JOINT COMMITTEE ON JOBS, SOCIAL PROTECTION AND EDUCATION díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 2 May 2012

Public Administration in Ireland: Discussion

Chairman

When the Ombudsman for Children, Ms Emily Logan, appeared before the joint committee on 7 March, she raised concerns about public administration in Ireland. I welcome the officials from the Department of Education and Skills and the Teaching Council who have been invited to respond to the issues highlighted by the ombudsman when she appeared before the committee. I welcome from the Department of Education and Skills Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú, Secretary General; Mr. Martin Hanevy, assistant secretary; and Mr. Jim Mulkerrins, principal officer; and from the Teaching Council; Mr. Brendan O'Dea, acting director; and Mr. Micheál Ó Gríofa, chairman.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that do not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to the committee. If they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they do not criticise or make charges against a person, persons or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

As there are two presentations, I ask Mr. Ó Foghlú to begin and Mr. O'Dea will follow. We will take questions to both afterwards. I inform members that this part of the meeting must finish at 11.45 a.m. because our guests must attend another meeting. As we are starting earlier than planned, we have sufficient time to deal with everything.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú

I thank the joint committee for giving me the opportunity to meet it. I would like to introduce my colleagues. Mr. Martin Hanevy is the assistant secretary with responsibility for the schools division, while Mr. Jim Mulkerrins is the principal officer with responsibility for special education policy. They are both based in the Department's office in Athlone.

My invitation to attend the meeting arose from the committee's recent meeting with the Ombudsman for Children. In my presentation I want to focus on the main issues that arose during the committee's engagement with the Ombudsman on the work of the Department and how schools operate and respond to grievances expressed by parents on behalf of their children. My colleagues and I welcome the opportunity to respond to observations or questions members may have. As members have received a copy of my presentation, I will not read it in full but will concentrate on the main points which will allow a greater opportunity to engage in dialogue and discussion.

The Department has regular engagement with the Office of the Ombudsman for Children, both in responding to investigations and complaints and on wider policy and operational issues. Since 2009, 64 issues have been brought to the attention of the Department. They typically relate to school transport, special needs allocations, the provision of certain grants such as home tuition grants, services in remote areas and the management of complaints by school authorities. In looking at the range of issues considered by the Ombudsman it is useful to distinguish between issues that concern the operation of national schemes by the Department or its agencies which generally relate to resource allocation for individual students and the Ombudsman's concerns about the behaviour and responsiveness of schools in matters raised directly with them by parents. In the latter case the Department's role is very much at overall system level which includes, of course, ensuring legislative provisions are adequate and appropriate.

Before looking at specific issues raised by the Ombudsman, I would like make a general point. We have a very large system; there are 4,000 schools catering for approximately 900,000 pupils at primary and second level. Our approach is to strive to have in place robust systems which are grounded in the principles of equity and fairness and that are appropriate and reasonable. We acknowledge that such an approach, while necessary, can throw up circumstances in which a particular rule governing a service or process does not cater for individual circumstances. In such instances, it is important that we are open to looking closely at any such rule. The best response is to question whether a particular aspect of a scheme or programme needs adjustment or revision rather than go down the road of making exceptions.

On national schemes, matters raised with us by the ombudsman have given rise to changes, for example, in the school transport system and how teachers are allocated to primary schools under the general allocation model.

In terms of the operational behaviour of schools, the ombudsman has identified particular concerns about general actions of boards of management, allegations of inappropriate behaviour by teachers and how schools handle allegations of bullying. All three categories relate to how a school responds to concerns raised with it by parents on behalf of a child attending the school.

Section 28 of the Education Act 1998 deals with the operation of grievance procedures by schools, while section 29 provides for three categories where, following engagement with a school, an appeal can be made to the Secretary General of the Department. These are permanent exclusion of a student, suspension of a student or refusal to enrol. The Education Act, essentially, sets out that grievances generally, including appellate processes, should be dealt with at school level by identifying only those three areas for external appeal to the Department.

Section 28 provides that the Minister mayprescribe procedures to be used by schools to deal with grievances. It is not mandatory for the Minister to do so. While the Minister has not, to date, exercised his discretionary powers to prescribe procedures, it is important to note that schools do operate grievance procedures that have been developed by school management and teacher unions. The Department is working on a new regulatory framework for enrolment, on which there has been public consultation. The Office of the Ombudsman for Children made a submission as part of the consultation. We plan to seek Government approval later this year for legislative change. This work includes potential changes to section 28.

Agencies established since 1998 which deal with particular aspects of parental concerns include the National Educational Welfare Board, NEWB, which deals with concerns regarding absence from school or the lack of school placements, and the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, which deals with parents' concerns about the allocation of special needs assistants and resource teaching hours. The NEWB, while established within the remit of the Department of Education and Skills, now comes within the remit of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, although the Department continues to work very closely with it. If a parental grievance relates to potential discrimination contrary to the Equal Status Act 2000 or the Equality Act 2004, a parent may refer or appeal the complaint to the Equality Appeals Tribunal.

