JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE díospóireacht -
Thursday, 22 Sep 2005

Primary School Boards of Management: Presentations.

Chairman

On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome the representatives of the Catholic Primary School Managers' Association, the Irish Primary Principals' Network and An Foras Pátrúnachta na Scoileanna Lán-Ghaeilge Teo who are here to discuss current and future developments concerning boards of management of primary schools. Fr. Dan O'Connor represents the Catholic Primary School Managers' Association and Sr. Mary Collins, president of the Association of Primary Teaching Sisters, and Sr. Mairéad Gallagher accompany him. I also welcome Mr. Seán Cottrell from the Irish Primary Principals' Network. Mr. David Ruddy and Mr. John Curran accompany him. Ba mhaith liom freisin fáilte a chur roimh Breandán MacCormaic agus MsCarmel Nic Airt atá anseo ar son An ForasPátrúnachta na Scoileanna Lán-Ghaeilge Teo.

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

The first part of the meeting will be taken up with ten minute presentations by each of the groups before us. Given the number of presentations we must hear today, I ask the representatives of each organisation to stick to the maximum time limit of ten minutes when making presentations. Once the presentations have been made, a question and answer session will follow. I am sure members will have questions on all aspects of the presentations. I call on Fr. Dan O'Connor to make his presentation.

Fr. Dan O’Connor

We thank the joint committee for inviting us to make a presentation today on behalf of the 100 special schools and the 2,913 schools affiliated to the Catholic Primary School Managers' Association, CPSMA. Since boards were established in 1975 all CPSMA boards include lay people acting on a voluntary basis. There are 897 lay people serving as chairpersons of boards. These lay people who give their service voluntarily have full-time commitments as well as serving as chairpersons of boards of management.

The Department of Education and Science has removed all funding for training of boards. Since December 2002 the individual dioceses have provided the full finance and the programme for training of board members. We have requested the Minister to consider providing board training for 2005-07. We have also requested the Minister to reconstitute the national steering committee for primary schools' boards of management training which included representation from the Department of Education and Science, National Primary Council, INTO, and from each of the management bodies.

There has been no response from the Department of Education and Science to the request from CPSMA and the other education partners to sign section 28 of the Education Act 1998 into law, thereby establishing a complaints procedure. The only complaints procedure is that provided by the INTO and CPSMAwhich, despite its limitations, has served the system well. However, the National Primary Council and the Department of Education and Science are not parties to this agreed procedure. The Department constantly reminds boards that it is not a party to the agreement.

When a board receives a complaint, it processes it and reaches a conclusion. The parents then have the right to appeal to the Department of Education and Science. When contacting the board, the Department's approach can be unhelpful. Several chairpersons have said it is as if the board is put on trial by the Department. This approach is unhelpful to a group of voluntary people who are serving their community. We request that the Department establish the complaints procedure as a matter of urgency in accordance with section 28 of the Education Act.

Under the Education Act, boards are required to draw up an enrolment policy and to submit that policy to the patron. These policies are drawn up in accordance with a diocesan enrolment policy. The Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 authorises the National Education Council to place a pupil in a school the council considers suitable. There seems to be a contradiction between these two Acts leading to confusion for parents and boards.

A number of boards are involved in appeals where parents have refused to pass on information regarding the pupil before enrolling the pupil and where other parents have expressed concern about the safety of their children if a pupil is enrolled in the school. The boards are then caught between the rights of individual pupils and the duty of care that boards have to all pupils.

Parents can invoke section 29 of the Education Act and at the same time require the Department of Education and Science to conduct an investigation by an inspector into a board's decision about a pupil. The board is then involved in two procedures which, because of a lack of clarity, leads to bad feelings between all parties.

Sr. Mary Collins

The number of class teachers appropriate to a school, in any given year, is determined by reference to the school's valid enrolment on the previous 30 September. To facilitate boards of management in the recruitment and redeployment of staff, the Department of Education and Science publishes annually staffing schedules outlining the enrolment of pupils required for the appointment and retention of mainstream class teachers in the following categories: ordinary schools; gaelscoileanna and Gaeltacht schools.

The appointment and retention figures for the first and second mainstream class teacher, the 13th and following are the same in all three categories. Apart from these, ordinary schools are adversely affected by the schedule in that their appointment and retention figures are exactly the same. They are discriminated against in that gaelscoileanna have a more favourable schedule involving lower appointment figures and even lower retention figures resulting in staffing in excess of their counterparts in ordinary schools.

The schedule for Gaeltacht schools allows the same appointment figures as ordinary schools but the same retention figures as gaelscoileanna. Here too there is a distinction between the appointment and retention of staff. To cherish all the children of the nation equally, management requests that this anomaly be addressed, as soon as possible, in the hope of equalisation, an improved schedule for the "Cinderella category" — ordinary schools — or at least improved retention figures, prior to the publication of the staffing schedule 2006-07.

Members can see the schedule for appointments between the third and 12th teachers in the submission we circulated. A mainstream school requires 82 pupils in order to appoint a third teacher while the figures are 77 in gaelscoileanna and 82 in the Gaeltacht schools. The retention figures, however, are 82, 76 and 76 for each of those categories, respectively. As members read through this schedule they will see the anomaly I have mentioned.

At the CPSMA annual general meeting 2005, a motion was passed requesting the Department of Education and Science to publish the diocesan panels early in March each year. Simultaneously with the names of teachers for redeployment on the diocesan panel, the Department should also make available a list of vacancies in the schools within the dioceses. This would greatly facilitate boards of management in the redeployment and recruitment of staff by the end of the school year.

Rule 161 (4), (6) and (7) regarding principals and teachers whose work is estimated as not satisfactory needs to be urgently reviewed. The procedure is far too long and can take up to 18 months to complete. The good of the pupils must be balanced with the rights of a teacher. This needs urgent attention as pupils deserve the best teaching that can be provided.

A school secretary and a school caretaker in each school would considerably reduce the principal teacher's workload. In 1978-79 a scheme was introduced whereby large schools in their own right or a combination of schools in close proximity were allowed to employ full-time secretaries and caretakers. However, these schemes were short-lived and suffered from the ban on recruitment in the late 1980s.

Today secretaries and caretakers by and large are employed under a grant-aided per capita scheme. While this scheme is of assistance to schools, it has significant drawbacks, particularly for schools with falling enrolments. In such circumstances the grant falls short of salary and the employer’s PRSI contribution resulting in the reduction of caretaker and secretary services or in fund-raising to offset the remuneration deficit. A properly funded secretarial and caretaker service would be of great assistance to all schools.

Educational welfare officers have been of great assistance to pupils, parents, teachers and boards. We welcome the extension of the service. The appointment of special education needs organisers is welcomed and it is hoped that the service will be extended to all schools. The theme of the CPSMA annual general meeting 2005 was "At the Service of Children with Special Education Needs" and input was given by Mr. Pat Curtin, chief executive officer of the National Council for Special Education, and Mr. Don Mahon representing Mr. Paul Kennedy, special education section of the Department of Education and Science. CPSMA schools and CPSMA special schools cater for the largest number of pupils with special education needs in the State and it is with regret we must record that we have no representative on the National Council for Special Education.

The special education allocation to all-girls schools should be of the same ratio as the allocation to co-educational schools. It is a contradiction that pupils from the same families with the same needs and attending single sex schools in an area do not have the same service because of gender difference and research data which identify the needs of boys to be greater than those of girls. Separate provision is already made for all-boys schools.

The CPSMA has been informed of the pressure that all-girls schools are under because parents of girls opt to have their children educated in all-girls schools if the girls have special education needs, or because of family religious or social values requiring single sex education for girls. Many parents who have arrived in Ireland within the past ten years prefer to have their daughters educated in a single sex school.

There is an urgent need to continue the support and maintenance of special schools which provide an indispensable service for parents, pupils and communities. At the recent annual general meeting of the CPSMA the Minister commended the excellent work of these special schools and referred to their continuance as centres of excellence and as a resource for special classes and individual children with special needs in mainstream education.

The assessment of children with special educational needs requires clarification. In some cases a pupil is given a special needs assistant and the education services while he or she is in school. If for any reason the pupil must move to another school, the services do not automatically transfer with the pupil and the whole procedure has to begin again. This causes stress for the pupil and the family and interrupts the worthwhile service being provided for the pupil.

In most cases the provision of a special needs assistant for a pupil comes after a psychological assessment. Boards and parents question the professional qualifications of the people conducting the audit, especially where services to a pupil are reduced. The CPSMA welcomes the change from student specific special needs assistants to assistants being assigned to the schools. The CPSMA, in particular, would like to acknowledge the help received from Mr. Michael Keogh and Mr. Paul Kennedy, officials of the Department of Education and Science, to CPSMA and the individual boards.

Fr. O’Connor

The CPSMA wishes to acknowledge the support given to the organisation and to individual boards by the inspectorate. In particular, we find the publications from the inspectorate most helpful to boards in informing and planning school policies and educational delivery to pupils.

The rules for national schools governing the inspectorate need to be revised and updated. Under the current arrangements and agreements, a board of management is required to refer all complaints regarding professional competency of a principal or teacher to the inspectorate and the Department. It has been a cause of concern to two boards of management that, having referred cases of professional competency to the Department, the official in the Department referred the matter back to the board for investigation. This is beyond the board's terms of reference and yet the Department refuses the involve the inspectorate until the board has fulfilled the official's request to investigate the teacher's professional competence. There need to be negotiations with the Department on the obligations of the board as employers and the current arrangements regarding teacher competency.

It would be helpful if boards had direct contact with the CMO when the Department refers employees of the board to the CMO. It would also be helpful if a phased return to work of a board employee was considered. Each year he or she could return to work for a short period until he or she was able to resume full-time work. Current arrangements are that either a teacher is fit to resume teaching or is unfit to do so. There is no provision for a phased return to work. Funding should also be allocated within the capitation for payment and expenses incurred by the chairperson of the board of management when conducting the business of the board. Chairpersons are now required to attend whole school planning days, social service conferences, meetings with SENOs and officials of the NEWB. Chairpersons are also required to be available to meet the Department inspectors and to be available to the inspectorate while conducting WSE. Lay chairpersons of boards must give up one day's pay to attend these meetings and pay for their own travelling expenses.

We wish to express our gratitude to departmental officials. All building grants projects for Catholic primary schools need not only the approval of the board of management, but also that of the trustees' representatives. The Department should ensure trustees' approval for all projects. The trustees, and not the board of management, are required to provide the local contribution. There needs to be clarification about the devolved grant. This means the Department must negotiate with CPSMA and the bishops' education commission.

The CPMSA welcomes the Minister's announcement regarding WSE and we quote from her address at our AGM:

I have clearly stated my opposition to crude league tables based on test data or examination results. We know that all of these league tables cannot measure school effectiveness and they can be grossly misleading and distorting of the education system.

