for example, whereby a board of management could meet and elect or rotate a chairperson from among its own members, unless the patron, on grounds of privilege, so decides.

How the foreign national community is represented is a critical responsibility. Proper training and the involvement of the patron's influence in the development of the school is essential. This is something which all management bodies are actively pursuing. There are obstructions, where for example, there is a high frequency of parents in the parent body who do not have English or Irish as their first language. The language supports available in general within communities is very poor. Even in the primary school sector, language support teachers are only available for a two-year period for children. That is normally adequate when junior infants are coming into the system, because children of that age absorb language very quickly and easily. However, it is a major issue when older children are coming into the system.

As a patron body, Educate Together has to translate all its basic information documents into an increasing number of languages in order to carry out its work properly. In one of our schools in Deputy Gogarty's constituency, in Lucan, some 48% of its families have one or more parent for whom Irish or English is not the first language. These are the types of areas in which Educate Together, for example, is setting up schools.

In terms of Deputy Hoctor's query as to the reference I made, I try to be as accurate as possible. At any given time there is a small number of schools in which the individual has had to be appointed by the patron in order to resolve difficulties at a particular time. That is not the norm, but there may be one or two. I did not want to mislead people who might say that a manager is appointed in the school down the road.

On Deputy's Gogarty's questions, on training on-line, as a result of the constrained resources Educate Together, as a patron body, not just as a management body, intends to put a large part of its information services on-line this summer and we are in favour of that form of delivery. However, we are very much against the idea that this is the only form of delivery. In training in general — as any teachers on the committee will know — face to face interaction is the critical way to deliver. In particular, where we are dealing with conflict resolution, committee dynamics and committee skills, which has to be done face to face. The parent who has no particular committee skills before coming on to such a body finds himself or herself face to face with the local solicitor or Deputy and this relationship must be teased out and allowed to happen. Training on-line is not a substitute.

Another point which I made earlier should be reiterated, namely, that as none of the new schools has ICT hardware grants, there is an enormous digital deficit. Why does the State not provide tax incentives and sectoral supports for those people involved in recognised forms of volunteering for the country's benefit? They should be able to claim tax reliefs based on taking ECDL courses and getting computers in order to perform that function as one of a whole range of supports that might be made available to support this volunteering structure. The rules are urgently in need of review. The present position is an embarrassment. As Canon McCullagh might say, a review was started, with many pages being pasted into the original document, but that has never been pursued.

Regarding our views on Educate Together's overall funding, we have tried to make a focused representation to the committee on the question of boards of management of all national schools and to give a clear indication of that. The reality is that there are three fundamental functions that have to be performed. One is the ongoing management of national schools. We have given the committee a clear indication of what needs to be done for that function. Together with Gaelscoileanna there is a specific function of supporting new schools, essentially a development function, on which we have submitted proposals to the Department, as I outlined. Then there is the patronage function, quality assurance essentially along with the ethos development function within the national schools. I believe I am right in asserting that Educate Together is the only delegation before the committee today that is concurrently a management and a patron body.

Ms Buggle

The National Association of Boards of Management in Special Education is not a patron body. I am a patron, however, in my own right, but the organisation is not.

Mr. Rowe

I did not quite get that wrong. That is a separate heading under which come the quite well publicised applications we have as regards the Department of Education and Science in order to promote the development of multi-denominational education. We are still in discussions with the Minister on this matter. However, as experienced public representatives, members of the committee will understand that the Department is very reluctant to say "No", because once it has we can challenge such decisions. Many of these discussions may continue for a prolonged period of time without definitive answers. In conclusion, we would like the committee to identify the need for structured and properly financed training services for all boards of management of schools and to look seriously at a policy encouraging people to contribute to their communities and to the future of our society.

Ms Ní Loinsigh

The funding of our organisation is done through Foras na Gaeilge and we are not a patron body. One of the newer patron bodies for the Gaelscoileanna is Foras Patrúnachta na Scoileanna Lán-Ghaeilge and it is funded through the Department of Education and Science.

We do not have any issues with training on-line, but it is important to have face-to-face training. It is important for people to learn from each other and therefore, they need to come together. Some schools have technology, but they are not great at using it. We hope to get to the stage where we can e-mail all of our letters to the schools, but we are not at that stage yet.

A few questions were asked about non-nationals within the Gaelscoileanna. Over 98% of the pupils come from homes that are not speaking Irish within the homes and there are non-nationals within Gaelscoileanna. Some schools have focused on non-nationals and encouraged them to come to Gaelscoileanna. We have tried to use schools at our annual conference in order to inform others what can be done. For example, a German person was chairperson of a parent body in one of the schools. Within the boards of management, I am not sure if there is a representative who is a non-national. We have put a course together in the Gaelscoileanna that is aimed at training parents in Irish. We have trained people so that they can teach parents Irish. We could extend that for non-nationals and it something that could be discussed.

There is an issue with pupils who enter Gaelscoileanna half way through primary school. It can be difficult for the schools involved. In Wales, there are late arrival centres which pupils attend for six weeks before they come into the school. They are trained in the language as well as their subject needs. This may be something that may be very important in the Gaeltacht areas where there may not be a choice of school. Some primary schools have struggled with this at times. There is no proper policy on it at the moment and it needs to be addressed. If an English speaking pupil comes into a classroom where pupils are used to speaking to each other in Irish, it can disrupt the whole atmosphere of the Irish speaking class.

Chairman

I thank the delegation for appearing before the committee. I thank Ms Ní Loinsigh, Ms Walsh, Mr. Rowe, Ms McCarthy, Canon McCullagh and Ms Buggle for the informative discussion. We will discuss this further and we may call on the witnesses again in the future.

Sitting suspended at 1.35 p.m and resumed at 2.10 p.m.

Chairman

I welcome Anita McCann, chairperson, and Fionnuala Kilfeather, chief executive of the National Parents Council, primary section. I also welcome Sheila Nunan, president, and Ann McElduff of the Irish National Teachers Organisation. I draw attention to the fact that members of the joint committee have absolute privilege but this privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against those outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

The first part of our meeting will be taken up with a presentation by each of the groups present. Because of the number of organisations, I ask speakers to limit their contributions to ten minutes. Committee members will then ask questions. I call Ms Fionnuala Kilfeather.