On grievances related to teacher performance and Part 5 of the Teaching Council Act, matters related to these issues can be addressed through revised procedures in place at school level since 2009. These procedures, provided for under section 24 of the Education Act, apply to both teachers and principals and relate to professional competence issues and work conduct and matters other than professional competence.

The Department brought to the attention of the Ombudsman in February 2011 the connection between the proposed amendment to section 30 of the 2001 Act through the Education (Amendment) Bill which the Houses are considering and the commencement of Part 5 of the Teaching Council Act. This Part has not yet been commenced as it deals with procedures and processes for the removal of teachers from the register maintained by the Teaching Council. For removal from the register to be an effective sanction, it is necessary to have as many teachers as possible on the register, in other words, to make registration mandatory. Making registration of teachers mandatory in order for them to be paid from Exchequer funds is provided for in section 30 of the 2001 Teaching Council Act which has not yet been commenced. Before it can be commenced, it is necessary to cater, on a legislative basis, for urgent and limited circumstances in which a person who is not on the register would need to be employed in place of a teacher and paid by the State. Members will be aware of this from their consideration of the legislation. An amendment proposed to section 30 is being considered by the Houses. Following enactment of the Education Bill, it is intended that both the commencement of section 30 of the Teaching Council Act 2001 and the making of regulations under the new section 24(8) of the Education Act 1998 will take place in the 2012-13 school year. It is proposed to commence Part 5 of the Teaching Council Act as soon as practicable thereafter.

The Department has previously drawn the attention of the Ombudsman to the new procedures developed as a result of commitments in Towards 2016 that address teacher competence issues. I do not propose to detail these procedures at this time.

The Department notes the concerns expressed by the committee about bullying in schools which is a source of concern for us all. Responsibility for tackling bullying rests with the individual school, as it is at local level that an effective anti-bullying climate must be established and maintained and actions should be taken to address allegations and incidents of bullying. The Department has implemented a range of measures to ensure schools deal with bullying and support schools in tackling the problem in all of its forms. I do not propose to detail these measures.

The committee may wish to note that the Department is planning an anti-bullying forum which is scheduled to take place later this month. The Ombudsman has been invited to attend the forum, the overall objective of which will be to explore with all the relevant stakeholders how best to tackle bullying in schools and consider what changes or updating of existing practices and procedures are required to achieve this objective, having regard to what it is feasible to implement in the current financial climate.

I thank members for their time. My colleagues and I are happy to answer any questions they may have.

Chairman

I invite Mr. Ó Gríofa to make his submission.

Mr. Micheál Ó Gríofa

I am chairperson of the third Teaching Council which was recently elected and appointed. The Teaching Council welcomes the opportunity to make a presentation to the joint committee on the operation of the Teaching Council Act. We understand the context of its invitation is the concerns raised by the Ombudsman for Children when she attended a recent meeting of the committee regarding the delay in commencing Part 5 of the Teaching Council Act 2001.

Before briefing the joint committee on the Act, I will provide a brief summary of the roles and functions of the Teaching Council. The council is the professional and regulatory body for teaching in Ireland. Its remit covers all State paid primary and post-primary teachers and some teachers in the further education sector. The council which has in excess of 73,000 teachers on the register was established in 2006 under the Teaching Council Act 2001. Its overall remit is similar to that of professional bodies such as the Medical Council for doctors and An Bord Altranais for nurses and its functions are as follows: maintaining a register of teachers; setting professional standards for entry to teaching; accrediting teacher education programmes; continuing professional development of teachers; putting in place a code of professional conduct; and dealing with complaints about teachers in accordance with its fitness to teach procedures.

The functions of the Teaching Council that have not yet been commenced by the Minister for Education and Skills include the following: the requirement for all teachers paid from State funding to be registered with the council; the council's powers to set procedures and criteria for the induction and probation of newly qualified teachers; the setting of standards for teachers' continuing professional development; and the council's powers to investigate complaints about a registered teacher's fitness to teach.

The Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, has confirmed to the council that he plans to commence the functions related to the induction and probation of new teachers in September. Similarly, he has signalled his intention to commence section 30 of the Teaching Council Act which will make it a requirement for teachers in receipt of a salary from Exchequer funds to be registered with the council in the early stages of the 2012-13 school year. It is the Minister's expectation that Part 5 of the Act which deals with the investigation of complaints regarding the fitness to teach of registered teachers will be commenced shortly thereafter, possibly in early 2013. The final major function assigned to the council, namely, continued professional development of teachers, is expected to be commenced within the term of office of the current council which comes to an end in March 2016.

The Teaching Council is a self-funding body and is not in receipt of any State funding. The council's main source of income is through annual registration fees paid by teachers. The annual fee of €90 was set in 2008 in the expectation that the council's wide range of statutory functions and associated costs would be commenced shortly thereafter. This has turned out not to be the case, and in this light, the council has reduced the annual fee to €65 from 2013 onwards. As I have said previously, the Minister has given clear indications of his intention to move on the outstanding sections, including Part 5, in the near future.

