JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE díospóireacht -
Thursday, 10 Mar 2005

National Parents Council: Presentation.

Chairman

On behalf of the members of the Joint Committee on Education and Science, I welcome the following representatives: Ms Fionnuala Kilfeather, chief executive of the Parents Council — Primary; Ms Eleanor Petrie, president of the National Parents Council — Post-Primary; and Ms Marion Lyon, a member of the council.

Before we commence, I draw witnesses attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. 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.

Ms Fionnuala Kilfeather

I thank the committee for the invitation to address it. I will deal with several areas: the operation of grants for school books; the school transport scheme; equipment grants for students with disabilities; and the school meals scheme.

The major issue in the invitation was that of school books and I must place school books at primary level in context. At that level, the curriculum places far less emphasis on the use of public text-books and relies on the curriculum and teacher guidelines for teaching and learning. The primacy of the communicative approach is stressed in the curriculum and many educationalists maintain that good teaching may even be inhibited by the overuse of text-books. Furthermore, the objective of the curriculum that the child be an active agent in his or her own learning is not well served by the use of work books where he or she must líon na bearnaí.

In the educational context, however, children attending primary school in Ireland are still given a long and expensive list of school books at the beginning of each year. Our surveys show significant cost differences between schools which operate book rental schemes and those that do not. Schools, and even individual teachers, have absolute control over the books that children use and, ultimately, the school principal has discretion. Schools do not have to think about constantly changing books. Most families have evidence of this on their bookshelves, with books that are bought at huge expense and never used a second time. Obviously, school book publishers have a commercial agenda and a vested interest in constantly changing the books. There is no Q mark for school books anymore, although in the past the Department of Education and Science had a system of examining books to say that they were fit for use.

A means-tested grant is available through the school principal but some parents do not avail of it. The reasons for this include a lack of information about entitlements, reluctance to approach the school principal and the wish not to have the family circumstances known.

Our organisation wants all schools to operate a school book rental scheme. In the appendix to our document we give the difference in costs for families using a book rental scheme and those not doing so. If schools had to purchase all books, it would be done as part of an overall education plan within the school. In other words, they would relate the books to the aims and objectives of the curriculum as opposed to choosing books that would become the curriculum. If a school book rental scheme was in place, there would be considerably less waste and unnecessary turnover of books and there would be a pool of books that would allow for flexibility of teacher choice as envisaged by the curriculum. Children would learn to care for books, children from poorer families would not be singled out, the cost to parents would be significantly lowered and there would be a role for parents' associations in helping to run the scheme.

Opportunities would also arise to store most books in the school because they are not individually owned and thus we could lessen the weight carried in children's school bags. There is also the issue of cutting down conspicuous waste in respect of school books.

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul has pointed out that the cost of school books can cripple the budgets of low-income families. Many school books that are expensive have a short life span and cannot be used for a second year or handed on to a younger sibling. SVP believes that a State-funded book rental scheme should be introduced to schools where such schemes do not already exist and that the Government should encourage, support and resource principals and assist schools in implementing schemes.

In our survey, of the schools that responded, 36% have school book rental schemes at present. The Department of Education and Science grant for the purchase of school books for needy pupils may be used to establish a scheme according to circular M5491 and we urge schools to do so. The Cooney-Carey report, published in 1994, offers codes of practice for the operation of the scheme and has examined in detail what can be done.

A final benefit is the lessening of the weight of school bags. Children carry very heavy bags and it has been reported to us by parents that many children cannot walk to school because of the weight of their bags. The potential for damage to growing bodies is well documented.

All schools should, for the reasons I have mentioned, be strongly encouraged to establish school book rental schemes. Seed capital would be required from the Department in some schools to establish such a scheme. Principals could make the case for funding, on the same basis they do now, in respect of needy pupils. In many cases, parents are pleased to donate the previous year's school books. Parents' associations might consider fundraising to help provide for the initial book stock. Sensible operation of the scheme will ensure its cost per annum will be reasonable and affordable. There is a useful website for an on-line school book exchange, www.schoolbookexchange.ie, about which not many parents know.

The second area we wish to discuss is equipment grants for pupils with special needs — assistive technology. The Department of Education and Science gives a grant to schools to allow them to purchase equipment, such as computers, tape recorders, word processors, drafting machines, induction loops, bale equipment, software, etc., for use by students with disabilities. This equipment is kept in the school but the board of management may grant permission for a student to use it at home. The equipment remains the property of the school and will usually be passed on from one student to another when the school no longer needs it.

