I welcome the representatives from the National Educational Welfare Board, namely, Dr. Ann Louise Gilligan, chairperson, Mr. Eddie Ward, chief executive officer, and Ms Eileen Fahy, director of educational services. Before we begin, I draw their attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege. However, this 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 persons outside the House or officials by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I call on Dr. Gilligan to make her presentation on behalf of the board. She is welcome to draw her colleagues into the discussion if she wishes.
National Educational Welfare Board: Presentation.
Dr. Ann Louise Gilligan
Thank you. We greatly appreciate being asked back before the joint committee again this year. We appeared before it this time last year and we welcome the opportunity to return and inform the members of our progress over the past year. I will make some opening remarks, after which I will hand over to Ms Fahy, who is the director of educational services, and to Mr. Ward, who is our chief executive officer. We will then welcome questions from the members.
I will now update the committee as to our progress in the past year. It has been a very positive year for us and we have published our strategic plan for 2005-07. The publication of the plan indicates the existence of a new phase of maturation and development of our work. The content of the plan gives a very clear feel of the nature of our work. We engaged in a very inclusive process to articulate it, in which every member of the National Educational Welfare Board, NEWB, participated. As a result, we all took ownership of the plan and have shown a commitment to realise its ideals and practice.
With regard to the NEWB's ethos and service, it is important to return to something it has held since it was formed as a designate board in 2001 and its staff read the text of the Education (Welfare) Act 2000. Our role is to hold an intensive balance between education and welfare. The Act is an extremely progressive piece of legislation and is to be greatly welcomed. Those of us present here today who are educators know how important a relational ethos is in achieving one's educational aspirations. Our strategic plan adheres to the spirit of the Act and stresses the fact that we own and try to implement a relational ethos in our work and relationships with homes, families and schools. This is the most effective way of realising our manifold responsibilities under this Act.
The culture and ethos of the NEWB is partly formed by the language we use. We have been very careful to adhere to our responsibilities under the Act and shift our metaphor to be both inclusive and relational. Many members of the committee are aware of the history of education and the progress of education Acts. The School Attendance Act 1926 reflected the times in its emphasis on punishment. However, the contemporary emphasis on prevention is welcome. The responses to the excellent work carried out by our educational welfare officers indicate that a relational ethos and an emphasis on prevention are having an impact.
One of our responsibilities is addressing school absenteeism in a systematic and coherent way. The NEWB is the single national organisation charged by the Oireachtas with implementing the Education (Welfare) Act, a responsibility it takes very seriously. We note the ethical imperative in the Act and the need for it to be realised if the right of all children to an education is to be realised. We have a mandate under the Act to take legal action against a parent or guardian and will not shirk our responsibility. We can discuss how these matters have progressed. However, we regard legal action as a last resort. Our responsibility is to ensure that all children and young people, particularly the most vulnerable, are given the opportunity to attend school and achieve their potential. We are developing our work under the Act.
My colleague, Ms Eileen Fahy, will now discuss the NEWB's practice and service.
Ms Eileen Fahy
I will briefly discuss preliminary key findings of an interesting piece of research commissioned by the NEWB. It is the first time we have released any information regarding this research. The research investigated the underlying causes and factors affecting school attendance and was unique in that it simultaneously examined attendance from the perspective of schools, parents and children. We looked for common ground and gaps and tried to identify what would address attendance problems. Other NEWB research indicates the existence of serious school attendance problems in the country. We also wanted to contribute to evidence-based research to inform future decision-making and policy.
Ten sample schools in Dublin, Galway, Letterkenny, Cork, Dundalk, Swords in County Dublin, Wexford and Dunmanway were involved in the study. One of its key findings was the importance of school attendance with regard to future life chances. Most parents want their children to attend school and most children want to attend school. They attend school happily at four years of age but things appear to go wrong very quickly for some children. These children begin to disengage and withdraw from education, the reason for which we must ascertain. The research indicated that this disengagement and withdrawal is the beginning of marginalisation and exclusion for some children and that school attendance is very much a welfare issue and, therefore, deserves attention in its own right.