The CPSMA had a meeting with the inspectorate regarding WSE and we stressed that the whole context of the school community, the services available to the school and the challenges to pupils, parents and staff should also be included in a WSE. This will avoid schools that have positive option for pupils with special needs and pupils from ethnic minorities being discriminated against by other members of society. It is with regret that we must record that two all girls' schools had to close because they took a positive option to enrol pupils from an ethnic group and because of this, other parents withdrew or did not enrol their children in these schools. In the case of one of the schools, there was a large developing area beside the school, but not one child from that area enrolled in the school. In the case of the other school, parents travelled with their children to other schools outside the local parish. We presented these cases when we met the inspector on the issue of WSE. We found the meeting with the inspector most productive. However, there is a need for a board of management to be trained in the whole area of WSE. This will require funding and support from the Department and co-operation with the education partners in order that WSE will be of value to the pupils in our schools.

Since 1986, Catholic primary schools have been catering for pupils from other countries and from pupils born in Ireland, but whose parents came from different parts of the world and have different ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds. These pupils have enriched our schools and in accordance with Rule 69 of the rules for national schools, provision is made by the principal, teachers and boards of management for the parents of these pupils to arrange for their religious instruction within or without the school day. School authorities arrange for the celebration of these pupils' religious festivals and they are part of the school assembly celebrations. Where a parent requests that her or his child wear cultural or religious dress combined with the school uniform, school authorities arrange for these requests to be met in accordance with CPSMA policy. In three CPSMA schools in west Dublin there is a total of 1,069 pupils representing 56 different nationalities and 26 faith groups. In a Catholic primary school in the west 20% of the school population are from four different countries and two faith groups. In a small Catholic primary school in north Cork, 38 pupils representing three different nationalities and three faith groups make up 5% of the school population.

The essence of a Catholic school is to welcome the Catholic children of the parish and at the same time welcome and assist those students who are not of our faith and who have come as strangers to our country, seeking a new life, to settle in to school and be included in the school curriculum and environment. This presents its own challenges to boards, principals and staff but these new students are an asset to our schools.

The Irish media in recent years have concentrated on the negative aspects of the profession and the under-performing teacher. There are very few good news stories about the excellent work done in our schools by our dedicated principals, teachers and staff. We need to support, encourage and promote teaching as a worthwhile career among our young people. The CPSMA is concerned that there is a significant and continuing drop in the number of male applicants to the teaching profession. There is a drop each year in the number of applicants for principalships in disadvantaged areas, rural areas and for posts of principalship which combine administrative and teaching duties. The CPSMA is also concerned that senior teachers are not applying for principalships because of the salary scale attached to the post of principal.

At our AGM the Minister for Education and Science acknowledged that the Department had work to do in empowering boards of management to fulfil their role as employers. The Minister also stressed the role of the board in promoting values not only in the classroom but also that these values must be promoted in the way the school is run. We value the support of the Minister, our education partners and departmental officials in our task of supporting individual boards to fulfil the requirements of the schedule for a Catholic school which has been agreed by the Minister, the Department, the INTO, NPC-P, our patrons and our association. We quote the schedule in conclusion:

A Roman Catholic School, which is established in connection with the Minister for Education, aims at promoting the full and harmonious development of all aspects of the person of the pupil: intellectual, physical, cultural, moral and spiritual, including a living relationship with God and with other people. The school models and promotes a philosophy of life inspired by belief in God and in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Catholic school provides religious education for the pupils in accordance with the doctrines, practices and tradition of the Roman Catholic Church and promotes the formation of the pupils in the Catholic faith.

Mr. David Ruddy

I thank the Chairman and the committee for the invitation to speak here today. I acknowledge the committee's work since the last time we met, which dealt with the Education for Persons with Special Needs Bill 2003, which has since been enacted. I congratulate the committee on the work done on that Bill. Members might be glad to know that we do have some confidence in the way the committee system works.

We are here today to represent Irish principals and deputy principals. Principals are ex-oficio members of boards of management. I would like to focus on some of the points made by Fr. O’Connor and Sr. Collins. As I am following them, some of my thunder has been stolen, but I do not mind. I agree with the sentiments they outlined. Boards of management have given great value to Irish education in the past 30 years. They were set up back in 1975. People gave up their time on a voluntary basis and the boards worked very well. However, times have changed and we have had a raft of legislation in recent years that has imposed huge burdens on boards. Now is the time to look at it.

In her speech at the CPSMA conference last weekend, the Minister stated modern employment law and the education Acts gave a very strong role to boards as employers. She continued to talk about the role of boards in school planning, development and so on. That highlights the responsibilities and powers of the boards, but this has become a minefield for them. They are voluntary bodies, on which many members here have served and given of their time.

As to the people employed in schools, at one time there was the principal and the teachers and that was it. Now, one has many different categories of teachers such as permanent teachers, temporary teachers and substitute teachers. We have special needs assistants, some part-time and some full-time. We have caretakers and secretaries who also work on different types of contracts. Hence, while the additional personnel are very welcome, their employment has created a legal minefield for boards, particularly when things go wrong.

I wish to refer to the Education Act 1998. An entire section is devoted to the operation of boards of management and references to the board are peppered throughout the Act. In the previous submission, Fr. O'Connor referred to the area of enrolment policy. Codes of discipline, which deal with suspension and expulsion are very welcome. Schools must be more transparent now and must publish such policies. However, when things go wrong and parents have a grievance against a school, one enters the appeal regime covered by section 29 of the Act. It takes an inordinate amount of time to deal with such section 29 applications. One now has lay chairpersons of boards in many schools who are obliged to give up days upon days to attend these appeals and to deal with attendant items. This puts a huge strain on boards and on their membership. In some schools it is difficult to get people to serve on them. We must give recognition to people who do so.

Detention schools provide an example. I served on the board of a detention school, at Trinity House. Under the Child Care Act, which deals with detention schools, moneys are given to boards to deal with expenses and training expenses, whereas in mainstream primary schools, the moneys that come to the boards are for specific grants. As far as the issue of health and safety is concerned, schools would love to avail of the expertise of a health and safety expert, but do not have the funding to hire such a person. Often, we must do things "on the cheap". This can lead to serious consequences. At the start of this month, the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 came into force. It refers to managing health and safety and to providing employees with training information and supervision in a form and language that is reasonably likely to be understood. Risk assessments and safety statements must be reviewed on a periodic basis, so there is an enormous need for expertise on boards and for it to be made available to them.

We are fortunate that we have bodies such as the CPSMA, An Foras Pátrúnachta and other bodies, which give significant support to boards. However, I suggest that the resources these bodies are given are totally inadequate to do the job required. I ask the joint committee members to use any influence they may have to try to resource these management bodies in order that they can support schools and boards of management, in particular.

Section 14 of the Education for Persons with Special Needs Act 2004 gives responsibilities to boards, some of which are quite unrealistic. I will give one example without detaining the members with the Act's details. It is up to a board to inform children's parents of their needs and how their needs are being met. Hence, it gives very practical hands-on management duties to boards which cannot, in reality, be delegated to them. We have an area of governance and we have management. There is much confusion between the two and my colleague Mr. Seán Cottrell will deal with that issue.

In the past 30 years, the last five or six in particular, schools have changed dramatically and I suggest for the better. We must acknowledge the resources invested in schools by the Department of Education and Science and the Oireachtas. However, our boards — as principals we are part of these boards — have not kept up the pace. The only way we can do so is by increasing resources. I now ask Mr. Cottrell, who is director of the Irish Primary Principals' Network, to elaborate further.

Mr. Seán Cottrell

I decided to approach this presentation from a slightly different perspective in that I have very few answers or statements of position or policy to make. I anticipated correctly that the CPSMA would reflect many of the views we share with boards of management representative organisations and concur with everything that has been said by Fr. O'Connor and Sr. Collins. I will try to avoid any repetition to save time. I welcome the invitation to give our views on this issue.

By and large, principals and boards have a good working relationship, as do our association of principals and the associations of boards of management on a national level. This is the goodwill and cement which has kept school management and governance together for so many years. However, as Mr. Ruddy pointed out, we are moving into an era in which dependance on goodwill is no longer sufficient, particularly when things do not go right. I have decided to use this opportunity to raise questions rather than answers or statements, because I believe this to be the beginning of a process and I hope it will go somewhere.

Joint committee members have some draft documents before them which we have submitted. We will submit finalised papers in the near future, and I stress these are draft versions. I will start with a few points and questions, the first one concerning the difference between governance and management. I am conscious that I am currently in the heart of the Oireachtas and do not assume the members do not understand the distinction. However, in the context of education, the question must be asked.

Governance and management are different but this has not been debated adequately. Sr. Eileen Randles who many members would have known and who served with the CPSMA often made the point that in 1975 the boards of management should have been called boards of governors, as they would have been more capable of performing that function, given the nature of voluntarism required on such boards. Management by a board which meets three, four, five or six times a year is quite a difficult function to perform. Sr. Randles's view was that the manager of the school is the person who acts in the capacity of the chief executive officer, that is, the principal and deputy principal and in larger schools, the in-school management team.

The clarification between governance and management must be established. Recently, I heard a short statement to the effect that governance is about knowing what is the right thing to do, while management is doing it. There is a lack of clarity and I would like the members, in their legislative capacity, to consider this when it is taken a step further.

The question must be asked how different are schools in 2005 as compared to 1975. Is the context the same? Are the legislative requirements of boards the same? Mr. Ruddy has referred to this point. Is it possible for a board of management to perform its function today with an infrastructure and set of supports established 30 years ago, be it a board of management or a board of governors? A board of management is constituted from four different constituencies, namely, parents, teaching staff, community and the patron. Someone amusingly described it recently as the Noah's Ark approach to assembling a committee, whereby its members come on in pairs.

One issue can be problematic. The community representatives must be brought on board on a consensus basis by the original group of six and this can lead to difficulties. Is the method of constituting the board realistically sustainable in situations where there can be conflict or lack of consensus? Consensus is always ideal, but I argue there must be a question mark over whether it is the only means by which one can agree on community representatives on boards. The principal is accountable to the board of management in the Education Act, as he or she should be, yet the principal is often the main and sometimes the sole adviser to the board of management on many issues, given that its members frequently come from a non-educational background. Is this a healthy relationship? In a corporate situation, the equivalent would be for the chief executive to be the main adviser to the board of directors, and yet accountable to the board. Does this lead to a conflict of interest where a principal could manage the board to which he or she is accountable?

Boards of management frequently find themselves in a situation where they have phenomenal responsibilities, limited resources and very little authority to execute their responsibilities. Are boards of management becoming a buffer between the State in the form of the Exchequer and the Department of Education of Science and the consumers of a public service, namely, parents and children, whereby a board of management is put in place to take responsibility but is quite powerless in many instances? The classic example is where the performance of a principal or teacher is less than satisfactory. It occurs rarely but, when it does, boards of management feel extremely frustrated. Members of boards who have significant experience serving on boards in private sector companies and in management find the position they are put in extremely anomalous. It is unfair and unreasonable to ask volunteers to take such responsibility without appropriate authority and resourcing.

Significant public accountability, both nationally and locally, is a feature of the education system, which is good. Typically, five or six members of a board of management will not have a teaching or educational background. It is extremely fortunate if members of the board other than a principal or teacher have direct educational experience. Should the competence of such boards, which make decisions that affect the education of children, be questioned, particularly in the context of enrolment and special needs? I have been asked by a number of principals about where stands a board of management, which, because of its numerical advantage, can overrule the views of a principal or teacher and make a decision that impacts on the educational opportunities for children, in the event of a challenge to its decision.