The Education Act 1998 describes support services as the services which the Minister provides to students or their parents, schools or centres of education in accordance with section 7. The Act envisaged that the equipment could be vested in the student rather than the school alone. Many schools, however, do not allow children to bring the equipment home during breaks and holidays. This is a curtailment of educational opportunity for the child and he or she does not receive the full benefit of the equipment in question. There are 183 days in the full school year so there is a lot of other time when the technology is not available to children who need it. It has also been reported to us that some schools are overprotective of equipment and do not allow it to be moved from room to room so children can use it.

An additional problem is that equipment for which a child's needs have been rigorously assessed after psychological reports often does not transfer with the child to second level. This lack of flexibility disadvantages the child educationally and represents a poor use of public funds, particularly as the rate of grant per student for the cost of equipment is up to €4,000. It has also been reported to us that for some children with specialised needs, the expertise is not always available to identify the most appropriate technology. We recommend that this be a child-centred scheme, not an agency-centred scheme, and that the equipment be vested in the child rather than the school, as is possible under the Education Act.

We are working on recommendations for the school transport scheme. We would like to see the Department review the criteria for eligibility for free travel in light of the fact that choice of school is a constitutional right and some of the terms militate against parental choice. Proximity of other schools to parents' places of work would be a good reason for parents not to have to send their children to the nearest school. If a parent wants to change a child's school for serious reasons such as bullying, he or she often cannot get the principal in the first school to sign a release form so the child gets free school transport. That matter has arisen often in the past year. The choice of school for children with disabilities is constrained by school bus routes. In that context, the best school for a particular child may not be served by a school bus. The Department should reconsider the position.

We are seeking, following the Combat Poverty Agency policy submission on it to the Department of Social and Family Affairs in 2000, a review of the school meals scheme. This also involves the work of the Health Service Executive and others dealing with childhood obesity and healthy eating, which is a serious problem, particularly for children in disadvantaged areas. It is important to review this now because it seems children in most schools receive a bun and a glass of milk, which is not nutritious. This would tie in with the social and personal health education programme required under the Education Act. This might influence family eating habits.

Ms Marion Lyon

Books for first-year students cost approximately €300. That does not include copybooks, revision books, work books and so on. The cost for a fifth-year student is approximately €350. That causes serious hardship for many families, particularly those with a couple of children in primary school and one or two in secondary school. Some families have children at three levels of education, books for whom, in addition to the cost of uniforms, etc., can impose a significant financial burden.

The administration of the free book grant scheme is a significant burden on school principals. It is difficult for them to operate the scheme without labelling eligible children. Some eligible families do not apply because they are not aware of it. Some principals distribute forms or applications to all members of the school and in the case of pupils who are not eligible must tell them this. We are concerned about placing that burden on the principals because it is not their duty to know the details of the families of their pupils.

The Department of Social and Family Affairs would be the appropriate agency to administer that scheme because it knows which families meet the criteria for participation. Nevertheless, the principals should have funding to enable them to make books available to families experiencing a particular hardship problem but who would not generally be eligible for the free book scheme.

A book rental scheme should be available in all schools. Very few second level schools have such schemes. A further problem is the frequent changing of books. It often happens that a couple of lines or paragraphs in a book warrant a change. The cost of replacing these books is a burden for schools that have book rental schemes. The cost of books and uniforms is a major issue for parents when children return to school.

The home-school liaison scheme should be extended to all schools. While it is available to schools designated as disadvantaged, there are families in every school who would benefit from it. The scheme works with children transferring from primary to post-primary schools and ensures their educational experience is positive and that the families are involved. Those involved from the outset stay involved throughout their children's education. This was proved in the recent review of the primary school curriculum. The scheme would help address the issue of children with behavioural problems, on which a commission is working.

Ms Petrie will now address the committee on some other matters of concern to us.

Ms Eleanor Petrie

Ms Lyon referred to the back-to-school costs, one of which is uniforms. It would be better for parents to buy something cheap and cheerful in Dunnes Stores or Penney's rather than follow the "old school tie" approach of buying uniforms in department stores. The grant of €80 for a child in primary school and €150 to equip an older child with clothing and footwear is far off the mark. These grants should be more than doubled if children are to be supplied with the correct clothing and footwear. One must also take into account PE gear, which can be very expensive and which can impose a significant burden on a family.