In order to prevent the awful marginalisation and exclusion experienced by some children at a very young age, it is important to use attendance as an indicator of disadvantage because it is a measurable and very discrete indicator. Dropping out of school is a process and it is very important for us to intervene early to ensure that children do not experience marginalisation and exclusion. This is the approach we should take to prevent the emergence of poor attendance habits.
In a public survey conducted recently by the NEWB, the majority of adult respondents indicated that they believed it was acceptable for children to miss school at primary level and that children were worse off if they missed school at secondary level. We must address these perceptions. It is important to build awareness of the importance of regularly attending primary school.
The cost of non-attendance was the other major issue that emerged from the research. Non-attendance imposes costs on schools and teachers in teaching, remedial and resource time. The research indicates that non-attendance has a serious impact on parents, the majority of whom want their children to attend school. Non-attendance causes stress, emotional disturbance and even health problems among parents. Parents can be frustrated by their inability to deal with their child's non-attendance. Non-attendance also causes frustration among pupils who attend school regularly but must sit through the repetition of material already covered in the classroom. These children resent losing valuable time in school, which is an interesting finding. Pupils who have been out of school for a long period of time experience great difficulty reintegrating with the school.
The benefit of attending school was another interesting finding. Socialisation seemed to be a key factor, including good habits children develop, self-discipline they learn and building of their self-esteem and confidence. The welfare issue was deemed to be important in that, if very vulnerable children are in school, they are in the care of responsible adults in a safe environment for a large portion of every day. The areas of attendance, attainment and achievement are tightly linked, which is clear from this research. If one is in every day, one can attain and if one can attain, one can achieve, meaning one's life chances will improve. This is the essence of the NEWB: to protect that right for children and increase their life chances by supporting them in school.
Our welfare officers were interviewed as part of this survey. They play a valuable and unique role in contributing to the attendance of young people in school and protecting their rights to education. They are mediators between homes and schools, communities and other agencies. Unfortunately, the scarcity of educational welfare officers, EWOs, on the ground undermines the organisation's credibility, a fact that emerged from the research. Our welfare officers are overstretched and have heavy caseloads. This makes life difficult for everyone involved as people start missing out, such as students and parents. Our staff and schools are being stretched because we cannot give the full service we would like.
Key recommendations derived from the research are that school attendance should be recognised as a critical factor for alleviating exclusion. Therefore, it deserves attention in its own right and school attendance programmes and policies should be addressed specifically. We have a job to do in respect of raising awareness among parents and guardians of the importance of education and daily attendance. We must also carry out work on the link between attendance, attainment and achievement. The NEWB requires better resources in order to allow EWOs to carry out their work, which would enable us to intervene as early as possible in the drop-out process and prevent children losing out for their lifetimes.
Mr. Eddie Ward
I thank the committee for taking such a keen interest in our work. As a new service, one is always trying to inform. Working with the committee is one of the ways through which we can inform policymakers, key people in the education system and parents and families throughout the country.
Two years ago today the then Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey, launched the national educational welfare service in our new head office on Green Street, which marked a promising and auspicious beginning to a new era in dealing with educational inclusion and school attendance in Ireland. In that two year period my optimism about what we do has not changed. If anything, it has increased. Based on Ms Fahy's comments, our role has an increased importance. It is important that we get children into schools and establish a pattern of attendance from the earliest point in time rather than leave it until it is too late.
Two years ago we set ourselves a modest objective. We had a limited staff, only 73 people, and we knew we would be establishing a skeleton national service focused on disadvantaged areas in the main. We wanted to get out there and make meaningful interventions in the lives of children we knew were losing out on education. We wanted to begin providing genuine support to parents, families, communities and schools in respect of school attendance and address an information deficit in terms of research, knowledge and understanding of the issue.
We have achieved a great deal since then. As the phrase goes, much more remains to be done. We have 26 offices nationally and provide a service in every county bar three. We opened eight new offices this year and have 73 educational welfare officers on the ground. Since January 2004 we have successfully dealt with 20,000 cases involving those children reported as being of concern to schools in terms of attendance. We have established an assessment and registration system for children who are educated outside schools, for example, in the home. We have established a national lo-call education helpline, mainly used by parents, that deals with approximately 5,000 calls per year.