Ms Fionnuala Kilfeather

We are pleased to be invited to make a presentation. From a National Parents Council perspective a significant event in the run-up to the Education Act 1998 happened alongside the negotiations for the new format of the boards of management, namely, as part of that agreement, an undertaking was given that within the lifetime of these boards there would be a thorough review of both the structure and operations of the boards. Despite constant reminders to the Department of Education and Science by our organisation, this review has not taken place. Some minor changes have been made to the rules but that is not a review of the operation and structures of the boards. As recently as Easter 2003 the then Minister gave a further undertaking that this review would take place. I will presently explain why the review needs to take place.

We have experience of parents being elected as representatives on the boards. Because the review was supposed to take place within three years we undertook a review of the views of parents on the operation of the boards. When the next boards were introduced in 2003 we undertook another review of parents and their perceptions of how well the boards were operating. I have provided committee members with a copy of the second review of 2003 and will draw attention to some of its contents. The council also provides a help and information line for parents, whereby we have compiled statistics on issues relating to boards of management. These suggest approximately 63% of queries from parents related to various aspects of the operation of boards of management. I have provided members with a breakdown detailing these aspects.

From the perspective of parents, it is very important to reflect what the purpose of a school is and what the purpose of the board of management of a school is. Effectively, it is to provide the best possible education for children in a happy and safe environment. All that we want to happen on boards is geared towards that rather than being geared towards bureaucracy or other matters.

On the specifics, the new structures of the boards have, by and large, been satisfactory, although some would seek to have more parents involved. In general, parents see that the greater connection of the wider community to school boards is positive. The election procedures have caused some difficulty for parents. The rules state that several types of election are allowed and that parents should choose which type of election. However, this has not happened universally and many parents have reported to us that the type of election has effectively been chosen by the chairperson of the board rather than by the parents.

The community representatives system has, by and large, proved satisfactory. However, feedback suggests that criteria for election and characteristics of board members and the excellent guidelines issued by the CPSMA regarding organisation are not being followed by very many boards. In these times of relative democracy within education, the chairperson of the board should be elected and not appointed. The board should be permitted to elect its own chairperson, rather than have it appointed by the patron.

Regarding the purpose of schools, quality of education is a very significant responsibility of the boards. They are responsible to children, their parents and to the Department of Education and Science. Curriculum and assessment should be a board's key interests, although I am not suggesting they should be hands-on in that regard. That is the role of the principal and staff. However, the boards should look to what the school is supposed to do instead of only concentrating on maintenance. Schools are there to provide education.

It is difficult for a board to measure whether its school provides a high level of education. There is a generalised lack of an assessment system within our schools to enable a board to monitor. I am not referring to league tables. Any board must know what is happening within its organisation in order to assert that it is giving children a good quality education. A large gap exists within the information systems available to boards.

Regarding the issues of teaching and learning and the rights of children to a full curriculum, we have received reports from parents about quite a significant lack of delivery in terms of the RSE programme. No actual surveys have been carried out in recent times. However, according to the last survey, only 60% of schools were delivering and it would be helpful if the Department took another look at the issue.

Junior and senior classes in some scoileanna lán-Ghaeilge are not receiving their right to the English section of the curriculum as a result of the immersion system. People might want to change that, but according to the Education Act and NCCA guidelines it is every child's right to have access to the full curriculum. Some boards are not allowing for this.

School policies are the responsibility of the board and are supposed to be drawn up in conjunction with parents and teaching staff and with the approval of the board. In some cases, children should also be involved because it makes no sense when examining homework or healthy lunch policies not to involve young people in the decision-making. Feedback is extremely varied in terms of how involved are parents in policy making. I am not suggesting that it is easy to do, but the feedback has been very varied.

The vast majority of schools in Ireland are under the patronage of the Catholic Church and that is the type of community school on offer to most children. There is no parallel State education system as in most other countries which means that boards and patrons in the area must make more of an effort within their admission policy. Many Catholic schools' policy is that Catholic children in the parish are admitted and then Catholic children outside of the parish. Some people have no other choice but are not accorded rights within admission policies. It is hard to know whether this is in line with the Education Act.

We have also received reports that some schools, in their admission policy, state that the admission of children with disabilities is dependent on available resources. This is a big issue for parents. There is also an issue with regard to behaviour and bullying codes. The National Educational Welfare Board has yet to supply guidelines as provided for in the Education (Welfare) Act for the drawing up of such codes.

Parents have found that there is an issue regarding access to information about the work of a school, its plans and policies. Many parents are not receiving financial reports from the boards even though they have raised significant amounts of money. There is no financial accountability, in spite of legislation.

Parents want information about school breaks at the start of the year. It might not be easy to provide this but ways must be found because many people work and it can be difficult for them to give notice of a few days off.

The relationship between boards and parent associations is variable and presents a big issue for us. There has been a worrying number of reports from parents who say that, despite legislation, they are prevented from establishing a parent association due to the reluctance of the board or school principal. Barriers are put in their way. We find it difficult to get information to parent representatives or parent associations and we ask the committee to put strong pressure on the Department to establish a database of all board members which would be available for organisations who wish to contact parent representatives. We offer training for all parents who are board members as well as other types of training but we have no access to the names of representatives.

As members will see from the statistics provided, the capacity of boards to deal with problems and process complaints is a problem. There is no complaints procedure in place despite the provisions of the Education Act. Some parents have reported very negative experiences when dealing with difficulties. It takes a very long to receive a hearing, sometimes up to a year. It can be a disaster in a child's life if something is not dealt with in a reasonably timely manner.

The integrity of the school year is also an area of concern and the Department must provide clarification. There is a teacher meeting every term, half within and half outside the school day. Many schools have an additional half day off each month which erodes the school year. The Department should clarify what a school year entails.

The boards are voluntary bodies and some 25,000 people give a lot of voluntary effort to manage our primary schools. This effort deserves and is entitled to a support training and development service. The Department of Education and Science has not taken up its responsibility for quality governance of schools. It is crucial that a review takes place in order to ascertain the real needs of boards, and the strengths and weaknesses in terms of training and support services. The Department should then establish a clear and permanent structure for information, advice and support for boards. This could be carried out through the education centres, as is the case with everything else, to ensure a cohesive service to schools throughout the country. Scotland has a significant budget for this and the quality of school management there is recognised as being very good.

Over the past two years and beyond, the National Parents' Council, primary section, has offered every parent representative on every board in the country two training sessions for their particular role. However, we have had great difficulty in actually getting to the individual parents. Therefore, the take-up, although good, would be much higher if we had better access.

Ms Sheila Nunan

Our presentation is quite brief, as requested. I will outline a brief historical context and then the current strengths and weaknesses of the system. Perhaps we will identify some pointers for how we might move forward.