The exam fee for the junior certificate is grossly unfair. This education is compulsory and children are expected to remain in school until they finish their junior certificate, yet they are charged €90 to take this exam. There is an exclusion for families on medical cards but many other families are in dire need. To encourage pupils to stay in school the exam fee for the junior certificate should, therefore, be removed immediately.

The two previous speakers referred to the psychological services available to children in schools. It is inadequate and unfair to allow a principal only two assessments, regardless of how many pupils come into first year. Assessments are needed in order to provide special needs assistants, resource teachers and learning support teachers. For parents to have a child assessed themselves costs approximately €200. It is unfair that the National Educational Psychological Service — which provides a good service when one can get it — is limited in this way. Children who have psychological difficulties throughout their schooling must wait approximately six months for an appointment. With children, time is of the essence and the sooner one can move to rectify a problem the better for everybody concerned.

There are no grants available to schools whose parents and teachers try to install a canteen facility where children can have hot food. Unless the school is in a socially disadvantaged area, families and teachers must raise their own funds for this service. This should be addressed. We also considered various breakfast schemes. Properly feeding children in the morning makes a difference to their performance. Any engine needs to be fuelled. Large numbers of children in both rural and urban areas leave home between 7 a.m and 8 a.m. having not eaten anything. Very often this is not the parents' fault. The food provided needs to be good and nutritious. As MsKilfeather said, a bun and milk is from Victorian times; whatever was left over in the bakery would do for the children tomorrow.

Few secondary schools have libraries. We have started a library week and encourage our children to join public libraries. If we are to encourage education and reading, we need to encourage the provision of libraries in every school.

Regarding the family income support system, a special grant is required for every child returning to school each September. These are matters in respect of which struggling parents need support. It is an area that has not been concentrated on in the past. Schooling is the most expensive part of a child's life. The family will always try to do its best but some are under huge stress and strain.

Deputy Andrews

I welcome the delegation and acknowledge the importance of the National Parents Council's work. It recommends a child-centred scheme rather an agency-centred scheme and that equipment be vested in the child rather than in school. This is part of a much wider problem between primary and post-primary levels. When a child with a need moves from one level to another, the assessment needs to be refreshed. It is a total waste of resources that a child who has been identified in primary school as having various needs must then have a new assessment. All the various officers, particularly psychologists — of whom there are shortages — must re-examine the child again.

Equipment is really the tip of the iceberg. The committee must inform the Department of the problems in this regard. It is not just affecting children who wait until the last minute when they get into post-primary but it is also a waste of resources.

I was struck by the figures for after-school child care which, for the parents, costs more than schoolbooks. Child care is the biggest hurdle and challenge for parents, particularly if they must bring their children to the child care facility outside the school.

Has the council spoken to school book publishers? We must accept they are businesses. One does not know if they are on slim profit margins or making a fortune. However, if one takes away publishing, jobs will be lost. Is there any evidence, even anecdotal, that children are leaving school because of the junior certificate examination fee?

Deputy Enright

I welcome the three delegates. I agree that the turnover of school books presents difficulties at both levels. At post-primary level, the costs are greater and one would expect to be able to share them. It goes back then to the point of the publishers. No matter what scheme the Department or the council might put in place, it lies in the publishers' hands. One can decide third-year students will use a particular book in a school for the next eight years but the publishers can stop making it available. It will have to be thrashed out with the publishers if changes are to made. Individual teachers sometimes have a preference for a particular book because it suits their teaching style. There has to be some flexibility and some common sense where books can be passed down in families or to neighbours.

How would the proposed rental scheme operate in respect of work books which could be written on? A style of work book can be developed where copybooks are used instead. Will parents be asked for a contribution to the rental scheme? What is the council's view on the idea that eventually children will use laptops at school rather than books? While it would be an expensive proposal, it would be ideal.

The weight of schoolbags is an issue and children should not be expected to have to carry books in every day. It is primarily an issue for schools. Has the council had any discussions with schools on timetabling or to see if books can be left in school overnight?

Ms Marion Lyon spoke about the book grant scheme and the administrative burden it places on principals. In theory, I agree that the Department of the Social and Family Affairs is the best trained and equipped to deal with it. However, it is a rigid and bureaucratic Department. A principal at least has more flexibility than the Department in assessing personal circumstances.

Regarding the cost of after-school child care, what is the council's view on using school facilities after school time? One part of the problem is cost. However, if a parent is at work, how does he or she get to child care if it is not located in the school? That is a matter that should be discussed with the Department.

We would need another day to thrash out the points on the psychological service. We cannot do justice to it in the time allocated. There are new proposals with weighted models but it boils down to the fact that if one does not get an assessment, one does not get the service.