I will turn to the Ombudsman's concerns regarding the delays in implementing Part 5 of the Teaching Council Act and give a brief explanation of what is involved. By virtue of being on the register, a teacher is subject to the council's code of professional conduct. The first code was published by the council in 2007 and is still in force. A revised version of the code is at an advanced stage of preparation following a lengthy consultation process, and it is the council's aim to publish this document in September 2012. The purpose of the code is to provide a guide to teachers to aid them in steering an ethical and respectful course through their career in teaching, and to uphold the honour and dignity of the teaching profession. The updated code deals with professional matters concerning values and relationships, integrity, conduct, practice, professional development and collegiality.

The code of professional conduct has a specific legal standing under the Teaching Council Act and can be used as a point of reference for determining professional misconduct when the council exercises its powers under Part 5 of the Act when inquiring into the alleged unfitness to teach of a registered teacher. Part 5 of the Teaching Council Act sets out the Council's role and powers when investigating complaints as to the fitness to teach of a registered teacher. This role is very similar to the fitness to practice role exercised by the Medical Council and An Bord Altranais, that is to say, the investigation of complaints against registered professionals and referral where appropriate to a disciplinary panel. The council's powers have not yet been commenced by the Minister for Education and Skills. It has been the council's view that section 30 of the Act, which requires that all State paid teachers are on the register and subject to the code of professional conduct, should precede the commencement of Part 5. The commencement of section 30 has, unfortunately, been delayed for some time. However, as stated previously, the current Minister has confirmed his intention to have section 30 in place early in the coming school year, with Part 5 to follow shortly thereafter.

Any person, including the Teaching Council itself, may make an application for inquiry as to the fitness to teach of a registered teacher. Such a complaint or application for inquiry can relate, among other things, to professional misconduct, medical unfitness and contravening named legislation. These are named in the Act. When a complaint is made, it is reviewed by the council director to ensure it meets the statutory requirements for a complaint, for example, that it is in writing, that it is signed, and that it is not of a frivolous or vexatious nature. The complaint is then forwarded to the investigating committee which is required to establish it is valid in the first instance and which will then proceed to investigate the complaint. If the investigating committee is satisfied a case exists, the complaint will be forwarded to the disciplinary committee and a formal inquiry hearing will be held.

If a finding of unfitness to teach is made against the teacher, the disciplinary committee can decide to remove or suspend the teacher from the register, which in effect means the teacher cannot teach in a State funded teaching position, or the committee can set down a requirement such as the teacher seeking professional assistance or support of a specified nature. The teacher can appeal the council's decision to the High Court. Where no appeal is entered, the council is required to seek the approval of the High Court for its decision.

An important caveat to the investigating committee's decision to proceed with an investigation is the statutory requirement that local school procedures under section 24 of the Education Act 1998, dealing with disciplinary procedures, and section 28 of that Act, dealing with grievance and other procedures, be exhausted prior to commencing an investigation. The investigating committee can override this requirement if it believes there are good and sufficient reasons. It is clear from this approach, however, that the intent of the legislation is that procedures at local school level should be utilised where possible.

In her submission to the joint committee, the Ombudsman drew attention to the fact that section 28 of the Education Act 1998 had not been activated. Section 28 specifically gives the Minister powers to prescribe grievance and other procedures for use in schools. The council shares the view of the Ombudsman in supporting the availability of local mechanisms for dealing with difficulties, grievances and complaints. To this end the council intends to write to the Minister shortly, conveying its recommendation that procedures under section 28 would be put in place without delay.

The joint committee should also be aware that the council also administers the vetting of teachers by the Garda central vetting unit. Currently, 30,500 registered teachers have been vetted, with 42,600 teachers not yet vetted. Discussions have been held with the various stakeholders to speed up the vetting of all teachers.

The council is committed to playing its part in setting professional standards and the proper regulation of teaching. The council is hampered by a lack of staff as it is included within the public service moratorium on recruitment and the employment control framework. The council is self-funding, so it does not draw on the public purse. If the council is to proceed with implementing Part 5 of the Act and the other uncommenced functions, it will require an appropriate level of suitably qualified staff. The Minister and the Department for Education and Skills are fully supportive of the council's case for additional staffing. We await a response from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

I thank the Chairman and members for the opportunity to present to the joint committee. We would be happy to deal with any questions.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Ó Gríofa. We will turn to questions from committee members.

Deputy Brendan Smith

I welcome the Department officials and the Teaching Council officials. This is the first opportunity I have had to welcome the new Secretary General at the Department of Education and Skills to this committee, and I wish him well in his job.

My recollection is the Ombudsman for Children mentioned there is inadequate consultation by the Department of Education and Skills on legislation as it is being prepared. Ms Logan stated that her office had very good interaction with the Department of Justice and Equality. I know the Department of Justice and Equality traditionally has put a multiple of the legislative measures through the Oireachtas as those put through by the Department of Education and Skills. As long as I have been a Member, the Department of Justice and Equality has always processed a huge amount of legislation. I fully appreciate that. Perhaps the Secretary General could comment on that.

I think the ombudsman's office has raised a relatively small number of issues with the Department: 64 in three years. I presume the number of grievances and complaints made directly to the Department under the various sections of the Education Act 1998 is a large multiple of the issues brought to its attention by the Office of the Ombudsman for Children. I thank the Secretary General for outlining the various issues involved, as this constitutes an important clarification for us.