Up until 1973, the system had changed very little since the foundation of the State. Schools were usually under an ecclesiastical authority which took responsibility for management. The patron could act as manager, but generally a local manager or clergyman was put in place. We argue that some traits of this type of management still persist today, particularly what could be described as official indifference towards the needs of school management. We refer to the official indifference of the State in this context.

The year 1973 was significant as the Department then suggested to school managers that the time had come to examine alternative structures which would include parental participation. This theme received much support from the then Minister for Education, Richard Burke, who stated it was necessary to move away from the position where only lip service was paid to parents. Two years later, the Department of Education secured agreement on new structures. The INTO believes that the provision of resources was a critical catalyst at the time.

Following an uneasy start, these structures were subsequently revised to include teacher participation, particularly following a long period of non-cooperation by INTO members. The current structures arose in the 1990s from the White Paper, Charting our Education Future, and provided for representation of parents, the patron, teachers and the local community. However, despite the changes in the composition of the boards of management, which are arguably more democratic in structure, many of the duties attached to the boards remain the same on the surface. Boards must still appoint teachers to permanent or temporary positions as well as to posts of responsibility, determine seniority, approve school openings and closures as well as ensuring compliance with all legislation.

The INTO is delighted — as Fionnuala Kilfeather has stated — to welcome this initiative of the joint committee to discuss and examine this issue. We believe that a review is critical and we hope that the outcome of today's deliberations will lead to specific proposals and recommendations being made to the Government and that these recommendations will lead to the provision of increased badly needed support to boards of management at local level and to management bodies.

I will now turn to what the INTO perceives as being the current trends and Ann McElduff will develop the point. The INTO wishes to state that it supports the current structures which are in place in respect of the composition of boards of management. I understand they were outlined for the joint committee this morning. Currently, there is an eight-person structure, with two patrons, two parents, two community representatives and two teachers. It is welcome and is a practical recognition of the principle of partnership in education that underpins much of the current thinking on the subject. We must also state that an enormous debt of gratitude is owed to those who have participated and continue to participate in school management at local level. In effect, most of these groups have acted as unpaid servants of the State and the community for many years.

Nevertheless, the INTO is concerned that a number of worrying trends must be noted. Three issues in particular must be examined. We must ask whether boards of management are genuinely democratic. I do not refer to the structure outlined earlier here. However, there may be a difficulty with inclusiveness, in that sections of our communities, such as Traveller parents or parents in disadvantaged areas may not be reflected on boards of management. Moreover, some parents of the international children who now come to school may feel they are excluded from meaningful participation. The second issue is whether boards are equipped to carry out their functions, which have become so complex. Are the current structures sufficient, given the ongoing changes taking place? Are they sufficient to take us into the future, particularly in the light of increasing legislation and litigation?

A general theme underpinning all issues pertaining to boards of management is the decline in volunteerism. In the current world of work and leisure, people are less prepared and less willing to involve themselves in activities of a voluntary nature. A change-over of boards of management in primary schools recently took place all over the country and they all noted difficulties in getting parental participation on the boards. Meetings called to elect parents to boards are poorly attended and the INTO is aware of a significant number of cases where no parent has attended these meetings. Moreover, participation is often poor when ballots are arranged to elect parental representation.

We acknowledge that this issue is not confined to parents. There are 3,200 primary schools in Ireland which means that over 6,000 INTO members are on boards of management, half of whom are principal teachers, who are ex officio members. However, teaching staff have informed the INTO that fewer teachers are currently willing to participate in management. Many principal teachers who must take part in school management do so unwillingly, because of increased work demands and inadequate supports. Schools also find it more difficult to secure community representatives. However, I do not wish to suggest that this explains the current malaise of management of primary schools in its entirety. Ann McElduff will now deal with some of the more practical and pragmatic details.

Ms Ann McElduff

In terms of the complexity of the governance of schools at present, it is daunting to be on a board of management, not simply for a lay person but also for those who work in the system. One example concerns the impact of legislation. Schools are grappling with the Education Act, the Education (Welfare) Act and the Education for Persons with Special Needs Act. Fionnuala Kilfeather mentioned admissions policies and there has been absolutely no guidance from the State to boards of management as to how admissions policies should be drafted to be in compliance with the legislation. Individual boards are obliged to do this work on their own. Even in areas such as the conditions of employment for school employees, the impact of fixed term and part-time work legislation obliges boards to make an enormous effort, as does the legislation pertaining to access to information and data protection.

A second complex area concerns the financing of schools. Parents rightly demand modern accommodation facilities, while capital and current funding has failed to keep pace with their demands. This means that increasingly, boards of management are required to involve themselves in large-scale fundraising projects on a regular basis.

Sheila Nunan has mentioned official indifference. A lack of funding characterises the attitude of the State to local management. Nowhere is this more clearly seen than in the lack of financial support given to management. While in the past, it might have been true that the churches reserved the business of management to themselves, that is now no longer so and there is an overwhelming case for increased State investment.

The management system must be adequately resourced so that a professional service can be provided to members of boards of management. For example, managerial bodies should be capable of designing and delivering training programmes to all board members. In the area of legislation, the INTO has been involved in a number of equality cases. Equality officers have highlighted that boards sometimes lose cases because the selection boards or the boards themselves have not been trained in the proper procedures. They should be resourced in order that they can provide advice for local members of boards in a fast and effective manner. In some cases, technology can be used to provide this, but in other cases a personal service will be required.

At present, the INTO finds that increased amounts of its time and resources are devoted to providing advice and assistance for boards through principal teachers and teacher representatives on boards. This is more properly the duty and responsibility of the Department of Education and Science, which can no longer wash its hands of the matter with any justification.

It is essential that resources are provided for boards in order that positive working relationships can be established and maintained between boards and principal teachers in particular. Each must have a clear understanding of their roles. In broad terms, the board is responsible for deciding the framework for the conduct and development of the school. However, within that broad framework, the board should respect the professional position of the school staff and in particular the position of the principal teacher.

It must be recognised that the principal, as the leader of the school community has a pivotal role to play. This comes at a significant cost to already overburdened principals. Many boards rely heavily on principals for advice and support on a range of issues. Such are the demands that are now made on the principal's time and energy with respect to participation on boards that there is an overwhelming case for an allowance to be paid to reflect this involvement. A claim has been lodged to this effect.