We have issued guidance to schools on how they should interpret the Act and report absences. We have established a national website in this respect and a comprehensive research programme has been put in place, a good deal of which was outlined by Ms Fahy. As our chairperson said, we have published our strategic plan. In other words, we have outlined to policymakers and the country at large what the vision of the Education (Welfare) Act 2000 means to us. Our outline has been well received throughout the educational community and public life generally. We have begun legal action in respect of a number of children, approximately 26, and are currently following these up.
One of our most important acts has been to establish baseline data concerning the levels of non-attendance in Ireland, which was not done previously. For the second year in a row we established reliable data on the levels of non-attendance. For example, we can now say with authority that the average child in primary school misses ten days per year, the average child in post-primary school misses 14 days and 84,000 children under the age of 16 miss more than 20 days per year, up to 28,000 of whom could be missing more than 40 days. This information is new and significant, of which we who work in education and with children are aware.
It goes without saying that non-attendance is worse in poorer areas. However, it is not confined to the RAPID I areas that we tried to service from the word "Go". An encouragement derived from our research this year, which we will publish in greater detail, is that, in each of the RAPID I areas with EWOs, the levels of attendance improved 4% over the course of the year. The number of children with absences of 20 days or more has fallen by this percentage, which is a profound tribute to our educational welfare officers and the vision of the board and former Minister in establishing the new service.
The role parents play in school attendance is very important and should be emphasised again and again. We must put supports in place to enable them to deal with the challenge if their children are not attending school. We have a significant role in this but we could not deal with it on our own. It requires the involvement of a number of agencies. Schools are crucial. How they receive children, the curricula they offer, how they manage behaviour and the way they identify the supports children might need are crucial. The Act deals with that area and we have commenced work on school attendance strategies to enable and support schools in doing their important work.
One of our other functions is to support schools in the management of behaviours. Policies are often points of conflict in schools and we have begun working with them. Hopefully, we will have guidelines worked out with them before the end of the year. This matter is of great concern to schools and we wish to respond when they identify particularly important needs. We have provided comprehensive guidelines to schools on the reporting of absences. It is an incremental step but it will develop. It is crucial that we address how internal school systems can cope with the demands of the Act. We have the important task of disseminating good practice among school communities, namely, teachers and principals, in how they deal with issues that impact on school attendance.
Well established services always face challenges. Our biggest challenge, as a newly established service, is dealing with a problem that is already very well established. We have quite a number of children and young people with well established habits of non-attendance, who are chronic non-attenders. That takes up a lot of time and resources. We find ourselves fire-fighting much of the time. It also means that the quality of our response can be diluted because of the kinds of case loads that staff are carrying and the geographical distances they are trying to cover. Furthermore, it means that we are not intervening early on in children's lives. The whole thrust of public policy with regard to children and the principles behind the Education (Welfare) Act is early intervention in children's lives in order to make a genuine and effective difference, to ensure we do not fail the current generation.
We need to do more in our preventive work. That is very important to avoid a situation in the future where we have large numbers of chronic non-attenders, as we do at present. As a new organisation, it is also important that we concentrate on our organisational structure, because people are working on their own in far-flung locations and we need to support them in their work. That is a real challenge for the organisation.
The National Educational Welfare Board must address the needs of 16 and 17 year olds, who are leaving school to enter employment. Those young people are often forgotten and we have not implemented the provisions of the legislation relating to them because we are stretched in so many other ways.
We have requested a budget of €14 million for 2006. This would enable us to have 145 educational and welfare staff in the field. It would enable us to provide a more comprehensive service, locally and nationally. It will also enable us to examine models for an educational and welfare service that will best meet the needs of Ireland today. If the service remains dispersed, we will never reach a point where we can experiment and determine the best model for the country. This does not require significant increases in staff, but rather that we can staff a small, defined geographic area and see what we can learn as an organisation. This would enable us to apply best practice throughout the organisation, as well as assisting schools and parents. We also want to address our ongoing battle with case loads.
There is a very inclusive ethos in the Education (Welfare) Act. Non-attendance is an important indicator of disadvantage which can be identified early in a child's life and that is the time at which we should be getting involved.
I thank the committee for its interest in our work and am happy to answer any questions members may have.