The concept of competence assurance is emerging in the private sector. Is a board of management, which is predominantly comprised of people from outside the education profession, always deemed to be competent to make such decisions? If not, what should be done about this? We are in an age of major transparency where people are not reticent, whether they are staff or parents, to challenge decisions. The ability of a board to withstand such a challenge is a concern.

The status of a board of management with regard to employment is another issue. Boards of management are the legal employer of all staff in a school on behalf of the patron. If the Department pays the salaries, determines the recruitment processes and qualification requirements, deducts tax, PRSI and pensions, determines holidays, sick leave, retirement leave, pay pensions and deals with redundancies, is it not the de facto employer? In other words, is it tenable to suggest a board of management, on behalf of the patron, is the legal employer of staff when all the employer functions are carried out, including, most importantly, the payment of staff, by the Department? That question has significant implications when it comes to issues such as the dismissal, suspension or disciplining of a member of staff for incompetence or insubordination. It also has implications for staffing in schools in scenarios where parents challenge schools regarding the appropriateness of certain staff who are employed through redeployment panels and so forth.

Major anomalies are built into redeployment panels in terms of the board's responsibility, on the one hand, for the quality and performance of the school in the education service it provides and, on the other, the extent to which its needs are hamstrung by agreements on the redeployment of teachers. The employment issue and the triangular relationship between the staff, the source of funding of employment and the currently identified employer, namely the patron, need to be examined if school governance is to be examined in its totality.

More than 1,700 schools are staffed by four or fewer teachers and, consequently, there are more people on the boards of management than on the staff of the schools. Our organisation has consulted widely with other education partners and a great deal of research has been conducted on the future of small schools. Many members will have received copies of our literature on this. The viability of small schools is beyond question. Educationally, they have been proven not only be viable but equal to, if not surpassing, the educational outcomes of larger schools but the governance and management of smaller schools is seriously in question in terms of viability, given the difficulty in finding people to serve on boards and in recruiting teachers and principals, in particular, to lead the schools. Does every school in rural Ireland need its own board of management? Could the governance functions be amalgamated in order that a critical mass of management could be achieved with a shared ethos, vision and so on for a group of schools? Small schools could continue to operate on their own campuses as stand alone schools but with a more cohesive and appropriate form of governance and management.

The key issue I would like the committee to consider is the consequences of doing nothing and allowing boards of management to struggle along with a composition of principals, chairpersons and representatives of patrons coercing and cajoling people to serve on a management board and then giving them onerous responsibilities and work with no reward, little acknowledgement and levels of accountability to the local community in which they live that are quite unreasonable.

The fundamental question is whether governance and management should be separated completely. Should we examine how schools are governed in terms of establishing and supporting the ethos, policies and the broader macro issues and separate that from the management function of the schools because that is at the heart of the crisis we face? I use the analogy crudely but 30 or 40 years ago a team of horses would have been used to carry a large cargo efficiently whereas today, a board of management is similar to the team of horses having to compete with an articulated truck on a high speed motorway. It does not have the power, resources, support, and in the case of management, the professional back-up required to allow it to perform its function to the standard legislation requires.

I commend the committee for investigating this issue and as an association of principal teachers in co-operation with the other partners, we look forward to its findings. We will submit final papers on the matter shortly.

Ms Carmel Nic Airt

Ar son Foras Pátrúnachta na Scoileanna Lán-Ghaeilge Teoranta, gabhaim buíochas leis an gcomhchoiste as ucht an chuiridh seo a thabhairt dúinn don chur i láthair seo a dhéanamh.

Faoi láthair, tá mé ag feidhmiú mar chathaoirleach ar an Fhoras Pátrúnachta na Scoileanna Lán-Ghaeilge, an patrún is mó fáis, le 12 bliain anuas. Bunaíodh an foras pátrúnachta i 1993 le feidhmiú mar phatrún ar Ghaelscoil an Ghoirt Álainn i gCorcaigh, an chéad Ghaelscoil ilchreidmheach sa tír, ó shin i leith. Tá fás agus forbairt tagtha ar an bhforas sa tslí go bhfuil 46 bhunscoil anois faoinár bpatrúntacht agus meánscoil amháin — Gaelcholáiste Chill Dara — ó 2003. Le seacht scoil nua beartaithe do 2006, beidh 52 scoil faoinár gcúram taobh istigh de thréimhse 13 bliana.

Tá dualgas ar an phatrún a chinntiú go bhfuil spiorad sainiúil na scoileanna á chosaint agus á fhorbairt ina scoileanna. Don fhoras patrúnachta, baineann seo le étos na Gaeilge agus éthos chreidimh. Labharfaidh an tUas Breandán Mac Cormaic ar cheist na Gaeilge níos déanaí.

Ó thaobh chreidimh de, is gné suntasach de scoileanna an forais ná an iolrachas a bhaineann leo ó thaobh spiorad sainiúil chreidimh de. Tá scoileanna lán-Ghaeilge Caitliceacha againn, scoileanna lán-Ghaeilge idirchreidmheacha agus scoileanna lán-Ghaeilge ilchreidmheacha faoinár gcúram. Léirítear inár gcuid scoileanna an éagsúlacht ó thaobh rogha de atáá lorg ag tuistí na tíre seo anois.

Inniu, tá muid ag plé na mbord bainistíochta agus cosúil le gach múinteoir, tá ceist agam — cad chuige na boird seo? Dar leis an fhoras patrúnachta, tá na boird ann leis an oideachas is fearr a chur ar fáil i dtimpeallacht atá slán agus saor ó bhagairt. I gcás scoileanna an fhorais, is é an Gaeloideachas atá ar fáil ina scoileanna agus a chaithfidh an patrún a chinntiú. É sin ráite, is trua nach bhfuil focus na mbord don chuid is mó dírithe ar chaighdeán an oideachais ach ar riarachán agus gnéithe reachtúla.

Is grúpa de dhaoine deonacha gach bord bainistíochta bunoideachais na tíre seo, ag brath go huile ar iarrachtaí deonacha agus ar dhea-thoil bhaill na mbord. Ag an am céanna, éilíonn an Stát seirbhís gairmiúil proifisiúnta óna daoine deonacha seo. Sa 21ú aois níl seo sásúil a thuilleadh. Leis an tseirbhís ghairmiúil seo a chinntiú caithfidh an Stát caitheamh go gairmiúil le baill na mbord. Is féidir seo a dhéanamh i roinnt bealaí.

Tháinig ré nua in oideachas na tíre seo leis an Acht Oideachais 1998. Dul chun cinn iontach atá ann don chuid is mó. Lena chois, tháinig fás agus forbairt ar ról na mbord bainistíochta. Anois tá cúram reachtúla ar na boird i leith na ndaltaí, i leith na dtuistí agus i leith na foirne scoile. Chomh maith leis sin, tá dualgas ar na patrúin i leith na mbord ina gcuid scoileanna.

Tá na boird freagrach as an Acht Oideachais féin, an Acht um Leasa Oideachais agus as an Acht um Oideachais do Dhaoine le Riachtanais Speisialta agus roinnt eile. Tá na boird faoi bhrú suntasach óna hualaí reachtúla atá orthu i leith na scoileanna beag beann ar na cúramaí reatha atá orthu i leith na scoileanna.

An rud is mó buairt dúinn mar phatrún ná nár chuir an Roinn Oideachais agus Eolaíochta oiread is uair a chloig traenála ar fáil agus taobh amuigh dos na ciorcaláin a eisíodh, agus na foilseacháin a seoladh amach, ní raibh fiú seisiún amháin eolais ar fáil dóibh ar na hábhair seo.

Cé gur dea-rud é an Acht Oideachais, tá baol an-mhór ann go dtitfidh an rud ar fad as a chéile má leanann an Roinn ag braith ar bhaill dheonacha na mbord le cinntiú go gcuirtear forálacha na nAchtanna éagsúla i bhfeidhm i gceart sna scoileanna. Tá an lá tagtha go gcaithfidh an Roinn Oideachais agus Eolaíochta a aithint gur gá le duine amháin a cheapadh i ngach bunscoil sa tír le cinntiú go bhfuil dualgais na nAchtanna éagsúla á gcomhlíonadh.

Faoi láthair, titeann tromlach na ndualgas seo ar na cathaoirligh agus le scéal olc a dhéanamh níos measa, tá siad ag braith ar threoir óna príomhoidí.

Ní féidir linne mar pháirtnéirí i bpróiseas an oideachais ar gcloigeann a choimeád sa ghaineamh a thuilleadh, ag súil go mbeidh gach rud go breá — ní bheidh, go háirithe má leanfaimid ar aghaidh gan daoine gairmiúla ar fáil. Ón méid a dúradh anseo ar an 7 Iúil agus atá á rá inniu,tuigeann agus glacann na páirtnéirí uile ar fad leis seo. Tá sé in am don Roinn an bearna agus an easpa seo sa tseirbhís a aithint agus a admháil agus na céimeanna fóirsteanacha a tógáil le freastal ar an easnamh seo.

Go bunúsach, tá trí ról taobh istigh gach bord gur gá féachaint orthu: ról an chathaoirligh, ról an chisteora agus ról an phríomhoide. Pléifidh IPPN na gnéithe a bhaineann go speisialta leis an bpríomhoide so mar sin féachfaimid anois ar an dá ról eile.

Cé go bhfuil dualgas ar gach bord feidhmiú mar aonad, titeann an t-uafás oibre ar an gcathaoirleach. Tá idir trí agus cúig uair an chloig in aghaidh na seachtaine thar na bliana ar fad ag titim ar chathaoirligh i gcás scoileanna nua agus scoileanna atá ag fás díreach i gcás scoileanna atá ag tabhairt faoina gcúramaí reachtúla go gairmiúil. Is ionann sin agus 23 lá oibre in aghaidh na bliana. Is mór an méid é sin. I gcás scoileanna an fhorais, nach bhfuil ach cóiríocht sealadach ag 95% dóibh, méadaítear an obair seo thar chuimse agus iarrachtaí ar bun chun foirgnimh buan a cheadú, a airgeadú agus a thógáil. Sa chóras faoi láthair níl oiread is buntáiste amháin ann dóibh siúd a ghlacann le dualgais an chathaoirligh — a mhalairt atá fíor don chuid is mó.

Tá obair an chisteora ag méadú bliain i ndiaidh bliana. Cé go bhfuil cúram ar an mbord ina iomlán buiséad na bliana a aontú, go praiticiúil, sé an chisteoir, i dteannta an chathaoirligh agus an phríomhoide, a chuireann an buiséad le chéile.

Le líon na ndaoine atá fostaithe anois go páirtaimsire agus go lánaimsire sna scoileanna, caithfidh na boird clárú mar fhostóir. Arís, is ar an gcisteoir a thiteann cúram tuarastal a íoc, cáin a bhaint agus a íoc leis na Coimisinéirí Ioncaim, árachas agus pinsean a eagrú dóibh, APS a oibriú amach, a bhaint agus a íoc agus tuarastal saoire a eagrú. Téann an liosta seo ar aghaidh. Tarlaíonn seo i ngach scoil i gcás na nglantóirí, an rúnaí, cúntóirí riachtanais speisialta agus oiread is uair an chloig traenála curtha ar fáil don chisteoir ach amháin an méid a dhéanann a phatrún féin.