Ms Nunan

It is no longer acceptable for individuals to administer and manage a modern school without appropriate training and support. It is unsatisfactory and is potentially detrimental to education. Schools should not be adversely affected because the individuals responsible are inadequately prepared to perform their roles. The INTO believes that the Government must put increased training and development budgets for primary schools in place. This must take place on two levels as there must be training at national level for the general management bodies but more importantly, it must also take place at local level. Frequently, if something takes place at national level, it is not communicated to the local level. The INTO is critical of the Department of Education and Science for its failure in many instances to provide comprehensive advice and guidance to schools regarding the plethora of developments in education and in particular regarding the new legislation and its impact. We need closer liaison between boards and the Department of Education and Science. We need more "plain English", to quote the Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, and the element of red tape in terms of bureaucracy and circulars must be reduced. As Ann McElduff has noted, the recent equality cases have made it clear that training must be provided.

The INTO is in favour of the operation of boards of management as teams. However, that will not be possible unless all of the board members are equipped with the knowledge and skills to enable them to so do. It is important that we put on the record that there are an enormous number of issues where we had considerable co-operation between management and the INTO. We have had a successful track record. We have had a number of joint training initiatives that have been planned and implemented jointly between management and the INTO. A particular initiative related to the provision of arbitration and mediation services — a good human resource service — for schools. Despite repeated requests to the Department of Education and Science for funding, nothing has been received. It is ridiculous that the function on behalf of management is being carried out jointly without any funding from the State. This is an unacceptable position. These initiatives have been funded out of the resources of management and the union and we believe that the Department should fund them. In any other situation, be it business or public services, this would be done through a human resources section.

The modern primary school cannot continue to depend indefinitely on the goodwill and voluntarism of individuals. The State must adequately fund it to ensure that training is provided. If this is not done, we will risk causing damage to management structures and ultimately to the quality of primary education.

Deputy O’ Sullivan

I welcome both groups and thank them for their presentations. They have built on what we heard this morning from various management-patron bodies. I would like to tease out some of the detail. Both presentations were strong on training and I get the impression that both organisations do a certain amount of training. The INTO carries out training in conjunction with management bodies and the National Parents Council carries out training specifically for parents. Both organisations also give levels of advice, for example, through their advice lines. Should both organisations continue to carry training out in the current fashion with the Department of Education and Science helping to pay for it or should there be a general training system that would be open to all the various participants on boards of management?

One of the groups suggested this morning that there should be specific support for treasurers of boards of management because of their particular duties. One group suggested that there should be an accredited training programme. I am not sure if it meant a formal accredited programme but it certainly called for a structured training programme for members of boards of management. I think Ms Kilfeather spoke about the situation in Scotland. Could she provide the committee with more detail about this because I think it decided this morning to draw up a series of proposals and send it to the Department? We would obviously like these proposals to be as complete as possible.

Ms Kilfeather referred to guidelines that were to supposed to have been drawn up by the National Educational Welfare Board. Could she elaborate on this? Both organisations have made their cases very well.

Deputy F. McGrath

I welcome the National Parents Council and the INTO. I must declare an interest because I have been a member of the INTO for the last 20 years. I extend a special welcome to Ms Nunan and Ms McElduff. I commend both the National Parents Council and the INTO on the major contribution they have made to Irish education. Their contribution is recognised by people from all parties in the House and it is important that we put this on the record.

Would Ms. Kilfeather, Ms Nunan and Ms McElduff agree that the Department of Education and Science and the State have taken the voluntarism of parents and teachers of boards of management for granted for many years and that it is now time to do something about this? Do they agree that a system, both in a professional and financial perspective, needs to be established? A number of speakers have raised the fact that teachers and parents must be trained to be on boards of management and that legislators must support this. Would Ms Kilfeather, Ms Nunan and Ms McElduff agree with this?

With regard to boards of management and children with disabilities, has the situation regarding enrolling children with disabilities changed over the last five or six years? Five, six or even ten years ago, there were many allegations of discrimination against children with disabilities by certain boards of management in the primary sector. Is this discrimination still continuing in the 3,200 schools in the sector? Do many boards of management throughout the State still have a major problem with or actively discourage the enrolment of Traveller children?

Boards of management face a very difficult situation where a minority of pupils can be very disruptive and violent to both pupils and teachers. Boards also face a major legal responsibility. Does this issue arise regularly or has it been a minority issue in the last two or three years? I think Ms McElduff raised the question of possibly introducing an allowance for teachers who served on boards of management. Am I correct?

Ms McElduff

Deputy McGrath is correct.

Deputy F. McGrath

Do the National Parents Council and the INTO agree that this allowance should be paid to teachers and parents who serve on boards of management? Do both organisations agree that there should be an allowance for teachers who work in disadvantaged areas, particularly teachers who have made a major contribution to Irish education? We might lose many of our talented teachers and the poorest children in the State might suffer an added disadvantage. Would both organisations support the concept of having a reward for good practice for teachers who work in disadvantaged schools?

My final question relates to the now famous website, www.ratemyteacher.ie. I know the INTO has major concerns about this website but from a parent’s perspective, has the National Parents Council had much response to this website? Has it become an issue and what is the council’s view on it?

Deputy Gogarty

I might rephrase some questions that were put earlier today. One question relates to the revised rules for national schools. Are members of the National Parents Council or the INTO aware of any particular archaic rules that need to be updated and could they enlighten the committee on them? Are there any comments on schools bus escorts for students with disabilities because it was pointed out that this is very expensive from a management perspective? There is inadequate funding for these escorts from the Department of Education and Science.

Ms Kilfeather said that some boards of management meet infrequently during the year while other boards are obviously overworked. Should there be some form of legislative amendment to the Education Act, for example, to stipulate that boards of management must meet a certain number of times a year? Following on from that, should the Department provide a training framework for these because voluntarism is one issue that was raised? Obviously, it is not solely to do with the fall-off in volunteerism.

I would like more feedback on training for boards of management because both the INTO and the primary branch of National Parents Council have resources to provide certain training to some of their members but, overall, boards of management do not appear to have this funding. What kind of training would the INTO and the National Parents Council like to see? Would they favour multi-group board of management training, which would involve possibly 100 people being trained in specific areas like the roles of the secretary, treasurer and chairperson? Is legislation something about which the INTO feels strongly and will it mount a campaign similar to the one mounted about class sizes? As the management of schools becomes more complex, amateurs are making decisions. They are already afraid of legal action being taken against them but if they do not know how to deal with legislation properly, legal action will increase.