I was interested in the points on providing hot food in school canteens. New public private partnership schools have canteen facilities. However, I have questions about the food being served in some. A balance must be struck between nutritious menus and what children will actually eat. This is another matter that must be raised with the Department. Obesity probably will be one of the biggest issues facing us and if we do not tackle it at primary and post-primary level, we will not deal with it properly.

Deputy O’Sullivan

I welcome the witnesses. There is probably a good deal of agreement between us on these issues. The problem is how to advance and resolve them.

There was a report on schoolbag weight when Deputy Martin was the Minister for Education and Science but the schoolbags have not got any lighter. One of the frustrations for everyone is that we all know certain actions should be taken but the problem lies in ensuring they are taken. I suggest that the committee make specific recommendations later which we can then pursue. We should perhaps co-operate with the delegates on this matter and some other issues of interest to them. Regarding schoolbag weight, it might help the situation to some extent if all children had access to a school locker, so that they could leave books in school.

I am inclined to agree with Ms Kilfeather that, ideally, a book rental scheme should operate in every school. I presume that to achieve this some form of support for schools would be required. Would she suggest, for example, an initial capital grant along with the part-time employment of someone at a particular time of year? I presume that only a couple of months are involved. Third level students might be available at such times. Principals find it difficult to have their staff do such work. I do not know what the witnesses think of that idea.

Do the witnesses think the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment has a role with regard to school books changing so frequently? Could it provide some guidelines? I was not aware that there used to be a Q mark for school books and that this no longer exists. Are there ways that might be revived? Other members have noted that it does not seem right that people who make money from publishing books should have the sort of power they currently possess. Have the witnesses any further ideas on how we might take back more public control in that area?

One witness said the transfer of resources for children with special needs could possibly be addressed under the Education Act. Will she elaborate on that? Should the National Council for Special Education have a role in drawing up recommendations or guidelines in that regard which could then be translated into the system? It does not make sense that a child assessed as having certain needs in primary school has to undergo assessment again when entering a post-primary school. I wonder if the legislation is adequate to address that issue.

Senator U. Burke

I welcome the delegation. The cost of school books to parents at both primary and second level is almost a direct result of the frequency with which the Department of Education and Science and those responsible within it change the curriculum. A year never passes without some subject area, perhaps more than one, changing. When that happens, a whole series of editions and publications used for a number of years goes out of circulation. They are thrown away. Even for members of the same family, those publications become useless. That, in turn, is related to the examinations and the changing style of questions put forward, particularly at junior certificate level but also at leaving certificate level.

I was an examiner at one stage. When questions of a particular style come up at leaving certificate level, there is an immediate response by the publishers. They get someone in a particular subject area within a school to create, generate or publish a new book in direct response to that changing style. While that continues and while there is direct access for publishers into teachers' subject areas in schools, there will be an entire series of changes and no controls attaching thereto.

I was glad to see a suggestion in the submissions that somebody in management in the schools, preferably principals, in consultation with those involved in the subject areas, should take control with regard to submissions from publishers. We are concerned here with a high-powered approach. I have been subjected to it in the past and it is difficult to resist. One is offered perhaps three or four copies — one for the library, one for the teacher and one for the assistant or someone else. That approach seems to win through on the day and it involves a complete change from one style to another.

While that kind of system is in operation, we and parents will continue to be concerned about the overall book costs. I hope we can make a recommendation to the Minister and those in control with regard to the subject, content and curriculum changes that they should at least be managed and controlled, so that one person will not be in a position to just change things. The consequences down the line include huge costs. Nobody thinks of that at the time.

University entry standards rise all the time. I refer, for example, to those relating to mathematics. Anyone doing honours leaving certificate mathematics today would reach the same standard as formerly applied at first year in university. That is a major change from four or five years ago. I hope that someone who understands the cost to parents will respond. As the other members said, some sort of book rental system in the schools might be the answer but that would be open to the same cost increases involved at individual teacher or class level.

Regarding school transport and the catchment areas, we have not had a meaningful change in the latter areas since they were first introduced. It is time someone took into account the change in population structures and in occupations and other related matters. Successive Governments have failed to tackle this or to consider the ridiculousness of some of the situations. In Gort, County Galway, for example, there is a board of management which, for reasons known only to its members, has a veto on the choice of school that girls can attend in Kinvara. The board is denying girls legitimate transport to the all-girls school in Kinvara. Those girls are denied the opportunity to go there solely because of the vindictiveness of certain members of the board of management. The girls are not allowed transport under the arrangements those members impose.