I welcome the representatives of the National Educational Welfare Board and congratulate the board on its second birthday and on all it has achieved in its first two years. The board's presentation was very useful and I hope this committee will have an opportunity to influence budgetary decisions. It may be too late at this stage because the increase in the Estimates is only 4%, which is nowhere near what the board requires. Therefore, I call on those who control the purse strings to give the board the funding it needs. The representatives have clearly outlined the need for additional funding and the positive effect of properly resourcing the National Educational Welfare Board in outcomes for children, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The statistics presented to the committee today are quite shocking. I was shocked when I read that 84,000 children have missed 20 days or more. I was even more shocked when I read that 28,000 have missed 40 days at school. Those children have very little chance of benefiting from the education system. The statistics indicate that the work of the board is crucial.
I saw the recent "Prime Time" programme which showed that, with the resources currently at the board's disposal, it can only deal with the chronic cases in any depth. It is vital that the board can achieve the early intervention to which it aspires. I strongly support the board's call for extra resources and hope that this committee can influence departmental thinking in that regard. An extra €6 million is not an enormous sum of money in the context of the overall budget and I hope that the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, will have some good news on budget day.
The issue of parental awareness is crucial. Can the representatives tell us whether, in most cases, parents are aware of the level of absenteeism of their children? Is it the case that children mitch from school or are they not being sent to school in the mornings? I suspect that in many cases, the parents are aware that their children are not going to school. I do not know this for certain and am interested in the board's response to that question. Parental education is very important. Does the board do any direct work with the National Parents' Council or with the various parents' councils at primary and second level?
I am very interested in the statistics on the different kinds of interventions and note that the board has a large number of closed cases, which seems very positive. Is the board of the opinion that in those cases the children are now regularly attending school? Is that the meaning of cases listed as "closed"? The number of court appearances is very small and I am sure that is appropriate. I assume the board finds other mechanisms to address chronic non-attendance, without having to resort to the courts. I note that three of the court cases took place in one region. Is there any particular reason for that?
The task force on student behaviour is about to report to the Minister. Has the board had any involvement with that task force? One of the representatives made the point that the board works with schools in dealing with students with behavioural problems. In some ways it is understandable if teachers are relieved when difficult children do not attend school but obviously that is not good for anyone. Has the board had any influence on the task force?
I apologise on behalf of my colleague, Deputy Enright, who could not be here today. This is an area in which she has a keen interest.
I compliment the board on its work and the results achieved to date, particularly given the minimal level of resources at its disposal. I welcome the fact that it is engaged in research and is constantly analysing the area, gathering statistics and so forth. That is very important for the future. The board has only been in existence for two years but has produced a wealth of statistical evidence, which is great. It means we can have a proper, informed discussion on the problem and move forward.
Resources are essential and as Deputy O'Sullivan has just mentioned, the Estimates seem to indicate an increase of only 4% for the board, which amounts to €312,000. That is approximately 5% of what the board requested. What will happen if the board only receives an increase of 4%? It would seem that the board's plan for 2005 to 2007 will have to be binned if it only receives a measly increase of €312,000. I know that is an awkward question but we need to know where the board will go from here.
Every group or organisation that has appeared before this committee has stressed the importance of early intervention. We all know that it is crucial. Everyone in every Department knows it too, but no one is really addressing it and making a concerted effort to invest in early intervention across the board. What will it take to convince people that this must be done? The public must be convinced that money spent on early intervention is money well spent. We do not seem to be winning the argument, however. We have a wealth of data and evidence to back it up, but we do not seem to be getting the point through to people. I welcome the representative's views on that issue.
Having conducted research and worked in the area for the past two years, has the board identified any changes that could be made to the education system that might make some difference or help to solve the problem? Are there any problems in the system to which the board might have suggestions or solutions?
I would have thought the same as parents who believe it is acceptable that their children miss primary school. It makes sense. I am not a parent but I would not have thought it was a problem to miss a few days of primary school. I fully accept what the delegation stated and it is correct that it starts bad habits. How can that message be put across? Should it be through the media or through letters to parents? Should we have compulsory parenting courses for everyone? People who wish to adopt a child must complete months of courses. However, any of us can become parents within a short time without any training, experience or advice. Many parents admit they cannot get it right and would like help.