I note that 25,000 people are involved voluntarily in managing schools at present. The committee tends to travel abroad to examine education models. For example, I visited Canada to examine the various boards of management there — state-run boards of management and Catholic boards of management. Would the INTO and National Parents Council recommend that the committee travel to Scotland? Are there tangible examples of how the board of management support structure works or could committee members find out about them on the Internet?

Deputy Hoctor

I welcome the members of the National Parents Council and the president and secretary of the INTO. Ms Kilfeather said it was her understanding that 60% of primary schools are implementing the Stay Safe programme.

Ms Kilfeather

The RSE programme.

Deputy Hoctor

I am concerned that this figure seems quite small. I know Ms Kilfeather has asked for the committee's assistance in investigating the matter and I would welcome her opinion and the opinions of our guests on why only 60% of primary schools are implementing the programme. At this stage, I would have expected it to be well and truly established. In respect of one of my earlier questions, how is the Stay Safe programme being implemented in schools? Is it running smoothly?

Another question I asked earlier concerned the special educational needs organisers who operate virtually everywhere in the country. How are they interacting with schools? Are parents and teachers happy and should the committee be aware of any information regarding how the issue is progressing? A point was made about problems with the review of the boards of management, namely, that their meetings occur at crisis intervention stages rather than proactive planning stages. Will Ms Kilfeather elaborate on this point and give practical examples to support it?

Chairman

The word "litigation" was used continually this morning and again this afternoon in regard to volunteers serving on boards of management, be they patrons or representatives of staff or parents. There appears to be a constant fear of litigation. The boards of management have a requirement for much training and advice. Can Ms Kilfeather clarify these issues?

Ms Kilfeather

We have stressed training more than anything else. We give parents training because they have felt quite disempowered when serving on boards, that they are not equal and do not have the same knowledge base as other people on boards for obvious reasons. Giving parents extra training is important. Members of any board have a collective responsibility in the governance of a school. For example, the treasurer alone is not responsible for money or the secretary alone does not have sole responsibility in his or her area. It would be illogical not to give the entire board training. All members must know everything, not just one person or section.

We cannot overstress the urgency of this training. The management of primary schools is a key issue for the children of Ireland. It is not the case that this cannot be done as a money-saving device and it is astonishing that the Department of Education and Science has not done so. It has handed over to other people matters that are effectively its responsibility. A certain level of funding has been given to our national steering group. Having such a group is not bad but there is an issue of delivery.

The matter is not just about training. As I mentioned, sometimes when dealing with a complaint to the board, all boards will not go through this process. However, they need an advisory service with expertise in mediation or facilitation to help when they encounter a sticky problem they are unable to deal with. In respect of children, this means that boards do not have necessary capacity and sometimes take as much as a year or longer to process these issues. The people do not have a support service to help them. They get in touch with us for help but this is the Department's role and it should be paying for it. With people doing bits and pieces, there is much fragmentation, which is a waste of public money. Like in Scotland, the service should be cohesive.

Regarding the National Educational Welfare Board, there is a section in the Education (Welfare) Act 2000 dealing with establishing national level guidelines on a code of behaviour at the level of individual schools. The Minister for Education and Science has recently established a task force on discipline for post-primary schools but this, to my understanding, is not what was meant to happen. This is the role of the National Educational Welfare Board and it should have the resources necessary to accomplish the task. Everyone will be involved this way.

Taking voluntarism for granted is a significant issue. I am unsure about volunteers being paid as the nature of voluntarism would pose difficulties in this regard. There are ways of rewarding people other than financially, such as support services and accreditation for management courses volunteers have done. Ms Nunan referred to parents not coming forward to be elected to boards of management. Our general feedback is that boards are not communicating with parents in an ongoing way through the years. Most parents, therefore, do not perceive a point in having boards. They do not know what boards do and receive no feedback about what is happening. The matter of busy people giving their scarce time to something they believe is worthwhile must be examined, which is where the review will be involved. We all have our own opinions and the committee now has the feedback I have given it.

Ms McCann will say something about the enrolment of children with disabilities and Traveller children, on which we are still getting feedback. Violence and indiscipline can occur in primary schools but only a tiny minority of children are involved. Something must be done to assist in this area. Sometimes the children in question are experiencing problems themselves. The issue must be examined in the context of care for children rather than discipline.

I do not know the answer to the question about an allowance for teachers serving on boards. Our organisation has never discussed the issue. The disadvantage allowance for teachers has been raised in the context of the OECD conversations. One view on the matter is that paying more money will not attract better teachers. We must find good ways of accreditation, such as sabbaticals or more breaks. We can examine many ways through which people can be rewarded for doing difficult jobs without using money which could lead to professional jealousy.

We have not received a single telephone call about rating teachers. I examined the website a few weeks ago. Some of the material is downright funny while some of it is quite dodgy. However, unless there is another system of examining how schools are operated, we will always have something along these lines that we cannot stop. We must find other ways to allow feedback on teachers to be given effectively but appropriately. I know that some teachers received very nice comments. I looked for my children's school on the website and saw some brilliant feedback. These teachers must have been pleased.

The revised rules for national schools are a laugh. The Department does not have a rule book for national schools, only circulars. It has the old blue book, the only book of rules for national schools. The material it contains is ancient. Nowadays, the closest item to a rule book that people on boards of management have is the Catholic Primary School Managers Association, CPSMA, handbook. The Department should have its rules compiled somewhere. One can search for something on the Department's website, which could not be done in the past, but the Department has responsibility in this regard.

We have received significant feedback about the number of meetings boards have, such as once per term. One could not run a sweet shop in this way. Running a school is a significant job. The number of times there must be a meeting is not specified, as it depends on how often a meeting is needed. Different school sizes and contexts mean that schools hold different numbers of meetings.

Dealing with legislation is an important issue for boards. One cannot train everybody in this regard as there is a raft of legislation. An advisory service is needed when boards have problems in order that they can get information on a need-to-know basis. One would need to give up one's day job if one were to keep up with educational legislation. Examining the Scottish scheme is a worthwhile idea. It has been a few years since I examined it. Scotland has very good manuals on management practice and ongoing training, supports and advisory services.

The most recent figures I have for schools implementing RSE relate to four years ago. Perhaps we can get figures through a whole school evaluation. We do have feedback from parents suggesting some schools are not implementing it. Some of the reasons for this relate to teachers' nervousness about this topic. Perhaps more training is needed even though there has been a considerable amount already.

The climate has changed from what it was at the beginning and RSE is no longer a battleground. The overwhelming majority of parents welcome the support of schools in RSE and it requires conversation and policy development in schools so that parents and teachers can work together. It also needs a little push.