With regard to the Teaching Council, one of the complaints we receive as constituency representatives - I mentioned this to Mr. O'Dea on a previous occasion - is about the delays in the registration of newly qualified teachers. I understand the time lag has been improved, but perhaps we might have clarification of this. Am I correct in stating all new entrants to the teaching profession are vetted before they take up employment? Has there been a process of vetting existing personnel?

I may have to leave before the meeting is over because Report Stage of the Education (Amendment) Bill is being taken in the Dáil.

Senator Deirdre Clune

I thank the delegates for their submissions. It is useful that the Teaching Council has set out exactly what the procedures are and where we are with regard to various provisions of the Education Act 1998, some of which have not been implemented. It has been mentioned that implementation of section 30 of the Teaching Council Act 2001 has been delayed for a long time. Is there a reason for this, or is the matter contentious in any way?

Prior to implementation of the code of conduct in 2007, things could drag on if there was an issue about a teacher's perceived lack of competence. What is the current position?

Mr. Micheál Ó Gríofa

Senator Deirdre Clune has asked about the delay in commencement of section 30 of the 2001 Act. The council was established in 2006; therefore, there has been a six-year delay. It has made repeated requests for the section to be commenced. Until it is commenced, we have an incomplete register, as it is not mandatory for teachers to register. However, teachers have registered in huge numbers - 73,000 have done so. The delay has not been on the part of the council.

Senator Deirdre Clune

I am not saying it is; I am just trying to get a picture for committee members.

Mr. Micheál Ó Gríofa

The issue that has delayed its commencement is the employment of teachers in a substitute capacity in emergencies. This has given rise to the Education (Amendment) Bill. The issue has certainly protracted the commencement of section 30 and poses questions for the council. We cannot insist that a person register until it is in place. It must be remembered that unless teachers are registered, they are not subject to the code and are outside the remit of the council. It is fundamental to its work that the section is commenced. For example, if there is a hearing into the competence of a teacher, the only possibilities for the disciplinary panel are to find that the teacher is either fit or unfit to teach. In either case, the options open to the council on foot of such a finding are deregistration, suspension from the register for a period of time, or the imposition of conditions on the teacher's continued registration. Thus, unless a teacher is registered, the council cannot implement its own code. It is ineffective unless section 30 is in operation. It is a fundamental issue for the council, but it has not been dealt with thus far. As a council, we welcome the commencement we hope will take place in 2012.

Senator Deirdre Clune

Part of my question was about how suggestions or allegations of incompetence about a teacher from before 2006 were dealt with.

Mr. Micheál Ó Gríofa

That is an interesting question and there is a major issue about where a person stands legally if complaints were made before the establishment of the council. Can it go back to the case?

Senator Deirdre Clune

Such a teacher would probably still be teaching.

Mr. Micheál Ó Gríofa

If it is a question about a particular incident prior to 2007, that is, before the establishment of the council and the introduction of the code of conduct, could a teacher argue that the council has no remit to examine what he or she did?

Senator Deirdre Clune

What does a board of management do in that situation? Is the answer nothing? That is the million dollar question.

Chairman

I ask Mr. Ó Foghlú to deal with the questions asked. We will then take more.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú

Staying on this issue, section 30, as it stands, would not be operable. We need to amend it to make the system operable. There is a practical need to allow for urgent and exceptional cases in which there is no qualified teacher available. If there was no qualified teacher available, a school would not be able to remain open. We need to make these changes and move on with section 30 and Part 5. We are in the process of doing this. The Minister has had interesting and helpful dialogue on section 30 within these Houses and also with the INTO and other partners. He has signalled at teacher conferences his willingness to move on the section and consider some suggestions made. One of the successes we have had in the Department in the last decade has been on the industrial relations front, including the negotiation of a number of big changes with the teachers' unions. For example - I am digressing slightly - we probably have the most efficient redeployment system in the public sector for primary and second level teachers, under which we can move surplus teachers. That arose from the industrial relations discussions.

Another key aim we had as part of the discussions which was confirmed in Towards 2016 was instituting arrangements for the investigation of complaints about teacher competence. Arising from this, procedures were introduced in 2009 providing for two separate strands to be used in appropriate circumstances by boards of management as employers of teachers. The first of these deals with professional competence issues, while the second relates to work conduct and other matters to do with professional competence. The outcomes of these procedures which are matters for schools can give rise to a fitness to practise inquiry by the Teaching Council which will be enabled as a result of the legislative changes about which we are talking.