Parents who should know better allow their children to miss many days, and it takes up the teachers' time, delays classes and holds pupils back. Responsibility rests on the teacher to bring the child up to the standard he or she should be at and the parents get away scot-free. Should the parents meet the teachers to get the information the child has missed and bring the children up to speed themselves? Is there a way to put a sting in the tail in order that parents take some responsibility?
The issue regarding 16 and 17 year olds concerns resources. They are not registered with the board. Many of them leave because they believe it is their best chance to get a job, particularly in trades, as that job may not be available two years later. How do we tackle that issue? Can we come to a compromise? Many of them complete FÁS courses, which is good because it means they receive an education. Perhaps a compromise would allow them to take up a job and complete their schooling by night. Let us face facts — many of them want to leave and nothing we do will stop them. Encouraging them towards a 50-50 approach could mean they achieve something in the education field rather than losing out.
Initially, the National Educational Welfare Board predicted that more than 300 officers would be required. It now has 73, which represents an increase during the past year. We are a long way from those predictions. How badly are those new officers required? The board received 37 new officers this year. Does it relate back to the overall plans for the next couple of years? Whatever way the figures are examined, each officer has more than 150 cases with which to deal. I am sure some are taking less and others more. What is the optimal number of caseloads for an officer to have on his or her books? What amount signifies the level at which the job becomes impossible or the pressure means a good job cannot be done?
There are many reasons which give rise to absenteeism. What are the main three or four reasons for children missing school days? I know disadvantage in some areas is one. People from disadvantaged areas miss more days for many reasons. Perhaps their attitude to education is different. Is it because parents cannot afford to send their children to school or because they do not have what they need? Extracurricular activities such as PE or computer classes can cost up to €1,000 per year. It may involve bringing €2 to pay for something. Does evidence suggest that children miss certain days that involve extra costs? Has that been examined? Parents deemed to have plenty of money can find it difficult to afford these extra bits and pieces. Those short of funds would have an issue and it would be embarrassing for the pupils to be there. Can anything be done about this situation?
The number of people who do not continue on to secondary school seems to have risen by 30%. Will the delegation comment on that issue? How serious is the problem? Does the delegation believe those figures? Not all of those figures come from the board. I may have more questions later.
I thank the contributors from the National Educational Welfare Board. Their appearance before the committee is becoming an annual event. I am disappointed at the lack of increased funding. Last year the board initially sought €25 million and then pitched a more modest proposal. The €14 million sought now is probably a more realistic proposal. We hope the Minister will take note of the findings of this committee. The Supplementary Estimates in the new year provide another opportunity if it is not included in the budget. It is important that the board continues to make presentations because the message must get out.
I welcome the fact that the presentation this year demonstrates tangible results and highlights the work done, particularly the focus on primary level. The anecdotal figure is that one in seven children does not have proper literacy and numeracy skills entering second level. They will not remain in education. They must be caught and kept. Children at junior certificate level cannot be encouraged if they do not have the capacity or the interest. If they have the capacity, it might be possible to encourage the interest. It is a balancing act.
I have some queries on the presentation. I calculated that the number of children absent for at least 40 days at primary and second level would fill approximately 500 classrooms. They are worst-case scenarios and affect education the most. That is a large number of pupils missing a month and a half of the school year. In that context it would be a good idea to highlight the worst-case scenario as a matter for discussion on "Prime Time". The media tend to put as much pressure on the Minister, as does this committee. The board should work out the exact number of classrooms that would be filled and create a model. It would demonstrate the extent of the problem and get more public momentum behind its cause.
I have some queries on the €14 million. Given that the Minister is not likely to provide that amount of funding and without pre-conditions, what is the least amount of money that would allow the board to carry out its work capably and provide some level of tangible improvement on the work done during the past year? One should not normally provide the Minister with one's baseline, but there is a problem if she will not even reach it.
I presume we will still require 300 officers to carry out all the functions of the board. I will ask a question that I also put to the board last year. Members of the delegation mentioned in another meeting that not investing in this area costs the State approximately €14 million. Do they have new data on what the physical cost of not investing in the National Educational Welfare Board is? If it is still €14 million, the fact the board is seeking investment of €14 millionrepresents a neutral revenue balance.