A comment on one form we received referred to crisis intervention and the lack of proactive planning. This concerns behaviour problems in schools when a particular child has difficulty. Schools are not proactive in having a good behaviour policy worked out in discussions with parents and sending information to parents. When something goes wrong the board of management meets three times in a row because there is a crisis. There is an issue that needs to be addressed and this comes back to training and advice on good ways of dealing with problems. I do not want to be too hard on boards of management because the people on them are working in an unsupported milieu and are facing difficult problems.

The litigation issue often has as much to do with the media as it has with the reality in schools. There have not been that many cases. If a board of management is careless and does not have policies in place there can be litigation proceedings brought for negligence but not for something such as a child falling in the playground. If the board of management has a health and safety policy in place, if there is adequate supervision and if there is a reasonable surface on the playground, the board is not negligent. There is no grounds on which to sue as children can fall anywhere. Parents need to understand the nature of litigation. Parents who are afraid of monstrous bills if their child knocks his or her front teeth out can take out an insurance policy for the child. Good communication with parents is needed.

Ms Anita McCann

A question was asked about discrimination against children with disabilities. Unfortunately it is happening right up to this year. In one case a child was refused a place in a school because of her disability. The enrolment policy did not mention that or any other discrimination. The child was the only one from a particular class who had applied and not been accepted. When I, the parent, investigated why the child was not being accepted into the school I was told the school could not put the resources into place. It was put to the school that only a place was being sought, not resources, and that resources could be considered later. After a long, hard struggle the child has been enrolled in the school. Discrimination exists and it must be examined as it is very relevant.

On the question of Traveller children being admitted into schools, this seems to depend on the area. We have not had feedback from Traveller children and in my area we have many Traveller children. We work well with them and with the parents. Teachers treat them no differently than others and the board and everyone in the school is supportive of the children.

The role of SNAs and special needs organisers has made a significant difference. Many improvements have been made because parents did not know where to go before these positions existed. Parents did not know what they were allowed to ask the special needs assistant about their own children if there was a problem. Information is being communicated to parents on what is available. Special needs organisers have worked very well and have helped parents and the board.

I deliberately sent my children to a school in a disadvantaged area because the supports some schools in these areas have are brilliant. There is also a great understanding of the needs of children and parents.

Bus escorts on buses for children with special needs involve considerable resources but one must look at this from a variety of perspectives. This year the issue of safety on buses arises and we need escorts on all buses. This would provide an answer to the question of safety on buses.

Deputy Gogarty

Is the State responsible for having a panel of qualified escorts or should this measure be provided by the board of management, which may not receive the resources from the Department to manage this properly?

Ms McCann

Escorts will not be provided in the immediate future because of the cost. For safety reasons escorts should be on buses in September, whether they be parents acting in a voluntary capacity or paid escorts. Something must be done on all school buses and this is where safety measures must begin.

Ms Nunan

I wish to pick up on the training theme. There must be general training for the board as a body. The Department of Education and Science has a role here in identifying the knowledge base a board must have on legislation regarding its role as an employer concerning legislation on duty of care to children, health and safety, enrolment and discipline. The Department could do this and make it accessible instead of every board trying to do it independently. Obviously these matters are governed by circular and legislation but collating this information and making it accessible would be beneficial. As a minimum there should be a requirement on every board of management to have this information.

More specifically the training could be role-specific. In this era of accountability the person fulfilling the role of treasurer should be given support in training. This is particularly true of large schools with significant funding, although no school receives large amounts of funding. Boards are required to keep and present accounts. The parent representative could also have specific training on the communication. In this way training for boards of management could take place on two levels, general and specific.

Training does take place at the managerial level but this is not communicated. Each school will need to adapt its training to meet its specific requirements. We referred earlier to schools in disadvantaged areas and in these cases much emphasis is needed on communication between the school and the community to encourage greater participation. This is clearly needed yet we are inclined to be intimidated by legislation.

Where good practice is taking place it is generally as a result of a good knowledge base concerning legislation. As a result schools are not intimidated by it. This shows that it can be done and there is no reason it should not be done. Sufficient blocks of time need to be allocated as the current model, whereby one evening per year is spent on training, is not adequate. This is unacceptable and we must state that this is the case.

Regarding Deputy Finian McGrath's comments on voluntary activity, it is being taken for granted and the system is collapsing under the weight of this. It will not last much longer and there is dread on the part of chairpersons when a term of office is coming to an end. He or she wonders how to replace the outgoing member and often must beg people to continue for another term of office. That must change as the system is in crisis.

Concerning disability and enrolment no one wants to hear that the experiences Ms McCann has had in her school occur. It is not right or fair that this should happen. From my experience of working with Traveller children, legislation, particularly the Equal Status Act, has improved the situation. Usually a parent or a visiting teacher must take the case forward using the advocacy model. In defence of teachers, we have seen a transformation of our classes in terms of composition in the past ten years. We have a much broader range of international children, such as immigrant children, children of refugees and asylum seekers, Traveller children, and children with special educational needs and language difficulties. The skills now required to manage a classroom are quite demanding. Teachers have strengths and weaknesses and need support in order to deliver in the classroom. The INTO does not condone any form of discrimination and parents have a good appeals mechanism to challenge enrolments if they have difficulties with the school's response. It comes back to the need for boards to draw up an enrolment policy that is consistent with legislation in the first instance. Often the cart is put before the horse.

It is the same with regard to school discipline. We are most anxious that the welfare board will speedily progress its work on guidance for schools. A small number of children are involved but they are extremely vulnerable. Often these children have a combination of disadvantage in their backgrounds. As we know they will end up in courts at the age of 14 or 15, help is needed.

Some form of acknowledgement is needed for members of boards of management, such as a small allowance. One tries to encourage young parents but often they have babysitting costs if they attend board of management meetings and get involved. The INTO supports a reward system for teachers in disadvantaged areas. The Minister's description of it as "hello money" was an unfair comment. There should be an acknowledgement and reward system for teachers who have spent many years in schools in Dublin's inner city or in areas in west Dublin such as Clondalkin or Tallaght. If an allowance cannot be paid, perhaps the area of pensions could be examined. No one here would disagree that it is tougher work for these teachers who are often extremely committed and pay a personal price.

We ignore the ratemyteacher website and find it the most successful way to deal with it. We do not give it any oxygen.

The revised rules for national schools are highly entertaining and could be the subject of a good dramatic farce. They require an overhaul. It is an excellent historic document but is obsolete and no longer relevant. We called for changes in that area.