Anuas ar sin, fuair scoileanna amach go bhfuil catagóir nua mhúinteora ann — an múinteoir sealadach lán-aimsire. Bhíodh múinteoirí páirtaimsire againn, múinteoirí lánaimsire againn agus múinteoirí sealadacha againn. Anois, tá cineál eile, an múinteoir sealadach lánaimsire. Ina theannta sin, tá múinteoirí páirtaimsire. Tháinig siad ar an saol de bharr athraithe atá curtha i bhfeidhm ag an Roinn sa chóras oideachais speisialta gan fiú ciorcalán uaidh á mhíniú.

Tá na patrúin éagsúla ag déanamh a ndícheall comhairle agus treoir a chur ar fáil dá gcuid boird. Ní féidir leis an Roinn a lámha a ní ar an gceist. Caithfidh sí traenáil a chur ar fáil láithreach do chisteoirí boird agus munar féidir léi nó muna bhfuil sé d'acmhainn aici seo a dhéanamh, caithfear deontas suntasach a chur ar fáil dos na patrúin éagsúla leis an saineolas atá de dhíth a cheannach isteach.

Is gné eile de chúramaí an bhoird a chinntiú go bhfuil na coinníollacha atá ann a chinnteoidh go bhfuil an t-oideachas is fearr ar fáil ina scoil. Ceann dos na príomhriachtanais ná deá-mhúinteoirí. Tá deá-mhúinteoirí atá eolach agus sciliúil ag teastáil le cinntiú go bhfuil an t-oideachas is fearr ar fáil sna scoileanna. Is múinteoir mé a ceapadh mar phríomhoide deich mbliain ó shin agus is ceart a rá go bhfuil scileanna ar leith ag gach éinne agus riachtanais ar leith ag gach éinne, is cuma cén gairm lena mbaineann siad, ach cosúil le haon ghairm eile atá proifisiúnta agus gairmiúil, is gá a aithint go bhfuil sár-mhúinteoirí ann, deá-mhúinteoirí ann agus múinteoirí nach bhfuil ábalta ná oiriúnach don obair atá le déanamh acu, sa tslí céanna is go bhfuil deá-dhochtúirí agus droch-dhochtúirí agus deá-pholaiteoirí agus droch-pholaiteoirí ann. Nuair a bhíonn fadhb le droch-mhúinteoir i scoil, tá próiseas in ainm is a bheith ann le dhul i ngleic leis. Don chuid is mó, áfach, críochnaíonn an fhadhb ar chlár cruinnithe an bhoird. Cad is féidir le bord a dhéanamh i gcás mar sin? Tá a fhios ag an domhan gur beag an méid gur féidir le bord a dhéanamh nuair a bhuaileann sé le cumhacht agus gairmiúlacht na gceardchumann. Ach, tá riail 162 i rialacha an Roinn Oideachais agus Eolaíochta ina bhfuil cumhacht agus ról ag na cigirí i gcásanna mar seo. Ó mo thaithí féin mar mhúinteoir, mar phríomhoide, mar bhall boird agus mar phatrún, is fíor-annamh a úsáidtear forálacha an riail seo.

Mar sin, tá muid mar phatrún ag iarraidh ar chigireacht na Roinne a bheith níos gníomhaí i leith na mbord. Ní leor go gcuireann siad a ladhar isteach ag aimsir measúnú scoile amháin. Mar chleachtas, molaimid go mbuailfeadh gach cigire le bord na scoileanna atá faoina chúram aige ar a laghad uair amháin in aghaidh tréimhse gach bord. Ní féidir glacadh leis go bhfuil sé gairmiúil go ndéanfadh an cigireacht léirmheas ar éifeacht obair na mbord gan fiú bualadh leis.

Gealladh athbhreithniú ar struchtúr na mbord roinnt mhaith blianta ó shin ach níor tharla sé. Leis an Acht Oideachais agus cur i bhfeidhm an churaclam athbhreithnithe tá sé níos práinní ná riamh go dtarlódh sé gan mhoill. Caithfidh an Roinn, i dteannta na bpáirtnéirí, féachaint ar agus meastóireacht a dhéanamh ar na cúramaí nua atá curtha aici ar bhoird agus an easpa tacaíochta atá ar fáil ón Roinn leis na dualgais seo a iniúchadh.

Gnéithe d'fheidhmiú na mbord bainistíochta faoi láthair agus sa todhchaí atá faoi chaibidil ag an gcomhchoiste seo. Tá súil agam gur léiríodh do bhaill an chomhchoiste gnéithe áirithe d'fheidhmiú na mbord inár nGaelscoileanna. Is mian liom ár moltaí i leith roinnt gnéithe a chur i láthair an choiste.

Seo seirbhís bainistíochta agus gnéithe deonacha ag baint leis. Ba cheart go n-aithneodh an Stát an iarracht a dhéanann na baill boird ar son oideachais na tír seo. Tá mé ag moladh go n-íocfaí na baill as freastal ar chruinnithe agus inseirbhís ag ráta atá réalaíoch sa lá atá inniu ann.

Caithfidh inseirbhís agus seisiúin eolais a chur ar fáil dos na boird go práinneach go mbeadh tuiscint níos iomláinne acu ar na dualgais atá orthu de bharr na hAchtanna éagsúla. Molann an foras patrúnachta go ndéanfadh an Roinn féin é agus sa chás nach féidir léi nó nach bhfuil sé d'acmhainn aici, go gcuirfeadh sí buiséad suntasach ar fáil dos na patrúin éagsúla go ndéanfaí é.

Caithfidh traenáil oiriúnach a chur ar fáil dóibh siúd a chomhlíonann dualgais an chisteora agus an chathaoirligh agus liúntas ar leith a íoc leo siúd i bhfoirm liúntas bliantúil nó briseadh canach ar leith. Tugadh briseadh cánach d'ealaíontóirí agus ní thuigim cad chuige nach féidir briseadh cánach a thabhairt dos na daoine seo atá ag obair go deonach.

Caithfidh riarthóir scoile a cheapadh a fhreastalóidh ar chúramaí an bhoird maidir le paipéarachas, deontais, soláthar cóiríochta, tógáil agus rudaí eile. Bheadh sé ciallmhar go mbeadh an riarthóir seo ag comhlíonadh na ndualgas ar leith ar son líon áirithe scoileanna ag braith ar rollacháin na scoileanna.

Molaimid go mbeidh níos mó teagmhála idir na boird agus na cigiríáitiúla. Ba cheart go mbuailfeadh an cigire le bord gach scoile faoina chúram ar a laghad uair amháin i dtéarma gach boird.

Tá roinnt mholtaí eile ag Breandán Mac Cormaic i leith thodhchaí bainistíochta ag an mbunleibhéal. Gabhaim buíochas leis an gcomhchoiste as ucht na deise seo a thabhairt don fhoras patrúnachta ár gcuid smaointí a léiriú. Is ar scáth a chéile a mhairimid agus san am atá romhainn, tá súil agam go mbeimid in ann a rá go fírinneach go bhfuil muid ag maireachtáil ar scáth a chéile agus, dá bharr, go bhfuil an t-oideachas is fearr inár gcuid scoileanna do leanaí uile na tíre seo.

Breandán MacCormaic

Níl ach dá phointe le déanamh. Baineann ceann amháin leis an chúram breise atá ar na scoileanna lan-Ghaeilge anuas ar chuile cheann eile — cúram na Gaeilge. Baineann an dara phointe le haonstruchtúr náisiúnta reigiúnach a bhunófar amach anseo.

De réir Pairt 4, alt 15(2)(b) den Acht Oideachais 1998, tá dualgas ar na boird bainistíochta “spiorad sainiúl na scoile mar a chinntear é de réir na luachanna agus na tráidisiúin cultúrtha oideachais, morálta, creidimh, sóisialta, teangeolaíochta agus spioradálta is bun le cúspóirí agus stiúradh na scoile agus is saintreithe den cheanna a chosaint agus beidh se cuntasach don phatrun as iad a chosaint amhlaigh”.

Mar sin tá dualgas ar na boird a chinntiú go ndéantear gnó iomlán na scoile trí Ghaeilge — gnó an bhoird féin san áireamh. Bíonn sé deacair daoine inniúil ar an nGaeilge a fáil le dhul i mbun dualgais ar na boird bainistíochta. Tá ról an chathaoirligh lárnach sa cheist seo mar muna bhfuil Gaeilge ag an gcathaoirleach níl seans ar bith go bhfeidhmeoidh an bhord trí Ghaeilge. Níl sé réadúil a bheith ag súil go ndéanfaidh na boird a iompú ar an nGaeilge gan chomhairle sainiúil agus tacaíocht maidir le ranganna a bheadh féiliunach agus dírithe ar an gnó a dhéanann boird bainistíochta. Tá achmhainní ag teastáil leis an saghas sin tacaíochta a chur ar fáil agus níl se ag an bhforas patrúnachta.

Is gá mar sin tulleadh achmhainní a chur ar fáil don bhforas leis an obair sin a dhéanamh nó sain-struchtúr tacaíochta do na boird bainistíochta a bhunú. Má bhíonn sé i gceist a leitheid de struchtúr a chur ar fáil — struchtúr ar nós na boird oideachais a pléadh roinnt blianta ó shin, is gá go mbunófaí bord do scoileanna lán-Ghaeilge agus scoileanna Gaeltachta mar is é taithí lucht na Gaelscoileanna nach bhfaightear tacaíocht feiliúnach do scoileanna atá ag feidhmiú trí Ghaeilge ó instidiúidí a fheidhmíonn trí Bhearla agus atá dírithe ar an 95% de scoileanna go bhfuil an Bearla mar theanga teagaisc iontu.

Tá sé thar a bheith tábhachtach a chur in iúl,sa chas go mbeadh se i gceist boird oideachais a bhunú, nach glacadh an foras patrúnachta le haon athrú maidir le cearta tuismitheoirí a bhunaíonn scoil lán-Ghaeilge dul faoi phatrúnacht an fhorais. Ní chóir go mbeadh aon ról patrúnachta ag aon struchtúr reigiúnach a bhunófaí. Is ról tacaíochta agus comhordnaithe a bheadh i gceist ag a leitheid de struchtúr.

Chairman

We will now take questions from committee members. I propose we take questions from all members before returning to our guests for their responses.

Deputy Enright

I welcome the members of the delegation. There seems to be a common theme running through what has been said. To some extent the IPPN provided the answer to this question. What level of co-ordination is there at national level between this delegation and those that appeared earlier? Obviously, there is co-ordination within individual schools but are there regular meetings to address these various issues? Are these addressed on an ad hoc basis?

It is hard to believe people must pay their expenses to be involved in the running of a school. This costs people money and makes them less likely to be involved. Mr. Cottrell from the IPPN commented on the competence of parents in respect of expertise in education. I argue that competence will come from training and that this is what is lacking. If sufficient training was provided, this might not be an issue as people would have greater expertise than they have currently. Parental involvement on boards is critical as parents are the primary educators of their children.

While some on boards of management are aware they have huge responsibilities, are they fully aware of what the actual responsibilities are? I have spoken to members of boards, some of whom wanted to give up their position, who have said there is too much responsibility, especially from the legal perspective. However, I do not know whether, because of the lack of training, they are quite clear about what they are supposed to do.