I will give one more example to highlight the ridiculousness of the position. In east County Galway, with which I am most familiar, a catchment area extends beyond the limits of the Shannon and Lough Derg into areas in Tipperary, to a school in Woodford. Nobody will respond to the query as to why such a ridiculous situation is allowed to obtain. The catchment area is on a map and the VEC, which is the liaison office for the particular areas, simply points to the area on the map and says it can do nothing. It says its function is to operate things as they stand. I do not know if the review by the Minister of State, Deputy de Valera, will rectify that. I doubt it because there are so many people with vested interests involved.

Where the school transport system has been privatised, it is far more flexible than when CIE is running it. When I say "flexible", I do not mean that they are wandering all over the place but at least there is a humanitarian element that is not there when CIE is operating it. I hope we can recommend to the Minister that an urgent review of the transport system be carried out.

Deputy Gogarty

I welcome the fact that Senator Ulick Burke has raised the issue of school transport. I will continue in the same vein and keep the flow going. I had the opportunity to raise this issue with the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, and her predecessor and also to speak on the issue in respect of another Deputy's question yesterday. When I raised the fact with the Minister of State, Deputy de Valera, that there had not been a widespread boundary and catchment area review since 1969, the year after I was born — something I find stupendously pathetic — one of the major excuses for why the Department is not planning to carry out such a review countrywide was that it might encourage poaching. That flies in the face of people's right to a choice of school and demographic changes over the years.

The majority of new schools are Gaelscoileanna and multi-denominational schools and people have a greater choice of ethos now. I would be interested in hearing the witnesses' views on whether the poaching excuse washes with them. It was the first time that I had heard it from Deputy de Valera or Deputy Hanafin. I had thought that funding might have been an issue or that a review might have been thought unnecessary at this stage — the standard claptrap that one hears. However, this was new and I would be interested to hear the witnesses' comments. I would also be interested in some general views regarding the "three for two" scheme on buses, which is another bugbear.

Another issue I raised with the Minister relates to who is responsible for students waiting to get on to a bus outside the school gates. Are the parents or the school management responsible in such instances? Does the National Parents Council, primary or post-primary, have any views on it? There seems to be something of a vacuum. This matter must be clarified by the Department or someone will be sued at some stage.

Regarding some of the presentations, the issue of schoolbags and lockers has largely been dealt with. However, although the primary sector has less need for a large number of books than second level education, what is Ms Kilfeather's view on timetables for third, fourth, fifth and sixth class? When I was in fourth class in the 1970s, I had a teacher named Mr. Quinn. He was the first and only primary teacher of whom I was aware who used a timetable so that we did not have to lug all our books to school. Could that be explored in greater detail? I know that timetables exist at second level.

I wish now to play devil's advocate. Regarding assisted technology, is the reason that equipment cannot be brought home or be child-centred that it costs more than the money available for an individual child? In many instances, if the school were going to give it to a child over the summer holidays, there might be two children with an equal claim based on their assessments. Rather than get into that "wisdom of Solomon" scenario, the schools may simply decide not to allow it. I would be interested in elaboration on preciousness in respect of equipment and not wishing to move it from one room to another. That goes totally against the grain.

There are one or two other issues I wish to raise, one of which is the constitutional right regarding schools. My constituency includes Lucan, which is the fastest-growing town in Ireland. In reply to a question in which I asked why there were not enough places in Lucan, the Minister said that there were school places in Palmerstown, Maynooth and Celbridge. Has anyone ever thought of taking a test case? I am currently conducting a survey but I can say now that no one in Lucan, unless one is a Catholic living in a certain parish, gets his or her first choice of school. That is a sad indictment but if it is a constitutional right, has a test case been taken? I do not think this has happened yet. If so, would the witnesses encourage such a test case?

I am going over my allotted time so I will not deal with psychological assessments, an issue of concern. However, I will discuss canteen facilities. I agree with Ms Kilfeather that the food on offer in some of the schools is appalling. In my wife's school, people get a muffin and occasionally sandwiches. As an anecdote, the children will not eat the cheese sandwiches, although they will eat the meat ones. When they were told that David Beckham eats cheese, they were all for it. The quality of the food generally leaves something to be desired. Some schools have breakfast clubs and provide toast. It is carbohydrate nutrition and not top quality. It will affect people's development since, in disadvantaged schools in particular, where it is hard to maintain children's attention span, the higher quality the fuel, as Ms Petrie said, the better.