I do not want to take up too much time. I know Deputy Crowe also wishes to put some questions to the delegation. Does the board have coverage in every county? How many people does an officer see during the day? What is the optimum length of quality time to be spent with a family? The Church of Scientology made a funny presentation before the committee which received some stick in the media. It proposed that welfare should be removed from parents if they did not send their children to school. We do not want to go down that fascist state road. The media focused more on the fact that that delegation was here rather than on what was said. One possible corollary to that contribution is the idea of providing incentives for parents who send their children to school.
Would some form of increased funding be feasible, distributed on the same basis as children's star marking? Do parents who do not send children to school have problems beyond financial incentives? What proportion of parents are unable to cope and what proportion do not care? I know of one child who has a parent involved in drugs and prostitution. He gets up every morning when a certain cartoon comes on television and goes to school. He does this out of habit and is a shining example. Children must be identified and encouraged separately but I wonder whether parents do not care or cannot cope and whether the income incentive would work.
I apologise but I shall be obliged to leave shortly. Reference was made to statutory duty when the board was established. There was concern that the lack of welfare officers would prevent the board from fulfilling its statutory duty. Does this still concern the board? Are there any legal cases pending and does this concern the board?
The report refers to RAPID programme areas. Is there a link between the RAPID programme and co-ordinators in various areas? I have seen the attendance sheets relating to absenteeism. Has the board undertaken a study on absenteeism and the factors relating to it? Is bullying such a factor? Parents contacted me recently about a child being bullied. They found a suicide note in the child's bedroom. They had reported the bullying to the school headmaster a year earlier but no action had been taken. Does the National Educational Welfare Board have a role in this area or is it solely a matter for the board of management of the school?
Reference was made to the cost to society and the importance of educating children. Another cost can be incurred if children are causing problems while absent from school. Is the incidence of absenteeism among children from disadvantaged areas higher? Are there any proposals for ways to address this? In my area, mentoring was proposed as well as encouraging parents to return to education, particularly in families without a history of education. Does the National Educational Welfare Board have a function in this regard?
Does the board attempt to identify students whose education is suffering because of factors outside school, such as family problems, or is this the role of welfare officers connected to a school? Is the lack of child care a factor in this problem? I have anecdotal evidence, from the period prior to the existence of welfare officers, of local priests visiting homes on behalf of schools and being met at the front door by children dressed in school uniforms who explained that one of their parents had obtained a day's work. Does the board have experience of this and is it a factor in absenteeism in poorer, working-class areas?
Dr. Gilligan
Ms Eileen Fahy will respond to questions on education and our relationship with EWOs. Mr. Eddie Ward will speak on systemic issues. I am appreciative of the level of reflection evident in the questions and I assure the committee that many questions have been raised at board level.
Many questions referred to needs, resources and our original estimate. Having engaged with the Department's officials and a consultant recommended by the Department, we made an estimate in respect of what we needed. Our research has proven the estimate correct, which was that some 10% of young people are affected. We still hold the belief that we will need over 300 officers to deliver a full service. Many people saw the "Prime Time" programme in which one of our officials, with 170 cases on hands, was filmed driving through the country. That situation is untenable.
I wish to link the statutory duty to which Deputy Crowe referred with the need and responsibility we hold under the Act. We are not creating need, it has been proven by the statistics. We are left with an ever-growing sense of responsibility because we are the statutory agency and the sole national organisation with that responsibility. We work with those on the ground in a highly integrated manner. School absenteeism is a major issue and resources must be provided in that regard if we are to fulfil our duties.
Another point referred to the amount we can do with the resources received from our parent Department to date. As chairperson of the board, I think we have delivered an enormous service from stringent resources. This has been done by placing officers in areas of greatest need and also by building an ethos of school attendance.
We are doing reasonably well but we could do more. We felt we could not part with any of our resources to conduct an excellent communication campaign. We must allow a greater part of the public to understand the work we are doing and to raise consciousness of the importance of school attendance. This should happen in the case of parents and also children, who should develop a sense of ownership and awareness that school is important and they need to be there.
Young people should not be working late into the night serving some dimension of the corporate sector. The recent ESRI shows the extent to which this is occurring and it has an impact. We must build an ethical awareness of the importance of school of young people in the State. There is a civic responsibility and we are doing the best we can. EWOs have a major professional role in this society.