With regard to legislation more generally, from the Department's point of view we had an under-legislated for system up to the late 1990s. Members will be aware of the Green Paper-White Paper process and the National Education Convention. Arising from this we had a lot of detailed legislation to do with schools, particularly the Education Act 1998, the Education (Welfare) Act 2000 and the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004, under which the NCSE was established. We then had a bedding down period of implementation and learning about change and now we are moving towards amending that legislation. The Education (Amendment) Bill is being considered. We have amendments pertaining to enrolment which we intend will deal not only with section 29 but also with section 28 because the issue of appeals is surfacing more and more. In that regard, the Office of the Ombudsman for Children has been consulted as part of the policy debate on enrolment. The ombudsman has also been involved, for example, in consultations on the forum on patronage which has also highlighted some appeals issues. That report was published a couple of weeks ago and the Minister is to give his response in another few weeks. The Office of the Ombudsman for Children also enabled the Department to establish a dialogue between children and the forum secretariat as part of the forum process, which was very helpful. We do have helpful dialogue with the Office of the Ombudsman for Children on policy and legislative issues. The approach of the Department has not been to legislate continually, a matter that has been the subject of debate with the ombudsman who gave her views on it at a meeting of the committee. We discussed the matter subsequently with her. We do not have a very strong legislative base whereby there is an amending Bill every year, as there is in the case of the Department of Justice and Equality. We see education legislation as being more enabling, but at the same time there is a need for regulations or secondary legislation that can be considered by the Houses. Circulars represent another element. There are all of these elements if it is a policy decision made by a Minister, or a Government if it concerns a bigger policy issue. These are not elements where civil servants decide on policy matters without consultation.

We have revisited the circulars in response to many cases and this is where the work of the ombudsman has proved very helpful to us. The ombudsman helpfully raised some issues about catchment boundaries for second level schools in respect of school transport and effectively told us that we needed to have a boundary commission every time we looked to change a boundary. To be fair, the ombudsman was right. We also knew that we did not have the capacity to have a boundary commission for every school transport area-----

Deputy Brendan Smith

That is the difficulty dating back to 1921 and 1922.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú

That forced us to think about how we could make the process more efficient and still meet the needs of the Ombudsman. Arising from the VFM review, we have changed the arrangements at second level to apply to the school or group of schools closest to the family involved. That takes the uncertainty out of the matter and it is a fairer rule. This was, effectively, a change made to the circular decided by the Minister on the ombudsman's advice.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

When was it decided?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú

In the budget announced in December 2010.

Chairman

When the Ombudsman comes here and states there are issues, then there must be. I accept that the presentation deals with many of the solutions suggested. Clearly, one of the issues was the number of circulars. Many committee members who worked as a teacher in a previous life agree that there is a large volume of circulars which can lead to complications in terms of accountability. The thinking behind each circular is not always clear to teachers and boards of management in implementing them. No one is at fault for this, but it is an issue on which we could work.

Mr. Martin Hanevy

There are two issues in respect of the circulars. The Secretary General has addressed the issue of whether circulars should be used or a raft of legislation.

Chairman

I accept that.

Mr. Martin Hanevy

Circulars offer great flexibility, particularly in a consultative model with partners. The vast majority of circulars in that context go to the management bodies of schools and the teacher unions for their input before they are issued.

Chairman

That is public accounting.

Mr. Martin Hanevy

Not all circulars are issued in this way, as sometimes after a budget things have to be rushed. Yesterday I cleared something to go out to the three management bodies for their input before it was finalised. We will also be talking to the teacher unions before it finally goes out. There may be valid arguments about whether the language used is simple enough, but it is not always possible to do this because often they convey complicated stuff like the details of the fixed-term work Act. A circular is a flexible instrument because we can respond quickly. Other Departments do not use them as often as we do. Deputy Brendan Smith spoke about the Department of Justice and Equality which, with its precision, is very much in a legislative mode. In the case of circulars, an amending circular can be sent the next day if there is a need to fill a gap that the system has flagged. That is a big advantage. As the sector is generally compliant with circulars, the need for sanctions in secondary legislation does not necessarily arise. However, there are areas in respect of enrolment in which we believe we have to go another mile and put in place a regulatory framework.

Deputy Áine Collins

My question may not be that relevant, but I seek the Secretary General's opinion on it. It is about teacher training. In Finland, with the points systems and postgraduate qualifications, psychological testing is carried out which seems to have led to some very good outcomes. What is the Secretary General's view?

Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor

I thank the delegates for their presentations. I know what the Ombudsman said and I agree with her in many cases. I do not really understand the issue in respect of the Teaching Council. The delegates spoke about registering teachers, but when my colleague asked about issues to do with incompetence and the role of the board of management, they shrugged their shoulders. Perhaps I have missed something since I became a Deputy, but I am not aware of the role in this context of the Teaching Council, the board of management, the inspectorate and the principal. Many principals tell me that they do not know what their role is either. Where are the lines drawn?

The delegates referred to withdrawing recognition. When they say this, I understand them to mean the Department of Education and Skills does not pay. It is the board of management which has to fire somebody, while the inspectorate checks a teacher's alleged incompetence in the classroom. The roles are being confused. I am only telling the delegates what is being said in schools. From what I have heard, teachers have lost confidence in the Teaching Council before it has even got up and running. The fact that 7% to 10% of teachers voted in the second round of voting has placed a huge question mark against what is going on in the Teaching Council.

Mr. Ó Gríofa keeps saying teachers are paying and that the money does not come out of the public purse, but the Teaching Council needs the teachers' confidence. He has said there are around 30 people on the board but that there are not enough staff. There is a feeling the council will buy another building in Maynooth which will cost more money. I do not understand why we need the council. The delegates know how well qualified teachers are. They also know about the summer courses they take and the staff development programmes carried out. They sign their summer reports every year. I just do not get it.