On second level education, I would like some feedback on canteens. I have been pressing consistently for multi-use facilities for new schools, whereby community groups, sports clubs and so on can use certain rooms. Even with existing schools, what if funding might be obtained from a local authority or another Department for a canteen or shared space used by community and voluntary groups but handed over to a school for breakfast and lunch? It would be under the remit of the school. It could also be done vice versa, and I know that it is an issue for a board of management. A school would have a canteen with extended facilities provided through funding from outside sources, as long as it were willing to allow non-pupils to use it at designated times. Would that be workable as a pilot scheme?

Deputy Crowe

I welcome the delegation, the members of which raised several important issues in their presentation. The weight of schoolbags has been raised many times in the media, and we are all aware of the problem. The witnesses have clearly identified the concept of the book rental scheme, which is a good idea. The problems with lockers are connected with the fact that schools do not have space. The laptop issue is for the future. It is not only a matter of weight, since with children from a disadvantaged background, it is having a cost on the families themselves.

Regarding the availability of grants, there is a non-take-up rate of 30% in respect of many of those which come under the remit of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Is that similar to this situation? The argument I put to the Minister was that most children now have a PPS number. Whenever this system is introduced, would it be automatic so that one would know straight away?

The witnesses are correct in what they say about the identification of children and so on. Children do not want to be identified. They have their school and what they wear. They can be bullied because of the trainers they lack and so on. The witnesses made the point that the clothing and footwear grant needs doubling. That is certainly true but the presentation also clearly outlined how the entire notion of free education is, to say the least, a misnomer.

The fee for the junior certificate has been withdrawn. Perhaps the witnesses might elaborate a little on that. It makes sense. I do not know how much it costs. There is a great cost factor involved, and it is certainly something that needs to be examined.

The witnesses dealt with the question of a nutritious diet. I have some experience in that regard, since I am the director of a community-led company in my area. One of our difficulties in producing a nutritious diet for children was that one had to design a meal they would eat. However, the cost factor was also substantial, even though it was a community-led venture not aimed at making a major profit. Cost was the major factor. The Minister is considering providing canteens in RAPID areas. However, the next problem is space, since in many disadvantaged areas breakfast clubs and so on take place in the teachers' canteen.

Our guests raised an important point in respect of publishers. Should publishers have the level of power they possess? It is crazy that the system is skewed towards making profits, retaining people in employment or whatever. The Minister and her Department must take control because they and educators, not publishers, should be leading the way. I accept the argument about modernisation, improvement and change but publishers should not be leading the way in this area.

Ms Lyon

I will respond to the question about text-books and publishers. The education system is overly reliant on text-books. We must work with teachers to resolve this problem, which has been highlighted by every review of primary and second level syllabus. We must consider new methodologies, etc., in this regard. When we move away from the over-reliance to which I refer, the publishers' monopoly will diminish. Parents are frustrated that books they purchase for their first child cannot be used by his or her younger siblings three years later. Ms Petrie referred to family planning or rotation in order avoid this three-year cycle. Parents may feel relieved that they do not have to buy new books for their younger children only to discover that the books have been changed. It is often not a matter of buying one or two books for a subject because four or five may be required.

Deputy Enright mentioned work books. Some schools purchase one work book and photocopy its contents. We are aware that this is illegal but schools still do it because of the costs involved. Some of us use pencils so that we can erase our work and reuse the material afterwards.

We need to end the over-reliance on text-books. Other jurisdictions do not rely on them in the same way. I travelled to France recently on a study visit and I did not see any children carrying text-books to school. They use their schools' libraries, which are well equipped, and their books remain in those schools. Some schools use the book grant scheme to buy second sets of books which are kept on the premises. Children can, therefore, have a set of books at home and another at school. This reduces the problem of heavy schoolbags and of children occasionally bringing the wrong books to class.

It was noted earlier that some children are now using trolleys but these are a cause of major concern in schools because they are dangerous. Unlike schools in other jurisdictions which have ample space, the majority of classrooms in our schools are small. Trolleys left under desks or beside classroom walls can give rise to tremendous hazards. As a result, we do not advocate their use. If all schools had lockers available to students, they would be used. However, school communities are not co-operating on this issue. Schools should have policies on timetabling and the use of school books. This would be particularly relevant in the context of the frequent changing of books. There is no need to change books because minor additions have been made to them. School communities should put in place policies to encourage everyone involved to work together and ensure that pressure is not placed on principals to change the books used. In addition, as is the case with some schools at primary level, lockers and effective timetables could be used. If matters were addressed in this way, we could overcome some of the problems that exist.