There can be significant difficulty with regard to individual power, no matter the person's position on the board. One experience I know of relates to a school where the individual concerned is the principal. There have been several boards of management in recent years, but no board has managed to last for even a school year. The school is in danger of closing because parents have removed their children during the years. There are now only approximately nine remaining students. The only response or concession by the Department of Education has been to provide a bus to another school, an inadequate response. The Department has said it is not responsible. The chairperson of the board has also refused to accept responsibility and says it is a matter for the Department. There is no proper board to accept responsibility. One wonders who should be in charge in that situation? I can get no satisfactory response on the issue. It will be sad if the village is left without a school because of something for which somebody should accept responsibility.

A theme that came through from previous committee discussion is that sometimes parents may feel they are somehow ancillary to the management process. While they are on the board, they feel at times they are only token members. This may be the result of a lack of training and knowledge. They probably feel a little intimated by others who seem far more expert in the provision of education and may wonder what they can offer as members. What is the view on that issue?

How are the management boards constituted in commuter belts where people no longer all know each other? Is there a difficulty electing a community representative where parents do not know each other? These areas are not like villages or small towns where people know each other. Are the right people getting the position or is there an artificial situation because people do not know each other?

I was interested in the comments on the inspectorate and its lack of involvement. I had not realised this and would have presumed inspectors were involved. Will Ms Nic Airt elaborate more on that important point?

Deputy O’Sullivan

Listening to Deputy Enright's story about the school, the Noah's ark analogy seems better than that of the horses, with Noah being the principal and the water element coming from outside and creating difficulty for everybody on board the ark.

The three delegations have painted a picture whereby this committee must accept there is a need for radical review. The IPPN press release also calls for a radical restructuring of the system, or at least for an examination of the various powers and needs of the bodies involved. This illustrates we have made the right decision in discussing the issue. This committee must take the issue forward and ensure there are some changes.

Some of the issues, such as training and resources, can be dealt with relatively easily if financial resources are provided by the Department. Other issues concern who has what power and governance versus management, for which new legislation might be needed. Do the delegations feel the legislation should be changed or would it be sufficient to provide the resources necessary to support the boards of management and the system as it is with its different power bases?

Deputy Enright raised the question of disparate communities. Is there a danger that some may use positions on boards of management for power in other areas of the community, apart from for the good of the school? There must be a danger of this in the system as it currently works. What views have the delegates on that matter? While I know we are here to talk about boards of management, I am interested in the IPPN's view on the role of the principal and how onerous it has become. What is the experience with regard to getting good principals for the job?

The delegations have all raised the issue of the significant responsibility on individuals, particularly chairpersons and treasurers. There is generally a heavy onus on members of boards of management. It has been suggested that they should be remunerated in some way for their time or receive a direct payment for membership. Do all delegates feel that is the road to take? With regard to the expertise that should be made available, such as legal expertise, should there be a clustering of expertise as was suggested with regard to clustering for smaller schools? The issue of grouping of management type systems for schools was raised. We have local education offices around the country. Should they have a role as intermediaries in organising that type of support for boards of management or in bringing the inspectorate more into the system?

I was disturbed by the example given by the Catholic Primary School Managers' Association regarding the school that closed because it took in a certain group of children and other parents took their children elsewhere. We must take that concern on board. We should also concern ourselves with the schools that took in the other children. Under the Education Act, all schools should have an inclusive ethos. They are required to have an enrolment policy. Is there a need to ensure schools in an area work together to ensure this sort of thing cannot happen? It should not happen that schools can take pupils from a school that is being inclusive resulting in that school having to close down.

There is a broad responsibility on us. Under the Education Act, there is room for more regulations regarding enrolment. Currently, schools must have an enrolment policy. While they can more or less set that policy, they must comply with equality legislation. Is this an area that needs more regulation or a local group structure that ensures schools in an area co-operate in order that such an incident cannot recur?

Deputy Curran

I thank the delegations for their presentations. I am currently a member of a board of management and have been for some years. To answer Deputy Enright's question, I am the community representative and look at this issue from a particular point of view.

I appreciate the role of the board can be onerous, particularly with regard to the various legislative measures that apply.

It is not appropriate for the board to become so bogged down that it misses the big picture. When issues lacking in clarity or of a legal nature appear before this committee, we have no hesitation in referring them for legal or professional advice. It will never be possible to have a board in place that possesses all that information.

I was interested in Mr. Cottrell's remark that he would consider himself lucky with a mix of two teachers and six non-teachers. That need not be the issue. It is more important that the people are motivated and possess general management expertise. During the years, I have discussed this issue in general terms. The biggest ongoing weakness in most boards of management concerns the finance function and the treasurer. Too often, this duty falls on too few. Mr. Cottrell accurately noted that boards do not engage in this area. If they do not engage, it is difficult to take other steps involving financial implications because it is not known what resources are available. I have grave concerns that boards do not plan ahead or consider budgets and commitments at the start of the year. It is interesting to note that schools of comparable size and income streams produce different results. That is often because of budget management. I see a real weakness in that area. The financial burden on many boards is left to an individual, sometimes alongside the principal. That is not sufficient.

I am also concerned that, particularly in certain disadvantaged areas, it can be difficult to fill board positions with suitable people. A number of principals have told me privately that they struggle to find suitable individuals to sit on boards.

As well as meeting statutory obligations, boards have something extra to add because they are from the community. By liaising with parents' associations and organising local events in schools, they go beyond what is required under legislation. Whatever changes evolve, that community based interaction should not be lost. I am not suggesting that we do not need reform but I would like to ensure that benefit to the community is not overshadowed.

Deputy Gogarty

It would be helpful if the Minister for Education and Science took on board the suggestions made here. Members of the committee appear to share a consensus that a review of the system needs to be conducted. The question is whether the Minister will concur. This committee does not have sufficient power to do so and members of Government parties will not force the Minister to take action against her will. A review should be undertaken to determine how structures have worked since the enactment of the Education Act 1998.

The core message of the three bodies present today concerns funding for training. Specific issues arise with regard to gaelscoileanna. A parent of a child in a recently opened school asked me whether it is necessary to be fluent in Irish in order to join a board of management of such a school. Due to the linguistic ethos, most boards of management operate as Gaeilge an t-am ar fad but some conduct introductions in Irish and the remainder of the meeting through English. The parent pointed out that many different nationalities live in rapidly growing areas such as west Dublin. In some parts of my constituency, up to 80% of parents do not speak Irish competently. I do not suggest that the Department of Education and Science should issue a diktat that meetings be conducted through English, which would in any case be unconstitutional. However, I am interested in hearing an opinion as to whether training in Irish would be useful in encouraging more parents to become involved. It could be funded by the Department or by means of a block grant. Some parents have grown up tri Gaeilge and are fluent in the language. Sometimes, wrongful accusations are made concerning the formation of cliques due to linguistic barriers. It would be welcome, if children are learning in an Irish environment, that parents can also play a role. The idea of training in the language is undoubtedly welcomed.

I welcome the submission by Mr. Cottrell and Mr. Ruddy on the special needs Bill, although I raised my eyebrows at the possibility of principals being forced by other members of boards of management to make decisions which are not in the best educational interests of students. Due to a lack of training in the proper procedures, parents are often the ones who feel isolated. The issues of training and precise roles arise in that context. Given that under the Constitution a parent has the right to educate a child at home, does Mr. Cotrell acknowledge parents have a role to play? How could that role be enhanced? Principals face significant pressure but some of their workload could be reduced if parents knew their roles.

I was intrigued by the comments of Fr. O'Connor on the issue of whole school evaluation. While most would welcome that whole school evaluations are not introduced, suggestions have been made that individual schools could produce information for parents. I would be interested in delegates' responses. I would also like to receive feedback on parents' rights. It is a bad idea to introduce school information to the media as league tables. However, parents have the right to all information concerning their children and should not have to go through rigamaroles to receive it. They do not always receive information that has not been officially typed up. Does the delegation agree that discussions concerning individual students should be minuted? I am aware that this causes difficulties in terms of what teachers may say. Where should the balance lie?

In terms of Catholic matters, I would like a clarification on the perceived problems in terms of the devolved grant. My view is that it is not sufficient.

Senator Moylan

I compliment the delegations on their presentations. On the question of management of small schools, is it being suggested in the presentations that there be a move to one floating principal dealing with a number of adjacent small schools? It is my experience that in many cases where the number of primary schools is halved in rural areas, one manager is responsible. Someone might comment on that because that is what seems to be coming across in some of the presentations.

The size of boards of management of small schools was also referred to. It was suggested that they are too large. Is it suggested that they should consist of five people instead of eight?

Deputy Enright commented on problem teachers in schools. Principals and boards have a responsibility where references are given to teachers to get rid of them from certain areas and pass the problem down the road. Such a situation arose in my county where there was a thriving village school with in excess of 40 students. There are now seven students in the school. The rest of the students have moved to a school in a rural area to which they all require transport. The school got one extension and is seeking a further extension and the village school is going to close. There are two families willing to send their children to that school but there are no other students under fourth class in the school. How can any parent be expected to send an infant to a school which has no other infant students? That is a serious problem in a rural area and it is not being tackled by either the Department or the management. I am very familiar with the problem and pushed on it for a number of years but it seems to have been a waste of time. There is a case for simply pensioning people out of the system where there are such problems. Whether the Minister or boards of management take on the issue, it must be done.

Health and safety is a very important issue in all schools. I would have thought, however, that the school building section and the OPW had a major responsibility to ensure a substantial lessening of health and safety problems in schools to enable boards to manage schools without the problems outlined here. I understand quite an amount of work has been done under the summer works scheme.

Delegates also commented on the might and expertise of unions coming into play. That would be worrying if boards of management are trying to tackle a problem. That was outlined in one of the presentations. Fr. O'Connor or Sr. Collins may have commented on it. There is also a responsibility on unions to tackle problems.

I thank the delegates again for their presentation and wish them well with their work.

Senator Minihan

I thank the delegations for their presentations. I do not intend to get involved in local or national politics or what is going on here today. I will try to keep to principles. As a member of a party in government, I am not shying away from saying categorically that a case has been very well made here this morning. Review is long overdue. Boards of management are not functioning as they should because of a lack of this review, not because of an unwillingness on the part of members of boards of management or organisations such as the ones before the committee. The problem is a lack of resourcing and lack of training. Mr. Cottrell put it very well when he spoke on the issue of governance and management. That is the first issue on which we must decide. We must decide what the role of management is and as a result of that decision structures must be put in place. We may need a board of governors with the executive of the board of governors being the board of management. I do not necessarily offer that as a solution. I suggest that a review must certainly take place. The points have been very well made. It is one thing to suggest that boards get legal advice. We must make sure, however, that the boards are resourced so that if they need to obtain legal advice they can do so. That should be their right.

I have never been a member of a board of management. I have been in conflict with a board of management as a parent. I consider myself pro-establishment and have mentioned that at these committees previously, but dealing with a board of management as a parent was the most horrific experience of my life, all because of a bad teacher who beat me around the classroom when he taught me and continues the practice.