The bus escort issue illustrates an attempt by the Department to devolve responsibility to a board of management and wash its hands of the matter. That is where the difficulty arises. If the escort gets sick at a weekend, the voluntary member of the board who has responsibility for that matter must suddenly find somebody else. The allowance from the Department is hardly sufficient. That person is back in the role of employer. It is fraught with difficulty if anything should happen. There is a gap in that issue.

The RSE is now properly located in the social, personal and health education programme. Ms Kilfeather is correct to state teachers were initially nervous about rolling it out. It is a different type of teaching. One is not trying to figure out long-division, multiplication or phonics. It deals with children's attitudes and a teacher must be confident about bringing children into that realm. It is an extremely different pedagogy to what we do with ordinary subject areas. The training has been useful but issues often arise that are tricky in a classroom. Teachers are right to be cautious in their approach. If I were a parent I would not want a teacher to deal with it unless he or she was extremely confident with regard to children's emotions and attitudes. I believe we will see it delivered within the social, personal and health education. It is now a requirement under the revised curriculum and schools take it seriously. They are trying to deliver it.

Ms McElduff

The fact that parts of the rulebook are out of date highlights the difficulty for many board members of having to approach multiple sources, such as a circular, guidelines on child protection, the rule book or legislation to establish the position on a matter. There is no guidance or comprehensive document and no understanding or guidance is given on how to implement legislation. Such multi-sourcing is a major issue for boards of management.

Rule 130 on school discipline is out of date. It was replaced by Circular 20/90, which is now 15 years old. That is the current discipline circular in primary schools although it is now out of date. It was overtaken by the provisions of the Education (Welfare) Act, but the welfare board and the Department of Education and Science have not gelled on the question of how to amend or repeal the existing circular to encompass the new provisions of the Act. Schools state the Act has good provisions as the welfare board is obliged to issue guidelines on suspension, expulsion and signing up to the code. As Ms Kilfeather pointed out they only arise in a couple of cases. However, when they do arise they are tricky and schools need advice on it. The INTO has written to the Department and I have contacted it on a number of occasions seeking to have Circular 20/90 repealed. We have approached the welfare board to issue the guidelines but we must have a system that allows those two bodies to communicate with each other as well as with us in order to make it work. That requires a large amount of energy and it has not yet happened.

The reason we specified principal teachers with regard to allowances is in reality it is the principal who must find and impart all of this information and advise the board. The principal bears a particularly onerous role on the board with regard to support and advice. We know this from our own dealings with principals.

The question was asked as to whether a legislative amendment should be made to provide for a certain number of meetings in a year. I am not certain on that as the rules and constitutions of boards of management already provide that boards should hold as many meetings as are required, no less than three but generally five. It comes back to training. The boards must be alert as to what their roles are and to understand they need to be proactive in certain areas, not to wait for a crisis but to plan the policy in advance. I agree with Ms Nunan that it must be on two levels, but the most important point is that it is structured. Educate Together gives some training and CPS does its bit, as do parents and ourselves. Sometimes we join up but there is no central thinking apart from central funding. The dearth of information leads to major problems in the system.

Deputy Gogarty

I have a couple of supplementary questions. In the school where my wife works two five-year-old children were simulating a sex act, which other students observed. At what age should some form of basic sex education be implemented? Children are becoming sexualised at a much earlier age, primarily because of what they see outside of school, and television desensitises them.

There is a debate as to what type of non-financial incentive could be given to teachers in disadvantaged areas. In my constituency Lucan is considered more affluent than north Clondalkin, which is a RAPID area. In an Educate Together school in Lucan, almost half of the pupils have one or both parents who do not speak English as a first language. In south-west Clondalkin, which is not a RAPID area, there are areas of extreme disadvantage with high levels of houses rented out via the health board. It is not designated as disadvantaged and does not get the same support as RAPID areas, but the schools need those same support facilities. Does the delegation agree there is a need to revisit the concept of how a school is designated as disadvantaged?

On feedback on the welfare board's need to draw up codes of practice and guidelines, does the delegation acknowledge the National Educational Welfare Board has called for funding to enable it to roll out its full complement of officers? Currently, it only has 90 out of 300. Perhaps its priorities have not been straightened out because of funding. Does the delegation agree the Department of Education and Science should quickly provide funding for the full complement of education welfare officers?

Ms Kilfeather

I wish first to revisit a question asked on allowances for board members. I hope that I did not create the impression that there should not be allowances. I was discussing pay rather than allowances. Allowances should be paid for babysitting and other out of pocket expenses.

Relationships are key to the issue of the age at which to start the RSE programme. Sexuality is discussed according to the age of the child within a range of appropriate relationships such as friends, family and the wider world, beginning when a child is four years old in a manner appropriate to that age. This is dissimilar to the traditional method where brief instruction is given on the facts of life and the matter is subsequently left alone. The programme begins for children at the age of four and continues throughout primary level. It is the only area of the curriculum, as part of SPHE, that continues to the junior cycle of post-primary school as a seamless programme. The programme is conducted as appropriate to a child's stage of development and in conjunction with the efforts of parents. It is a different procedure from the teaching of maths or spelling and must involve parents at policy level rather than leave it to the teachers until the child knows everything at the age of 14.

Mr. Gogarty

Does Ms Kilfeather think it appropriate for the children of today? Children have differed in the past ten years.

Ms Kilfeather

Children are the same inside but face a different world in terms of mass media and other factors. The programme takes account of peer and media pressure. Parents and teachers need to discuss this area because a teacher will be made vulnerable by discussing issues on his or her own initiative. Parents, teachers and school management should agree on an approach so that difficult areas will have the backing of school policy. In some areas difficulties will be encountered which might suggest that a child should embark on an educational programme at a relatively early age. By developing solid school policies, teachers will not feel vulnerable. Everyone will be aware of what transpires and parents have the right to withdraw their children from the programme.

The NPC has always had niggling worries on the issue of designating people as disadvantaged. All schools have disadvantaged children. In terms of disadvantaged communities, there are differences between urban and rural RAPID areas. Recent studies have shown that the records of drop-outs and poor school attendance are worse in RAPID I areas, whereas the record of RAPID II areas is similar to that of the general population. It is a complex matter and many people do not like the label that results from designating a school as disadvantaged. It is a crude implement and needs to be investigated.