A number of years ago I was part of a group of parents involved in building a school canteen, for which we had to raise all the funds. We were attempting to implement a healthy eating pattern in schools. It is pointless for children to learn about healthy eating in the SPHE programme when they are also reliant on a packet of crisps or a bar of chocolate because the lunch prepared by their mother has been dumped in the garbage. Children will eat healthy food if they have a choice and are involved in deciding what is served in the school canteen. Our school community decides what we eat and we provide a healthy diet, although we received no financial support. The parents' association was able to employ people who were well equipped to provide healthy food. Our experience is unlike that of the public private partnerships, where concerns exist about the quality and type of food provided.

Ms Kilfeather

I wish to add to Ms Lyon's comments on school books from a primary perspective. The new primary curriculum places far less emphasis on school books. Schools are not encouraged to use a large number of such books. The reading schemes that existed in the past have largely been discontinued and children are encouraged to read real books. There is no educational reason for all these school books to be used. A rolling review on the implementation of the curriculum which will provide firm evidence on whether the new policy is being adhered to is under way. There should not be so many books at primary level. If a school book rental scheme is in place at a school, a shelf in the classroom will accommodate the books required for a particular class. Although we do not like to say this, we envisage that parents should pay a modest fee each year towards the ongoing costs of the scheme.

As Ms Lyon remarked, school communities must have integrated whole-school plans in respect of school books. It must not be a case of individuals making their own arrangements. The Department of Education and Science must issue guidelines in respect of such school plans, particularly in terms of the use and reuse of school books and the avoidance of waste so children will not be required to bring many books home in order to do homework. Primary students' homework can often be written in copybooks to bring home. The use of work books is no longer advocated in the new primary curriculum because they are not child-centred and do not encourage children to be proactive.

Deputy Andrews asked whether we had spoken with school book publishers. We do not do so. The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment issued guidelines to these publishers to help them conform to the provisions in the curriculum. These guidelines were not universally adhered to, however, and some of the books are not suitable as a result.

While I accept that they are not the main topic of our discussions, child care costs have major implications for parents. NPC is seeking two things in this regard, namely, tax relief on child care costs and other forms of financial support for parents who would not benefit from such relief.

Deputy Enright commented on the use of school facilities. We strongly believe that because schools are publicly funded, their being used for only 183 days each year is not good value for taxpayers, parents or the public. School buildings have been provided by taxpayers, so greater use should be made of them. When new schools are being built, it should be borne in mind that they are community facilities and should not merely be used during the school day and the school year.

School food is an important issue. The work of the Health Service Executive and others on childhood obesity and early childhood diabetes reveals serious implications for national health. This matter must be tackled as a matter of urgency. We sometimes fear that pilot schemes are an excuse to avoid action on a wider basis. In certain areas, however, there is an urgent need to work with parents in order to ensure that children are provided with sensible diets at home. One need only walk down the street to see the problems being experienced by children in terms of their weight. In addition, children obtain little opportunity for exercise within the curriculum and are not allowed to run in school yards. When both parents work, there are fewer opportunities for children to exercise. Local authorities are not playing their part in providing play areas, even within new communities. This is a significant problem which must be addressed.

I was very glad to hear Deputy Crowe's comments regarding the issues of school transport and catchment areas because the area urgently requires review, especially given the multicultural society we now have. The overwhelming majority of schools are under the patronage of the Catholic church. By and large, the policy in such schools regards Catholic children from the described catchment area as being first for admission, followed by Catholic children from outside the area. One can see that for many children there is in fact no catchment area. The issue needs to be reviewed from a social and cultural perspective. Sometimes parents have very good reasons to send their children to a school other than the one closest to them. As Senator Ulick Burke noted, we have had reports of boards of management not releasing children to attend other schools which, in effect, deprives them of free school transport.

Another point close to the heart of the National Parents Council — Primary concerns the question of who is responsible for the children before the school bus arrives or if parents are late. It is a very important issue and is a disaster waiting to happen. Some years ago, the former Minister of State at the Department of Education, Deputy O'Dea, wrote to the National Parents Council — Primary stating that school boards and school principals would be held responsible in the event of an accident. There have been very few legal challenges to this position, but one judgment held both the school principal and the school bus driver responsible for an accident. This area is in dispute between school management and the Department and needs to be cleared up before it ends up in court. As an organisation, we have not taken any court cases related to the choice of school. There is a problem with taking a test case as it is extremely expensive for an individual to do so, the outcome is very uncertain and there is no facility for a class action in Ireland. We view the issue as being similar to a class action because it has a general application.