I have to be very careful about what I say, but being very involved in the school and playing a very active role as a parent I was astounded by the reaction of people I had worked with because of their fear of unions and loyalty to their profession, given that I was dealing with staff members who were at school with me who had knowledge of the issue as both students and as staff members. We all have responsibilities. Personalities play a huge part in these issues, from the all-powerful board member who loses the run of him or herself to the board member who is incapable of working closely with a principal, whether that is the responsibility of the principal or the board member. It can work either way.

Given the Education Act and the responsibilities as outlined, a change in the legislation is necessary. I look forward to more detailed submissions on this. For my part, I am happy to support the case for a major review as soon as possible.

Of their nature, boards of management are meant to reflect the students in the school and the broader community. We have statistics relating to the number of non-national students in some schools. In some schools the figures are quite high. Is that reflected in boards of management or is it still the situation that we have non-national school members but that is not reflected on boards of management?

I endorse many of the comments that have been made here today. I do not have the answer to what the new structure should be. What is important is that as soon as possible we should set about resourcing and training boards of management, clearly defining their role, and empowering them to fulfil this role.

Deputy Andrews

On training, I understand that the Educate Together schools provide training for their boards of management. Is there any informal arrangement within certain schools or within certain areas where there is a skeleton of a structure for training that might be brought up to a statutory basis, given that there seems to be a genuine problem? Clearly, other schools are doing this. Are there schools under the control of the IPPN that are doing it in an informal way?

This committee has dealt with a number of issues during the years one of which arose under whole school evaluation. Fr. O'Connor mentioned that two girls' schools had closed because of the decision of the schools to enrol pupils from ethnic groups. I was not aware of this. I had never heard of those schools. I do not remember any publicity about it. It is shocking in modern Ireland that parents are leapfrogging away from schools to prevent their children interacting with children from another ethnic group. That is like something from the 1930s, but on a positive note, Fr. O'Connor said that he found the meeting with the inspectorate to be productive. What came out of that meeting? How is it proposed to deal with the problem of parents shopping around for ethnically pure schools, which is my understanding of it?

Deputy Enright

My question is somewhat related to the point made by Senator Minihan. In terms of the way the board of management, as individuals or people who are known to be honest, interacts with parents in a school, I made a proposition about school reports and information being available, including enrolment policies but it should also include the way the board of management operates if there are definite structures, the names of the people on it and their functions. The basis for that proposition is my experience and I am sure that of my colleagues here of parents meeting the chairman of a board of management to discuss an issue in a school who did not get back to them because he or she did not regard it with the same importance as the parents, they are concerned with issues in the school overall or they did not have the time to deal with the individual issue. Is that a problem the representatives have come up against? Is it a function of the board of management to deal with an issue regarding a particular child? Is that the sole prerogative of the principal of the school or where does the co-ordination take place in that regard?

Chairman

Is there a sense that the board of management is the agent of the Department of Education and Science to run a particular school but when an issue arises locally or something goes wrong some people refuse to accept the authority of the board of management and go back to the Department or try to seek another body to deal with it?

Regarding Fr. O'Connor's presentation, there are now 897 lay chairpersons who remain the nominees of the patron of the school and people from the community. Also, some members referred to community representatives from the commuter belt areas, particularly those on the east coast and in other areas. How are such persons appointed? Is it because they are known to members of the board of management? What mechanism is in place for this? We have had an excellent discussion of this matter. Mr. Cottrell has indicated he wants to comment.

Mr. Cottrell

May I be so daring as to request permission to leave after my contribution? Unfortunately, I am under time pressure to attend another appointment.

Chairman

That is allowed.

Mr. Cottrell

I will refer to a number of questions directed at the IPPN. Under-performance is a problem but over-performance is a bigger problem. People refer to over-performing principals on boards who effectively behave like bullies or manipulate power in situations. Regardless of whether that is a principal, and it does happen, a teacher or a chairperson it is a major problem. As an association, we have always acknowledged that principal teachers are as likely to be difficult on a board or in a school as anybody else.

Regarding accountability structures, with responsibility and authority must come accountability. I tried to draw up a flow chart for the benefit of members to show the links between the Exchequer, patrons, boards, diocesan education secretaries, various patron bodies, principals, teachers and parents but even with the assistance of a three dimensional programme I could not produce a flow chart because it is a complex set up. There are no clear accountability structures in place and unless a crisis that is bordering on the criminal occurs, what often happens is that the inspectorate will be gone like a shot, so to speak. Those who ultimately have the power to act generally do not get involved unless a crisis occurs.

Schools have been described as going down the Swannee because of bad behaviour on the part of principals. That is appalling. The people concerned should not be pensioned off. They should be dismissed. If somebody is wrecking a school community, whoever he or she is, there should be low tolerance for that and as a profession we have suffered because we have been unwilling to stand up to this. As an association we have become unpopular in certain quarters because we have identified this as an issue. It is not a major problem in terms of numbers but it is a huge problem for anybody who is affected by it.

On the question of volunteers, people may volunteer because of a shortage but some regard it as an opportunity. They may want to eventually become a Deputy, somebody of major influence in the community. That is the risk we take when we are depending on volunteers. We do not necessarily get the right motivated people. I have personal experience of somebody pursuing a particular agenda — I will not be specific because the case might be traceable — but it can be a major problem for a school.

On the issue of the creation of the board of management referred to by Deputy O'Sullivan, the principal is not a Noah type figure. Such a figure ought to be the system as it is the legislation that provides for the establishment of the board. Unfortunately, Deputy O'Sullivan is right. It is often the parish priest, the principal or both who must act like a Moses or Noah type figure to bring people onto the board. That is a huge problem in disadvantaged or anonymous communities such as those described along the commuter belts where a board is meant to be democratic or reflective of the energy of those communities but it does not often happen that way.

The issue of trusting expertise must be examined because what is happening is not good enough where huge amounts of money are involved. Approximately €1.5 billion goes into boards of management every year and I am not sure if the Comptroller and Auditor General ever gets accountability in terms of how that is spent. We have tried to work with the Department of Education and Science to produce standardised software that schools can use to manage money and we found it very difficult to get any co-operation from the Department to put that software in place. There is no appropriate software available currently to support schools. Schools are having to invent their own systems, and that is not good enough.

On the issue of parents' rights, I am a parent with two children in school and believe in the parental right to be involved in the education of our children but that goes back to the heart of the issue of governance versus management. A good governance structure sets down policies, values and ethos. Addressing our conference last year in the Citywest hotel, Archbishop Martin made a profound statement which the media never picked up on, despite it being pointed out to them in the Archbishop's own press release. He said the primary ethos of any school was an educational one. That was a profound statement from a leader of the Catholic Church.

The primary purpose of any school must be about education. Religion, language, ethnicity and so on are complementary and supplementary issues. We must remember that when it comes to governance of schools we must have the right representation of parents, community and all the other vested interests, including the church. The comments about ethnic representation were valid. I am aware of one or two examples of where that is happening but by and large it is not happening. If we get that right at governance level the management function is doable.

An example was given to me recently of Johnson & Johnson in the United States in the 1970s which involved a recall of a Tylenol product because of some problem with the product. The managers of every store in the country had that product off their shelves within 30 minutes of the announcement. There was no meeting of the board of Johnson & Johnson because its governance structures were so clear that everybody in management knew what to do when such a situation arose. That is a slightly left field example but the point I am making is that if we get governance right, it is easy to manage a school but if governance is unclear, management will always go from crisis to crisis.

There are small and big issues to be considered. Training is a small issue but it is not the solution to what we need. In our current position, training is critical. I agree with the points made by the representatives of the other organisations. It is disgraceful that there has been such an absence of training and cutback in and lack of funding, but we need to consider the big picture. We need to examine what governance structures we need.

Regarding the representation of parents and community members on school boards of management-governance, in the case of another important public service, the Garda Síochána, which is responsible for maintaining law and order and the protection of life and property, could we envisage representatives of the public being members of a board of management of a Garda station who would be involved in practical decision-making on Garda management at local level? Some might argue that would be a good idea. In many countries there is a move towards governance being brought into law enforcement, as in the case of policing authorities at local level. There are a number of good models of such governance in many developing countries. One could not envisage the management of how gardaí do their work being at the behest of people who are non-professionals in that area. I revert to the need to distinguish between governance and management.

The question of WSE was not on our agenda for today's meeting. I would like to make known to the committee IPPN's position on this following our submission on foot of the Minister's invitation to a consultation process on WSE publishing recently. We are totally in favour of the publication of school reports but the key question is who needs and wants WSE reports. I argue that parents, prospective parents, school employees and prospective school employees need them. That is not an exhaustive list but the committee can follow the trend of what I am saying. Members of the media want them but do not need them. The provision of digital reports in the form of a website will make it easy, as Deputy Gogarty said, for the production of arbitrary and unaccountable league tables. Our point is that schools should be obliged, through an administerial circular, to publish them and make them available on individual request to anyone who has a legitimate right to them in terms of the need to have such reports. However, under no circumstances do we suggest they should be made available through a national website. I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak on this issue.

Fr. O’Connor

We represent 3,013 schools, of which only three could not form a board of management on the last occasion. That was due to a lack of agreement on the community representatives.

Regarding the issue of schools closing, when I talk about an ethnic group, I am talking about Travellers. In the case of the school I described earlier, that school had a positive option for the education of Travellers. The other schools in the district indicated they would not take children who transferred but there were vacancies and the parents insisted on the children being admitted to the other schools. Once there is a vacancy in a school, it must accept the enrolment of a child.

Another situation arose in an area when I was the education secretary in Dublin which really annoyed me. There was a fine school in the area but because it was located in a council estate parents in the newly developing area did not send their children to it. Instead they sent their children to a school outside the parish located in a private estate. That school was allowed by the Department of Education and Science to expand and it received approval for the building of extensions. The school in the council estate is now idle with only 40 or 50 children while the other school is like Calcutta with prefabs around it and all the children attending it are from the other parish. The Department permitted the expansion of that school but that was not right. In the case of the other school to which I referred that had a positive option for the enrolment of Traveller children, the parents of other children bypassed it.

The saddest comment I heard from a parent on whole school evaluation was at a YES meeting in Tallaght. The parent said her child had special needs and was in a mainstream primary school. She said that if WSE was introduced and she was seeking a place for her child in a post primary school, her child would be seen as a liability in terms of dragging down the school and she asked where her child would get a place in a school. Those are opening comments on that issue.

I was ordained in 1975 and at the time I was ten stone lighter than I am now. A class mate of mine was appointed a curate in a parish where the parish priest did everything. The curate was on the board of management with the parish priest. After a while the curate said to me that being a member of a board of management is a mystery of faith because everything is confidential to the principal teacher, the treasurer, the secretary and the chairperson, and that all the other members do is drink tea, nod their heads, eat Jaffa cakes and go home. I thought, in my innocence, that such practice was long past. An aspect highlighted in the inspectors' reports was the isolation of the parent representatives on boards of management. That is a big difficulty.

Every diocese in Ireland has groups who have offered training to members of boards of management, assessors for principalships and in mediation. The INTO and management have come together to train mediators. We receive no funding. That answers a question raised on the matter.