The NEWB and funding are key issues in terms of educational welfare officers. We have had good feedback on the work of these officers. They are helpful but are not constantly available and their numbers are insufficient to carry out the necessary preventative work. Potential for school drop-out may be spotted in a child almost from his or her birth. There are a number of indicators. If educational welfare officers could work in a friendly and preventative way with families, they may avoid unfortunate circumstances.

Ms McCann

The issue of training is relevant. Parents need to be made aware of the functions of the National Educational Welfare Board and educational welfare officers. The media's description of the purpose of the National Educational Welfare Board fostered resentment among parents because they believed that yet another body would watch over them and that they would be imprisoned if they did not send their children to school. The board was thwarted in reaching the people it wished to target. We have conducted a number of presentations at county level at which an education welfare officer talked to parents. That made a significant difference. It is an excellent service which resolved my problems with a school.

I remember when schools were given disadvantaged status. A lot of schools did not want to participate because they did not want their area or school labelled as disadvantaged. However, I found that teachers, boards and communities made extra efforts. I am aware that there are significant problems in some disadvantaged areas. If the support was made available, all schools could be the same. The National Educational Welfare Board and disadvantaged schools and their communities should co-operate to end disadvantaged status. Continued support would have to made available. I am aware of a school which is currently seeking disadvantaged status because of the increased support available for schools in that category. It is working well.

Deputy F. McGrath

I wish to return to the allowance issue because it is important. Some may have different opinions on the matter but it is essential that the education system provides rewards for good practice, particularly in terms of teachers who work in disadvantaged areas. I attended a retirement function for a friend who served 39 years in the north inner city. He gave a lot to the inner city, although he could have worked in many other schools. He made many contributions, which included bringing children to matches. Other teachers are beginning their careers. From humanitarian and trade union points of view, it would be nice to reward good practice.

During the final two weeks of the Dáil term, I was bombarded with letters from teachers on the loss of members of that profession. Schools lost assistants because they were short two or three pupils. Last September, Scoil Muire in Marino, which is in my own area, lost an assistant when enrolment slipped below 325 pupils, despite the increase in enrolment to 327 for the forthcoming year. This problem is emerging. Is the appeals process fair and effective in the opinion of parents and teachers? Significant problems have arisen in terms of the schools which lost teachers on 30 June despite enrolling higher numbers for the following September. For example, Scoil Muire in Marino has to increase its sixth class to 35 pupils. That is unacceptable in the context of abundant resources and extensive discussions on education. Is this an issue of concern for parents and the INTO?

Ms Nunan

Before responding to Deputy McGrath, I wish to respond to Deputy Gogarty on the RSE programme. He outlined a horrific scenario. It is worrying that children are sexualised at a younger age. The question of assigning responsibility arises. Teachers enter scary territory in this regard. My first thought, upon hearing the Deputy, was that it is an issue for Children First guidelines rather than RSE because the former indicates that recurring inappropriate behaviour should trigger alarm bells. The board will then decide where to send the information. Nobody wants immediately to inform the social worker or knock on doors. The matter illustrates the complexity of events at classroom and board level.

Mr. Gogarty

It seems to be endemic in varying degrees. My example may have been extreme but there is a culture in certain schools of premature sexualisation among children. This cannot be addressed entirely on an emergency basis.

Ms Nunan

I do not suggest that it can. I am unsure about the term "endemic" but trends are certainly changing. While schools and teachers will play their part, they cannot be made entirely responsible. Parents have the initial responsibility.

Leaving aside the appropriateness of the terminology, the designation of disadvantage has been hugely successful in identifying the most severely affected schools and banding them accordingly. This is something we support. All the schemes, from the home-school liaison service to the school completion project, have been hugely effective.

We welcome the recent decision by the Minister to increase funding for disadvantaged areas. The mechanisms whereby schools get into the scheme are again being reviewed. Difficulties arose because school populations changed. It is hoped that the review will bring about a more open and transparent system for schools to obtain the additional funding.

This morning's Barnardo's report on children living in consistent poverty shows that there is a pressing need for schools to be active agents in ensuring a better quality of life for their children. Ms McElduff will comment on the NEWB.

Was Deputy Finian McGrath asking about the new special education system or the general staffing system?

Deputy F. McGrath

The general staffing system.

Ms Nunan

The system is very rigid, with an inflexible cut-off point. The appeals mechanism has been a waste of time for both schools and parents.

Deputy F. McGrath

Schools should not hold their breath.

Ms Nunan

They should not hold their breath. It is worrying that schools lose valuable members of staff when pupil numbers change.

Ms McElduff

I endorse the Deputy's suggestion and Ms Kilfeather's argument for increased funding for the NEWB. The original target was 300 posts but at present there are only approximately 90. Welfare officers will not be able to develop relationships with schools if they are to be infrequent visitors. Schools have reported a number of children with absences exceeding 20 days, 40 days and even 60 days but the welfare officers have not been able to visit them. More officers are urgently needed to deal with those children. The NEWB has rolled out a programme of work on many fronts, such as developing discipline policy and protocols for relationships between welfare officers and schools. However, funding is critical to underpin this.

Deputy Gogarty

What is Ms McElduff's view of the opinion of the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dempsey, with which the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, concurs, that the full roll-out of the education welfare officers is not urgent because of the presence in disadvantaged areas of the home-school liaison service?

Ms McElduff

They are two separate roles. The home-school liaison has a specific role in dealing with the parental community and with bonding in schools. There may be some overlap but that does not detract from the need to provide proper funding for the welfare board and its officers.

Ms Nunan

The home-school liaison has no statutory responsibility for enforcement, which is the bottom line. Retention of children in school improves their chances of staying on at post-primary level and succeeding.

Ms Kilfeather

That point was supported by a recent report from the inspectorate of the Department of Education and Science, which found that children in a certain group of schools had unimaginably low literacy levels. Children such as these need the services of educational welfare officers to ensure that they stay in school. This is an issue of social justice because the most vulnerable children are those who drop out of school. The implications for the rest of their lives are enormous. In that context, the additional officers would pay for themselves. The NEWB has a statutory remit, whereas the home school liaison is only a support service. There should be co-operation between the two but they have completely different remits.

Chairman

I thank our guests for attending this informative discussion.

Ms Nunan

We are delighted to have had the opportunity and we appreciate that the joint committee is taking these matters seriously. A forum for review is necessary to co-ordinate activities in this area. It would be welcome if the joint committee facilitated the adoption of new management initiatives which are badly overdue.

Chairman

We may invite the delegates to return to the committee if further deliberations are required in this area.

The joint committee went into private session at 3.35 p.m. and adjourned at 3.40 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 7 September 2005.