I recently showed my students, who are training as teachers, a video from Youthreach. The first 15 minutes of the video showed young people stating why they had left school. This particular group cited school-based reasons for absenting themselves from school for a long period and dropping out. If their problem is school-based, the mediating role of an EWO who works with families, schools and communities is important. We are not school-based and that is part of the wisdom of this Act. We are trying to implement our responsibility as stated under the Act. The more evidence emerges from our research, the more we feel the weight of that responsibility, especially for the most vulnerable youths. As the title of our strategic plan says, every day counts, although it counts differently for children from different classes.
Ms Fahy
I will respond to the questions on parental awareness, which is a key factor. We have done research on the underlying causes of attendance problems, and we mentioned the preliminary findings earlier. That research will, I hope, be available before the end of the year. Parental awareness is a critical factor on which educational welfare officers need to work. We plan to commence outreach work in communities but that is not possible now given the way we are stretched. We have members of the National Parents' Council on our board and if we could commence that outreach work we would gladly work with more organisations like that. We do direct one-to-one work with parents but that grounded community work with other community activists is not currently possible.
There are many factors in school absenteeism. It can be the home, the school, within the child or within the community. Many parents send their children to school but they will not remain there for the day or they never reach the school. In other countries the intervention system is swift. With a system of instant reporting to an education welfare officer there can be a same-day response, which is a preventative measure, and the NEWB would like to deliver that type of service. Working parents may not be aware that their child is not in school all day. Due to school recording mechanisms and the absence of anybody to follow up the child slips through the net.
There are two types of absenteeism, casual and chronic. The legislation has been a strong deterrent in making parents aware of the 20 day rule which limits the number of days a child can be absent from school. As Mr. Ward said statistics are proving that we are making an impact, and it is easy to close those cases. In cases of chronic absenteeism the children need ongoing monitoring, attention and support by welfare officers to remain in the system. On the question why three children received school attendance notices from us, that is probably because there were two sets of twins involved.
Mr. Ward
We have made two contributions to the Department's task force on behaviour. We have made a comprehensive submission outlining the central welfare ethos that goes with the board deciding that measures put in place at school level should be driven primarily by a welfare dimension. That submission argued that combatting absenteeism is not simply about discipline but about the children's development and ongoing participation in education. Thankfully, one of the results of our research is that the number of exclusions is not as high as some people might say. Our research has also shown that last year approximately 8,000 post-primary students had 100% attendance. This is not just about bold children but every child in the school. It is about emphasising ongoing participation in education and we have made a number of submissions to the task force on that.
We are also doing our own work, namely, the important work of preparing guidelines for schools on drawing up a code of behaviour. That work has commenced, we will publish a consultation document in spring and there will be full consultation with all the relevant people, including parents and children. Again, it is not just about discipline but about including the child and making sure he or she goes on to participate in education in a meaningful way.
Members raised concerns about potential changes and improvements to the educational system. We recently made a number of submissions to the Department on issues including the position of Youthreach and other programmes that run a parallel system of provision to mainstream second level. While we all hope every child would stay on in school to leaving certificate, unfortunately there are some children who will not and they are being catered for well by programmes such as Youthreach. Unfortunately, Youthreach does not have any status under our Act although it is recognised and funded by the Department and this is a significant omission which needs to be included in our legislation. We have made other submissions and in future we hope to learn from what is happening on the ground regarding young people leaving school early and discover what we need to do to help children and young people stay in education. This may not necessarily be in the formal school setting as we know it.
The question about the statutory duty of the board to provide a national service was raised. One of the good things about the legislation is that it is clear about parents' obligations to send their children to school. It is clear about the school's role to have a school attendance strategy and to receive, value and nurture each child through the educational system. It is clear about the role of the board. This may be an argument for an academic lawyer but I could envisage a situation in the future where people who have come through the system and realise they have missed out on an education and have literacy and numeracy difficulties could possibly have a case. That is in the interests of the public service, not the State. We have seen children who have not received the services to which they are legally entitled challenge the State successfully and that is an ongoing concern of the board.