A national steering committee for primary school boards of management training was set up and on it were represented all departments in education and all the management groups. That broke down huge barriers separating the union, the parents and the management groups and it also built relationships. A common training programme was delivered by the national steering committee, funded by the Department. I disagree with what Mr. Cottrell said about training. If he came to my office, he would discover, as Sr. Collins will confirm, that one of the main requests we receive from boards of management is for training.

Another difficulty that saddens me has arisen in the case of school boards of management. I know a principal of a school in an affluent area which has 500 pupils. When the school organised the election of parent representatives, only 40 parents turned up for the election, which was a poor attendance of parents representatives. I travel to training sessions for school boards of management throughout the country. We also try to bring representatives of the National Parents Council with us but it was sad to note that in a number of diocese the National Parents Council organisation has collapsed. We do not know why that is happening but that is the position. Parents are busy, they commute and they do not have time to devote to this work.

On the question of community representatives and the parents representatives, there is an issue concerning the election of parents representatives and getting parents involved. More and more parents leave home early in the morning, travel long distances and when they get home they do not have time to devote to being on a board of management. It is a difficulty for parents.

In reply to the question on the role of the board of management in dealing with a non-performing teacher and where students are leaving a school. As to whether a case involving an underperforming principal teacher is directly the responsibility of the board, under the current arrangements, the board of management can make a decision concerning a teacher except it cannot comment on a teacher's professional competence. That matter must be referred to the Department of Education and Science. In such a case, the board of management can invoke a rule 161 procedure, which takes 18 months. By that time children in a class for one academic year and children in a class for half another academic year would have passed through the system. Furthermore, if at any time during that Rule 161 procedure the principal being inspected is absent on sick leave, the whole process must begin again. We have asked time and again for the repeal of the rule. We have also asked time and again for support and help from the inspectors. We get great help from the inspectorate but there are difficulties in regard to the inspectorate and local level.

The other difficulty is that if parents decide to transfer their children — they do so wholesale — and if there is a vacancy in a school, it must take in the children. However, the Department could stop that by saying to parents that it cannot allow extra extensions to a school. Every Catholic school is required to publish an enrolment policy and it must be signed off by the patron. A school may find itself in a situation where it cannot stop people coming to it and where the Department continues to offer prefabs and extension upon extension. I have pointed out to the Department, as have Sr. Collins and her association, that there are fine schools in towns but because the rural school is in vogue and is the place to go, the schools in towns are emptying out and the rural schools are getting extension upon extension, even those in the same parish. It is very difficult.

The other issue is the principal and the principal being accountable to the board of management. The principal teacher is accountable to the board of management and is also an adviser to and a member of the board. That causes a difficulty. As an association, we have floated the idea several times that there be one board of management in a parish which would administer all the schools in a parish but our other partners are concerned about this. The Commission on School Accommodation has also supported our proposal for one board for one parish but our other partners have concerns about that and we must listen to them.

Each year in the Department a group comes together to review the constitutions, rules and procedures for boards of management. The group meets once each year and is representative of all the management groups. A question was asked about meeting the management groups. I have regular meetings with the general secretaries of the faith schools in Ireland, that is, the Church of Ireland, the Muslim, the Jewish the Catholic schools. As an association, we have had one formal meeting with our management groups on the issue of SNAs and employment. We are working towards this on an ongoing basis.

At a diocesan level, each diocese has its own diocesan secretary. The board of management can appeal to him or her. Each diocese has facilities to which to go for legal advice. However, the issue for us as an association — we have listed a number of issues — is training for boards. That is the most important one. The other issue relates to non-nationals becoming members of boards of management. That is happening, although very slowly. One must also remember, especially in the schools Sr. Collins represents, that in many families the only person with English is the child. I have an example where the principal teacher had to call a parent in to talk to her about the behaviour of her son. The child interpreted for the principal. The principal teacher told the parent the child had missed a number of things but the mother was beaming because the child was translating and giving his own spin. We all learned very quickly.

The other issue which our colleagues in the gaelscoileanna raised is the inspectorate and the board. We ask for a review of the board of management structure and for an urgent review of the role of the inspectorate because the rules for national schools are still there despite the Education Act. Someone may say the inspector is doing his or her best but another person might say the rule is still there and if they are being put under the Rule 161 position, this is the way they want to go.

On the question of dismissal of teachers, teachers have been dismissed under our system. Some have been dismissed for bad behaviours but we must wait for a report in regard to the question of professional incompetence. It is important to remember that in our system, because our teachers are sanctioned by the patron, they have a canonical right. As well as the board of management having to deal with a teacher if it wants to dismiss him or her, the teacher has a canonical right to appeal to the patron. It is called a Maynooth statute hearing and is one of the rights of lay people in our system. However, we have major concerns.

I wish to hand over to Sr. Collins who will deal with a number of issues in regard to all girls' schools. We have major issues around the question of training and we appeal that the national exchange committee for primary school boards of management is re-established because it was a wonderful experience to co-operate.

Sr. Collins

I refer to the closure of the school mentioned by Fr. O'Connor because it took in members of the Traveller community. That was a few years ago when it was not popular to take in members of the Traveller community. These children were bussed each day to the school which had fantastic provision for them in every sense. The children were very well integrated in the school. However, the parents had parental choice and they moved their children and the school eventually had to close as there was no way it could continue.

To come back to all-girls' schools, when the Department decided on the allocation of special needs assistants to the schools, etc., and the allocation of teachers, it came up with a ratio and the worst hit were the all girls' schools. It started off with all-boys' schools and they had ratio of 80 pupils to one teacher. It then came to co-educational schools and they had 150 pupils to one teacher. However, when it came to all girls' schools, it decided on 200 pupils to one teacher. When we questioned it, we were told it was done on the basis that research proved boys were performing less well than girls in the academic area. However, when one takes into account the changing face of schools and the great mix in the all girls' schools — Fr. O'Connor outlined them — we argue that we should at least be in the same category as the co-educational schools, that is, one teacher to 150 pupils. We argue that research proves boys under-perform. Therefore, we would give them one teacher to 80 pupils but we do not want to see ourselves in the bracket of one teacher to 200 pupils. We believe that is unfair treatment.

I wish to go a little step further. Members may not have had time to consider what I mentioned in regard to staffing in schools and the scale I gave. It has nothing to do with gaelscoileanna because I have always been an enthusiast of Gaeilge and had the good fortune to have Gaeilge from day one upwards but it is not appropriate that there should be extra concessions for any one category of school. What is the mainstream school supposed to be doing? It is trying to get our language across to people. Not everyone who opts to go to a gaelscoil comes from a gaelscoil background. However, when they do come from it, they have support at home. Clearly, their parents want them educated through the medium of Irish. Therefore, very often the parents of children who come into the mainstream schools say not to bother about something, that they never had it in school.

In the past many of our ordinary mainstream schools were all Gaeilge. An edict came from the Department and it changed the whole situation. Between 1984 and 1987, it got very enthusiastic again about Gaeilge and in the 1990s, we saw the gaelscoileanna. I wish them well. I like to see children being educated through the medium of Irish but in recent years there has been no improvement in the schedule for ordinary schools. They remain the same in regard to appointment and retention. This must be addressed, otherwise people choose the school down the road with smaller classes. The school with the bigger classes also has a greater mix. I am not sure if gaelscoileanna have pupils from ethnic groups such as Travellers, whereas there is a multiplicity of ethnic groups in the mainstream schools. I stress this point because I have addressed this issue for many years and it falls on deaf ears. I am convinced it is a political decision with regard to Gaeilge and that is the reason we are not given a hearing. I have made this point to Ministers but it does not seem to rub off. I emphasise this is nothing to do with gaelscoileanna because I really support Gaeilge but I can see that discrimination.

Deputy Gogarty

School numbers are based on those of the previous year. Should this system be changed?

Sr. Collins

The number of pupils was based on the school number each quarter to the end of the year and we succeeded in having this changed to numbers as at 30 September on one concession. It is preferable to stay with something that is fixed and tangible. As was the case previously, schools were taking in extra pupils after Easter in order to make the numbers grow for June. As a result, they were given the extra teacher. The Department of Education and Science statistics are concluded in September and should be in by the end of October. This means there is no reason it cannot address panels and schedule well in advance. As happened this year, chairpersons and principals could not take their holidays because they could not clear the diocesan panels and could not make appointments. This year the Dublin panel only cleared at 4 p.m. on 19 August. The school offered the job to the teacher that day. The teacher was reluctant to take the job. The principal was very accommodating and suggested the teacher take up the offer and should feel free to go somewhere else in three or four weeks' time. The person came and that is how the panel was cleared. It is not fair to people who are working all year to find they are caught up in July and August and are unable to recruit.

Ms Nic Airt

Go tapaidh agus is feidir liom. The first issue was the level of co-operation or co-ordination between the groups. From my perspective, we have quite an amount of co-operation. I am a member of a board of management, a member of the IPPN, the INTO and of a patron body. I taught for 14 years in various schools under the auspices of the Catholic Primary Managers' Association.

Deputy Enright asked whether board members are fully aware of their responsibilities. I think they are not and that is the point we were trying to make abundantly clear. This lack of awareness has given rise to many of the questions asked today. I refer to the distinction between the parents on the board and the other members of the board.

Faighimid an bord mar aonad. It functions and is described as a unit, a body corporate and is expected to do so. There can be difficulties when any one of the categories of people on a board decide go bhfuil siad ag teacht ó Dáil ceantar amháin nó Dáil ceantar eile, that they represent a particular constituency. A member of a board does not represent a constituency; the duty of the board and its members is to manage the school. If the process for choosing a community representative is done as it is meant to be done, the requirement is the six people who are already ceapaithe don bordcome together and look at the expertise among the six. They would look to the community to fill any bearna or gap in the expertise required to discharge the duties of the board. It is strongly recommendedthey should find people from within the local community to provide that expertise. For example, if the board lacks a person with accounting or legal experience, this is a cheap way of accessing those servicesagus na scoileanna don chuid is mó atá faoin fhoras patrúnachta, déaneann siad sár-iarracht they try their best to get people with these skills on boards in the category of daoine a thagann ó bpobal áitiúil.

I am pleased that people such as Fr. O'Connor have concurred with our views on the inspectorate which needs to be more proactive. The inspectorate cannot afford to hightail out to the hills when a school comes to them about an under-performing teacher. The question of over-performance was raised. Most members will be aware that as opposed to any other patron body, we as a patron body and the three of us here present in particular, suffered untold trauma at the hands of the media because we dealt with over-performance on the part of a principal teacher. It took at least a year out of the lives of the nine people on the board at the time but we did it and we had no fear of doing it. However, we found it extremely difficult because the Department of Education and Science abdicated any responsibility it might have had in that situation. The inspectorate had no input and it was left entirely to the patron to deal with the question of over-performance.

On the question of schools losing children because of racism, the answer to the question Sr. Collins posed as to whether gaelscoileanna have Traveller pupils is that we do. I hate to say this because I hate to classify people as to their ethnic background but to illustrate the pointit might be of comfort to some people to know that the chairperson of our parents association this year is a Traveller who is proud of the fact. I know she will not resent me saying that she is a Traveller and proud of her background. We are very lucky to have her as chairperson of our parents association.