One Teaching Council came to an end and another was set up. In the interim period the price dropped and it was thought it was a cheap way to bring teachers back on board.

Chairman

The Deputy has made her point.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor

With due respect, I would like to finish it. I am probably repeating what 70,000 teachers are saying.

Chairman

I am happy for the Deputy to say it, but she has said it and I need to move on to the next speaker.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

I wish Mr. Ó Foghlú well as the new Secretary General. It is a great day for him and the Department.

As I see it, the teeth of the Teaching Council will be in section 30. The view of the public is that a teacher cannot be fired. Am I right in saying that when section 30 is operable, a teacher can be fired from a State school? Prior to this, there was the Maynooth statute which was rarely tested. How has this change been received? What is the level of knowledge of this change among teachers? The delegates said extra resources would be required for the implementation of section 30. How much extra do they foresee would be required? Let us face it: there is no point in having section 30 in the Act if it cannot be enforced. How much of our legislation is like this?

Large numbers of teachers - 70,000-odd, according to the delegatesd - are registered. Have many teachers objected to registering? It is probably not possible to tell yet because registration is not mandatory, but do they foresee this happening?

Mr. Ó Foghlú mentioned enrolment policy. I welcome the new enrolment framework. With regard to the refusal of a school that is privately owned but State-funded to enrol a pregnant 16 year old girl, how widespread is this-----

Chairman

I cannot allow discussion of individual cases, as this discussion is about administration. I might allow a brief comment but not extensive questioning. The delegates are not here to answer questions about individual cases.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

Fair enough. I will ask the question and they can refuse to answer it.

Chairman

No. As the Deputy has raised the issue, we will have a brief comment, but that is as far as I will go.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

Let me finish my statement. I am familiar with the different types of second level school and I wonder whether the new enrolment framework will take account of them. Where a school is privately owned and managed but the teachers are paid by the State, this may have a bearing on its power to implement something like this, which is exclusionist. I am keen to hear the delegates' response.

Chairman

In the end the question was well put. It was asked from an administration point of view.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú

I will ask Mr. Hanevy to answer the question about teaching. We will then come to the question of enrolment. I want to reply to Deputy Collins's point which was very interesting.

Mr. Martin Hanevy

My aim is to provide clarity. The first thing we must do is to distinguish between the role of the employer and a sanction in the employment. There were procedures previously, but there are now new ones, delivered under Towards 2016, because otherwise we might not have obtained the agreement of all partners. We threatened to withhold pay in order to get it. The 1998 Act stated there were to be procedures under section 24 for the dismissal and suspension of teachers, but until there is agreement among a range of people, the existing ones continue. A key part of the strategy was to have new procedures and we have now done this. To give a straight answer to the Deputy, any board of management among 4,000 recognised schools can operate these processes which can ultimately lead to dismissal from that employment. There can be lesser sanctions such as a reduction of increments or removal of a post, but, ultimately, the employer can dismiss staff; these processes are in place. However, the dismissal is only from a specific school. A teacher could go next door and apply for a job. What the Teaching Council can do, as part of this architecture, is to withdraw a teaching licence. The Teaching Council Act is important and strategic legislation in altering what was in place before. Previously, in the primary sector the Minister was the person who dealt with the issue of licences.

Senator Deirdre Clune

This was before Towards 2016.

Mr. Martin Hanevy

Before the introduction of the Teaching Council Act. In the archaic rules for national schools there is a whole section on the Minister granting recognition to or withdrawing recognition from a teacher. At second level there was a secondary teachers registration council, while there were other procedures in the VEC sector, which caused confusion. There is a constitutional determination in re. Solicitors Act 1954 which dealt with professions, specifically the Law Society of Ireland, under which taking away a licence, or the capacity to teach anywhere, is almost like administering justice. That is why councils such as An Bord Altranais and the Medical Council all have the High Court at the back end of the process, in order that after a fitness to practice inquiry does its thing, there is a constitutionally sound basis on which to withdraw a person’s licence. When all of this is commenced - the train is coming to the final station with the legislation being discussed in the House - there will be the ultimate sanction, depriving a person of the capacity to teach anywhere in the jurisdiction and, by extension, other jurisdictions because he or she will no longer be on the Irish register. That is the architecture of the process. It has been a lengthy journey, but we are in its final stages.

We have begun an information campaign for teachers to make it clear to them that in the next school year a day will arrive when, if they are not on the register, there will be no pay cheque. We will also try to use the data available to provide for a mass mailing to teachers in VECs asking them to do likewise, saying to them, "This is your payslip today, but in a number of weeks' time it will not come anymore because you do not seem to be on the register." We are racheting up the process in anticipation of the passing of the Education (Amendment) Bill which will allow for the commencement of section 30. The contribution was absolutely spot on; it does not make sense to withdraw people from a register if they do not have to be on it. The thing that will make them go on it is a concern about not being paid.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

With respect, that is an indictment of teachers' professionalism. To be fair, for years they called for the establishment of a Teaching Council.

Chairman

We will have time afterwards to discuss the issue.