One of the other questions raised is on our level of coverage and resources. Two years ago we decided our primary obligation was to put staff into disadvantaged areas that had significant school-going populations of over 2,000, mainly in RAPID 1, but as a result we were denying other areas the service. Since then we have hired additional staff and we have opened eight new offices and have people in Tullamore, Tuam, the midlands and Cavan. An officer drives a lot while covering a county. If they need to visit a number of schools in a day, they are very stretched and there is little scope for home visits. Our strategy is to try to provide a kind of emergency response for as many children as possible. We are proud to say that if a child is expelled or does not have a school place, we will respond wherever he or she is.
In the intensive areas we respond to every case where a child is absent for 20 days or where the school expresses concern. Outside those we must prioritise, which has meant that children accumulate significant levels of absences before we intervene. As discussed, we intervene where habits of non-attendance are ingrained in the child and the family but we cannot reverse that in one visit or one letter, or even with a prosecution. The non-attendance may be multi-generational and there may be little tradition of or respect for education and the value it gives.
Work needs to be done at societal, school and local level and agencies such as ourselves have a huge responsibility to carry as much of the burden as possible. We are not the only agency in the field, as much work is being done by schools and other organisations such as the National Parents' Council and local partnerships. Our education welfare officers on the ground try to work in an integrated way with agencies that serve schools such as home-school liaison and the school completion programme. Unfortunately, these schemes operate in approximately 10%, or 400, of our schools serving 40,000 students out of a student population of some 700,000. We take our responsibilities seriously and try to give value for money by focusing resources on the most entrenched cases. It would be very difficult to concentrate resources on, say, primary level because a whole generation of children at secondary level would be neglected.
We do not have any up-to-date data on the numbers who fail to transfer from primary school to post-primary, though it is estimated at approximately 1,000. We have the comfort of knowing that educational welfare officers work locally to monitor the transfer process. The figures we have received show the number of children absent for 20 days or more has fallen by 4% in the past 12 months, which is significant and shows we are beginning to tackle the issue.
If we do not get the increase in resources we have sought, then the service will continue to do its work, as it has a responsibility to the Department and the Minister to continue to deliver a quality service. It means we will not be able to expand as we would like. We accept that we will grow incrementally but would like to develop a model of educational welfare service to test what works so that we may learn as a nation what the requirements are for the resourcing of the board as we go forward.
The legislation had intended to put a system in place for those 16 and 17 year olds who left school just after the junior certificate to go into employment. Many of these young people go on to FÁS-managed and regulated schemes and apprenticeships and are not our concern, as they are already on another track. Our concern is those children who take up menial jobs that do not add value to their life. They are low paid, insecure jobs and are often the first to be lost. The legislation will require that before young people take up these jobs they must make some ongoing commitment to future education, by doing night classes or gaining qualifications through their work. Those 16 or 17 year olds who leave school and do nothing may be a bigger issue because there appear to be more of them. A recent study by the Department of Education and Science found that 16,000 students left school before the leaving certificate. Of those, 5,000 go on to apprenticeships via Youthreach. Therefore, 10,000 are unaccounted for. We hope to examine that issue as we build up our expertise and infrastructure and will present our findings to the committee.
Ms Fahy
I will answer the question of children at risk of suicide. Non-attendance at school is the first indicator that something is wrong and we are the first to be made aware of it, because only when an officer visits a home can he or she discover a serious underlying problem in the child's life. Welfare officers work in a caring manner to address that issue by building a rapport with the parent and the young person to try to understand what hinders him or her from going to school. Officers become aware of sensitive information during the course of a visit and notify the relevant agencies, while remaining to offer support, often at the request of the parent with whom the officer has built a rapport.
Much of our work involves advocacy, support, advice and linking with other agencies. We often introduce people from other agencies or the Health Service Executive to a family to provide reassurance. Much of the work is slow, painstaking and challenging and often goes unnoticed, because of the sensitivity of what is uncovered. Our capacity to address that is currently depleted but in intensive areas, in my experience of working in seven counties during the past 18 months, we are making a definite impact on the lives of young people.
I thank Dr. Gilligan, Mr. Shaw and Ms Fahy for their presentation, which was very informative and has given us much to address. I look forward to seeing them next year on the third birthday of the service.
Dr. Gilligan
For our annual report.
The joint committee adjourned at 12.50 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Thursday, 15 December 2005.