One of the reasons cited for schools losing pupils was racism. This can loosely be described as league tables at primary level. Primary schools are losing children for a variety of reasons. As Fr. O'Connor said, for instance, children are moving out to the countrybecause of the belief there is a more wholesome education to be found in the country schools as opposed to the town schools. This is a form of league table at primary level. On the question of whole school evaluation discussed at our meeting with the inspectorate last week, it was acknowledged by the inspectors and by us in our submission that this is happening. In welcoming whole school evaluation we do so in the hope proper objective information with regard to the performance of the schools will be available and will allow people to make an informed choice.

Deputy Curran questioned whether the mix on the board should be changed. In my opinion and that of An Foras Pátrúnachta, it is healthy to have representatives of patrons and parents on boards and a representative from the local community if the board needs that expertise. It is true, as Deputy Curran said, that some boards do not budget. However, under the rules and constitution of boards of management, there is a requirement to set an annual budget. The entire board agrees the budget but the drafting of such a budget is left largely in the hands of the treasurer in conjunction with the principal and the chairperson.

I have referred to the role of the parents versus that of the teachers. The board must function as a body corporate. Deputy Gogarty raised the question of schools providing information. Schools have a duty to provide information and they do this. I have not given sufficient thought to the question of whether every discussion regarding every child should be recorded. It is the case that much informal but useful discussion takes place in the corridors or in the staff room. For example, if a child is in trouble in a class during the morning, this information may be of benefit to the teacher of a brother or sister of that child, as happened in our school yesterday morning. The mother of the child had been taken into hospital the night before and the younger child had told the teacher. Care must be taken when saying that everything should be recorded.

Senator Moylan may have misunderstood the idea of the floating principal. I assume the member referred to what I said. I was not talking about a floating principal. I was talking about the need, as we perceive it, for a school administrator. The príomhoide is the príomhoide: the main educator. The príomhoide should be required to get on with the education of the children. It is possible to go from Monday to Friday in the school where I work with 233 children without ever concerning myself with educational matters. That is the reality at the coalface for teachers and I am obviously not a teaching principal. I suggested having an administrator to be shared between a number of schools determined by the total enrolment of those schools. The problem príomhoide is a fact of life in the same way as the under-performing teacher is a fact of life. I again call on the committee to impress on any discussions that take place amach anseo maidir le hathstruchtúr na mbord féachaint ar na cumhachtaí nach bhfuil ag boird deileáil leis an bhfadhb seo. I ask that the committee impress the need to clarify in a clear and succinct manner the powers a board has to deal with under-performance and over-performance and the powers it does not have — the extent of its remit for want of a better description.

On the issue of health and safety, I am old enough to admit that I, as principal and member of a board, did not know that a new revision of the Act was introduced in September 2005. I am sure this is common among many boards of management. If one were to take a quick telephone poll this evening of the few thousand primary schools in the country and asked when the last revision of the Health and Safety Act was introduced, I would guess that fewer than 100 schools would be able to answer in the positive.

On the might and expertise of the union, it is very difficult to speak. Senator Minihan referred to the worst experience of his life and I can identify with what he said. It must be a traumatic experience for a parent to witness a practice that is not to the benefit and is to the detriment of his child and find no mechanism available to him, as a parent, to deal with it. Again, on paper there is a mechanism.

This matter ties in with something that Senator Minihan said: the Department of Education and Science used to whip boards of management — that was not how he put it but it is how I understood it. A parent will often ring the Department to ask about the standardised year as his or her school has not advised holiday details. I know of a school — faoi phatrúnacht an fhorais phatrúnachta inar tharla an rud sin ar an 29 Lúnasa 2004 — a school that returned from holidays on 29 August. A parent came in on 29 August asking for the dates of the holidays for the coming school year 2004-05. When the principal could not provide the list, the following day the parent contacted the Department and was able to come in with a solicitor's letter that evening and accuse the principal of thwarting his legal right to have information on holidays. He was able to quote the Department as concurring with his view.

The main point is the appeal for training to be provided to boards of management. Deputy Andrews asked whether the patrons provide this training. Fr. O'Connor has answered positively and we will answer positively. Our patronage body is a national patronage body. Our schools are from Donegal in the north to Skibbereen in the south. At the beginning of the term of the last board of management we ran five separate training sessions in various centres. These took place on Saturdays, as teachers and people with experience as chairpersons, who worked in other jobs, were required to be available to give this in-service training to new members of boards. While this happens, the difficulty is that it happens outside our budget. With the responsibility we have both at primary and secondary level, the budget provided to An Foras Pátrúnachta na Scoileanna Lán-Ghaeilge Teo amounts to €40,000 each year. We have no choice but to employ a person on a full-time basis and provide professional service to approximately 50 schools that will be in excess of 50 by this time next year.

Fr. O’Connor

We again ask the committee to use whatever power it has to stress the training for boards and the establishment of the national steering committee. We also ask the committee to really address the issue of the establishment of a complaints procedure in accordance with the section 28 of the Education Act. The partners have all agreed on this matter, but we are waiting for it to be signed in. If it were signed in many difficulties for parents, including those the Senator highlighted would disappear.

Our other issue relates to appeals. Under section 29 of the Education Act an appeal can be made about the board of management. A parent may lodge to the board a complaint about enrolment or any issue. The board makes its decision. The parent can then appeal to the inspectorate. An inspector from the Department will come down very fast to whip the board. At the same time the parent has a section 29 appeal. In one case parents appealed an enrolment decision to a board. As is within their rights, those parents were not satisfied with the board's decision and went to the Department. The inspector conducted an investigation. The parents also invoked a section 29 appeal. This meant the board had to answer the inspectorate inquiry and had to negotiate with and meet the appeals committee.

The night before the appeals committee was to meet to make a decision, the board of management received a letter from the Department advising that the board's policy was incorrect. It was told to reverse its policy, as the parents were correct. A copy of the letter was also sent to the patron. The chairperson of the board of management rang me at 8 p.m. saying that there was no point in going to the appeals committee the following morning as the Department had found in favour of the parents and all members of the appeals committee are from the Department of Education and Science. We got legal advice on a Friday night at 8 p.m. that the board was required to be represented at the appeals committee meeting. The parents already had the letter saying they were right. When everybody came together the appeals committee found in favour of the board's decision. The parents then wrote to the patron, who was a bishop, pointing out that he had two decisions both from the Department of Education and Science, one upholding the parents' view and one upholding the view of the board and asked him to make the choice as to which was right.

I am sure this matter is within the authority of the committee. I again compliment the committee as it took on board much of the material on the Education for People with Disabilities Bill, which Sr. Collins and I presented the last time we appeared before the committee. We still have a number of issues on the matter. Parents must provide information about their children when enrolling them into the school; it is unfair not to do so. Boards have difficulty when parents point out that while they may have no difficulty with a child with special needs in the school, as the child has bitten the special needs assistant, hit the teacher, and endangered and terrorised other children in the school, they will not let their children go to school unless the board can guarantee the health and safety of their children.

On behalf of Sr. Gallagher and Sr. Collins, I thank the joint committee again for listening to us. We are very heartened by the Minister's support for special schools. She committed herself to supporting such schools at the AGM of our umbrella group, which represents approximately 100 special schools. Very dedicated people care for those who attend such schools, who comprise the group in society with the most needs. If a Catholic group like ours is not concerned about the weakest people in society, we might as well throw our hat at it. I again thank the committee.

Mr. Ruddy

On behalf of the Irish Primary Principals' Network, I thank the joint committee for giving me the opportunity to speak about this matter. I compliment the members of the committee on some of the observations and points they made. There is a strong element of consensus in this regard. Our delegation did not meet the representatives of An Foras Pátrúnachta na Scoileanna Lán-Ghaeilge Teo or the Catholic Primary School Managers' Association in advance of this meeting. The groups' submissions are as they have been presented to the committee. School boards will become demoralised if resources are not quickly made available to the organisations in attendance today, to enable them to increase the level of training they can give to board members. If such assistance is not provided, fewer people will want to serve on boards and the lives of school principals will become more difficult. While it is critically important that funding be provided in the short term, a more wide-ranging review will be necessary in the long term. Nobody has anything to fear from such a review. Today is a good start to that process.

Some very good ideas have been outlined in respect of clustering. Senator Moylan spoke about such possibilities in rural areas. It was heartening to hear Fr. O'Connor saying that the Catholic Primary School Managers' Association is in favour of one board for each parish. The Irish Primary Principals' Network supports such thinking. An Foras Pátrúnachta na Scoileanna Lán-Ghaeilge Teo outlined a very good idea about administrators. There is a huge sense of urgency on this side of the table. I do not know what level of influence can be brought to bear on the Minister and the Department by the joint committee, but we will be grateful for any assistance.

Ms Nic Airt

Tá brón orm, ach ba mhaith liom pointe amháin eile a dhéanamh. I respond to Sr. Collins's impassioned appeal by stating I fully support the proposal that every school should have the same coibhneas múinteora, or pupil-teacher ratio. Sr. Collins failed to recognise that gaelscoileanna receive higher capitation funds. It is the duty of the Government to provide the same capitation funds to all schools. I suggest that rather than looking for an islú in the coibhneas in scoileanna lán-Ghaeilge, there should be an ardú sna scoileanna Béarla. As a person who worked in an English-medium school for 14 years, I am in the best position to comment on why scoileanna lán-Ghaeilge have a lower pupil-teacher ratio. The first 14 years of my teaching life were spent in an inner city school on the north side of Cork city. I am familiar with the attendant troubles in such circumstances. I moved to a small three-teacher country school in the middle of the mountains where I thought an inspector would never find me, but he found me on my first day there.

There are particular aspects of life in a gaelscoil which require that the coibhneas, or ratio, in such schools is lower. Such a lower ratio is needed in infant classes, when children are being introduced to gaeloideachas by being submerged in a language that is not their mother tongue. Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of children coming to such schools have not encountered the Irish language. One is very lucky if one in every 100 children has prior experience, rather than knowledge, of the language. I suggest a lower ratio is needed in gaelscoileanna for that reason. The staff of such schools are continually required to produce their own materials. The Department of Education and Science has not made an effort to tend to the requirements and needs of gaelscoileanna in respect of textbooks. It has not produced a curriculum that is particularly suited to gaelscoileanna. The revised curriculum recognises that there is a distinction between the forms of linguistic interface in what it calls scoileanna T1 and scoileanna T2. No progress would have been made in the provision of textbooks and the differentiation of the curriculum of children who attend gaelscoileanna without the services of An Chomhairle um Oideachas Gaeltachta agus Gaelscolaíochta, of which Breandán MacCormaic is chairperson.

I suggest Sr. Collins should visit a gaelscoil. I extend an invitation to her and anyone else at this meeting who wishes to understand the specifics of the difficulties in gaelscoileanna. I hope the pupil-teacher ratios of all schools will be lowered to the level of the ratios in gaelscoileanna and that their capitation funds will be increased to the level of the funds given to gaelscoileanna. The discrepancy in ratios and funds has been used for more than 25 years as a stick with which to beat gaelscoileanna, even though it makes very little difference and is more of a hindrance than a help.

Chairman

I thank the various delegations for attending this meeting and making their presentations. I thank the members of the joint committee for participating in the worthwhile discussion we had. The committee will discuss this matter further in private and may ask the delegates to return at a future date to debate further the issue of the management of primary schools.

The joint committee adjourned at 2.05 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 29 September 2005.