Mr. Martin Hanevy

The Senator is correct.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

With respect-----

Chairman

With respect, we will have time afterwards to discuss this issue. If all the questions are answered, I will have no problem in coming back to other questions. I want to give Mr. Ó Gríofa a chance to reply to a couple of questions.

Mr. Micheál Ó Gríofa

I did not envisage that we would be discussing the mechanism of the Teaching Council's procedures today, although I am delighted to answer any question raised. The Teaching Council Act is not simply about the disciplining of teachers. Yes, it is a major part of its work, but it is not the only part. I am a member of the Teaching Council. There are 27 members, as the committee knows, 22 of whom are from a teaching background and 16 of whom are elected teachers. I will not go into the recent case mentioned, as it concerns a much wider issue. I will have no problem in meeting Deputy Mary Mitchell O'Connor at any time.

Chairman

If Mr. Ó Gríofa is happy to do so, that is fine.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor

Absolutely. It was members of the Teaching Council who contacted me; I did not look for them.

Chairman

Is the Deputy happy that she can meet Mr. Ó Gríofa to discuss this issue? It is not one for discussion today.

Mr. Micheál Ó Gríofa

Our door is open; we would welcome meetings with public representatives about the operation of the Teaching Council.

Deputy Brendan Smith asked about the delays in the registration of newly qualified teachers, saying he had received complaints. We also receive complaints about this matter. However, when they are investigated, it is always found that, funnily enough, the fault does not lie with an official in the council. Instead, the hold-ups take place somewhere else in the process. There is a certain amount of documentation that must be sent in for registration as a teacher, particularly if the application is from a teacher who has gained his or her qualification in another jurisdiction. Under European legislation, such persons have a right to mobility and they apply for registration here. Obviously, the council must check whether these qualifications are comparable to teachers' qualifications here. That is its role. There are quite a number of applications - around 500 annually - from teachers who have qualified in other jurisdictions for registration here. Therefore, the council must be prudent.

It is true that there are issues involved. I know of one case in which a person came to me and said there was a whole-school evaluation in his school, but that he did not have his registration documents. It turned out that there was a delay in the vetting process which had happened for a good reason. Eventually, approval came through and, within a matter of days, permission to register was granted to the teacher. Obviously, there are issues with the paperwork that must be produced and so on which must be dealt with.

On the regulation of the professions, why should physiotherapists, for example, be regulated? Why should doctors and nurses be regulated? It is for the public good. The Teaching Council is not just for teachers; it is for the teaching profession and registration is for the public good. The preamble to the Teaching Council Act gives us our raison d’être, which is to maintain and improve the quality of teaching in this State; to provide for the establishment of standards, policies and procedures for the education and training of teachers and other matters relating to teachers and the teaching profession; to provide for the registration and regulation of teachers; and to enhance professional standards and competence. Two years ago, as a member of the council, I was asked to sit in on the review and accreditation of one of the teacher education courses of which there are 44 in the State, for both primary and post-primary teachers. The Teaching Council examined the content of teacher education in the different providers of teacher education, such as colleges and universities. It was an excellent exercise. It showed teachers that the Teaching Council has a purpose, that it scrutinises who is permitted to enter the profession, how the qualifications are achieved and the standard of teacher education. This was the first occasion the Teaching Council examined teacher education and produced its continuum of teacher education policy. The Teaching Council was subsequently delighted to learn that the three-year course for teacher education was being extended to four years and the 18-month postgraduate course was being extended to two years.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

Does the Teaching Council take credit for this decision?

Mr. Micheál Ó Gríofa

Yes, we take much of the credit for it.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

Those changes have been requested since 2000.

Chairman

We are straying from the subject at hand, Senator.

Mr. Micheál Ó Gríofa

When we reviewed the courses in the colleges it was the unanimous view of all those review committees that the courses should be longer.

Chairman

We can return to those questions after we have dealt with the main business.

Mr. Micheál Ó Gríofa

It is a question of regulation. Why should teachers be different from physiotherapists, solicitors, doctors, nurses, engineers or architects? Self-regulation is a high bar and a significant bonus for the Teaching Council. I refer to a recent case where a number of doctors from India and Pakistan were recruited to fill vacancies in the health service. They were required to undergo an education course under the auspices of the Medical Council. I presume this is because health is a public issue but I argue that education should be viewed in the same light and should not be regarded differently. Teachers have sought self-regulation. It might not be the easiest form of regulation and it must be financed.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor

What about all the law suits which would have to be faced? I know the Teaching Council has a fighting fund, a treasure chest, put by. However, a case in the High Court could require a fund of €7 million or €8 million. Who would fund such cases? It could be seven teachers fighting one High Court case each. Will the teachers have to pay for such cases?

Mr. Micheál Ó Gríofa

Yes. The fund is completely funded from teacher registration fees.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor

I still maintain the Department has all the information.