The practice of placing three children on two seats is outrageous and is also a disaster waiting to happen. The problem is not so much placing three children on two seats, especially if they are small, but the fact that they have no seat belts. Despite all the road safety campaigns and initiatives to get parents to buckle up, we see school buses, some of a venerable age, going willy-nilly around the countryside without any plans for the installation of seat belts.

Ms Petrie

On the transport question, as Deputy Gogarty told us that some of the measures were introduced within a year of his birth, it occurred to me that he would find that most of the school buses were of a similar vintage.

Deputy Gogarty

I am sure they are.

Ms Petrie

We are very concerned about the issue. Another interesting point is that the standardised school year was introduced over the last year, which means the school buses are being used less often. However, there has been no corresponding reduction in cost, which might be worth examining. The service providers may be saving money, but they have kept very quiet about it and no benefit has been derived. The notion that changing the catchment areas would cause poaching leaves me speechless. It is not an excuse.

Deputy Gogarty

It is on the record.

Ms Petrie

Many excuses put forward in these areas are used as barriers rather than to assist. For example, if one can only have two children assessed under the psychological services, one cannot take more than two. Extra facilities and the required funding are then cut down accordingly. I find it difficult that while no principal can refuse to take a child on special needs grounds, he or she will always add a qualifying statement to the effect that acceptance depends on the requisite facilities being made available to support the child. Of course, the principal knows in his or her heart of hearts he or she will not get the facilities. Parents with special needs children are being given promises which may not be kept. It is an invidious situation for a principal to be in, but sadly that is how the Department operates on such occasions.

Regarding the question of specific representations to the Department for school books, it is being worked on through the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment and is part of the planning process. While we held the Presidency of the EU, a wonderful information and communications technology, ICT, conference was held in the Digital Hub at which it was suggested that every child in the country might have a laptop within three years. That was pie in the sky, but perhaps laptops will not be best tool available in three years' time anyway. It might be a slate or something similar. We need to move towards adopting technology and, in so doing, we will also eliminate some of the publishers' power as we download the information from CDs onto the children's equipment. In schools, we need to ensure our teachers are proficient in ICT and that they put information onto computers in such a way that children can take it in a block, rather than being obliged to take notes in class. This is the way forward.

When we discuss topics such as the bun and glass of milk, it seems a long way away from the discussions that took place in the UK last week on issues such as the personalisation of education, learning for learning's sake and the other questions on which we need to make progress. We seem to be in the Dark Ages, discussing buses that are more than 40 years old and children sitting three to every two seats. No parent who drives with a child without having him or her belted up would get away without the imposition of two licence points, yet we turn a blind eye to a busload of children which is waiting for an accident to happen. One would not put a piece of Waterford glass on the back seat of one's car and hope it would still be all right when one got home without ensuring it was secure. Our children are far more precious, yet the Department of Education and Science does not seem to see the point.

Deputy Gogarty

As far as I am aware, all new buses purchased after 2006 must have seat belts fitted. Does Ms Petrie think that after that year, all old buses should be compulsorily retrofitted with seat belts?

Ms Petrie

Absolutely. I do not think that any children should go around without being secured and it is quite disgraceful that any Ministers might suggest otherwise.

On the issue of the junior certificate, we have anecdotal evidence that students are not taking the examination because parents cannot afford it. The fee to take this compulsory examination is €90. We have a system where we lose approximately 1,000 children between primary and post-primary and simply do not know where they have gone. Although the issue is being addressed by the National Educational Welfare Board, at present they are falling through the cracks. We are definitely losing a significant number of children at junior certificate level because parents cannot afford the fee.

Another area that was raised concerned after-school facilities in schools. We agree that the school should be a community centre and not just for the use of the school community during school hours. We also think it would help build bridges between parents, students and teachers and would foster a sense of community in the school. This is particularly important as we face the prospect already noted by Ms Kilfeather of receiving non-nationals into our schools. Parents with a different ethnic background need to be facilitated to understand the system into which their children are now being brought.

Chairman

That covered the issues adequately. I thank the witnesses for the information. The presentation and exchanges were worthwhile, informative and mutually beneficial. A number of issues arose that the joint committee should examine further before making recommendations to the Minister and Department. Again, on behalf of the joint committee, I thank the witnesses for their presentations.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.10 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 24 March 2005.