Chairman

The Secretary General wishes to answer some of the original questions.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú

As regards the Teaching Council, the Department knows the education system relies on the quality of our teachers more than anything else. We regard the Teaching Council as being the key vehicle for delivering teacher quality by means of the setting of standards, the accreditation of courses, the registration of teachers and over time, the management of the induction of teachers into the profession. The council also provides assistance in the organisation of the vetting procedures. The extent of the balance in the membership of the Teaching Council is a moot point. We have chosen a particular solution at the moment which really helps bring all the partners on board and it is very effective. However, without question, there is a need for those functions to be undertaken separately from the Department. When some of those functions were undertaken in the Department, it was more difficult to achieve the transparency and independence needed in each of those processes. This is the reason the Department is very happy to have the Teaching Council as a separate, statutory body and we work closely with it on policy development and this has been very helpful.

In reply to Deputy Áine Collins's question, she raised a very interesting point which is the kernel of the issue. We are discussing the effectiveness of teachers and how to attract the best people into teaching. All the international evidence shows that the most effective education systems attract the best people as teachers and we have to develop mechanisms to achieve this. I do not think the Department would favour psychological assessments at entry level because this would mean that people could be excluded from higher education on the basis of a psychological assessment. We may need to keep in mind the possibility of having other assessment methods other than points or to consider the minimum entry requirements. We keep these matters under constant review and there may be some results in this regard from the work currently under way. The key issue for the Department is that the colleges take responsibility for the standards which have been accredited, that each learner reaches the standard and that this standard includes standards of teaching practice and that the induction process includes a check to ensure that candidates will be suitable to be teachers. It is not a case of being suitable or not but rather a candidate will be mentored in order to achieve a standard of suitability. Once a candidate is teaching and has passed through the induction process and has successfully passed probation in employment, there is the continuing challenge and it is primarily the responsibility of the school to manage this, along with other elements. This is the continuum. However, the Department does not regard this as being negative or challenging as regards teacher competence but rather we regard it as being enabling. We must always be open to rethinking any of the elements if issues arise through discussion, for instance.

On the question of enrolments, there is a current situation which none of us wishes to see maintained in that schools can have whatever enrolment policy they wish and all the Department can challenge is whether they have implemented their enrolment policy. This is why we want to regulate the content of enrolment policies. The Department has a helpful consultative paper in which we have outlined some of the issues which may be covered by regulation in future which we hope the Government will agree to drafting and publishing later this year. This will make for a very interesting debate because the Department is not completely set on which issues should be left to schools to regulate.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

Has that paper been circulated to schools?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú

Yes. It has been widely disseminated.

Mr. Martin Hanevy

The consultation process ended last autumn. All the education partners responded and there were also submissions from members of the public. It is all available on the Department's website.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú

I will give one example which is currently in the public domain. The Department is very concerned about that sort of issue. We do not think this is appropriate and neither does the Minister. I do not think anyone thinks it is appropriate. We have to find a way to address this in the new enrolment arrangements.

For example, only 20% of schools are over-subscribed and apart from the VEC sector and the community and comprehensive sector, the vast majority of schools are technically private. Schools when over-subscribed have different mechanisms to decide on allocation of places. A common method is early registration in advance. We suggest this should be changed because it disadvantages people moving into an area or who are not in the know, so to speak. This will be a challenge to address and to implement a change but the Department looks forward to potentially including it in the legislation, subject to Government approval. Another method for allocating places is whether an applicant's parent or siblings attended or attend the school. The Department has suggested in the discussion paper that there be a certain date, a cut-off date for all applications and that the different criteria would apply subsequently. There may have to be random selection if more than a certain number apply. It must be on the basis of fairness. Distance from the school is another consideration. The Department wants a system in place whereby schools can decide an enrolment policy within the regulations with an appeals system to decide whether a school has implemented its enrolment policy. We do not think the State should decide the enrolment policy of all schools. It would not reflect the nature of Irish schooling and the Irish system.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

It might be good, however, to specify a cut-off date.

Mr. Brendan O’Dea

Deputy Brendan Smith asked about delays in the registration of newly qualified teachers. We have already outlined the factors which led to that difficulty. There are very few delays at this stage and the process is now far more streamlined. We take some 6,000 teachers per year onto the register, 3,000 of them in a compressed period of some eight or nine weeks during the summer as they graduate from college and begin to seek employment. We have streamlined our processes to deal with that. Delays will arise where we have not received sufficient information from a person seeking to register. We have spoken regularly with public representatives and they agree that the problem is usually on the applicant's side. We work hard with applicants to address those issues, but it does not always come through.

On the vetting of new teachers, every person who has been added to the register since 2006 has been vetted by the Garda Síochána. There are some 42,000 teachers currently on the register who have not been vetted and there is an ongoing process to deal with that. There are issues in this regard in terms of supporting legislation, arrangements and resources, but we are getting through it. I am confident we will make considerable progress in ensuring all teachers are vetted within the coming 12 to 18 months. Senator Fidelma Healy Eames made the comment that teachers cannot be fired. I am sure the departmental officials would contend that this could in fact be the ultimate outcome of the procedures available under section 24 of the Education Act 1998. If the decision of a disciplinary panel is that a teacher should be removed for five or ten years - it must be a specified period - while that is not a firing, a teacher cannot teach if he or she is removed. That might be a question of semantics, so to speak.

More than one speaker asked about the knowledge among teachers of what the Teaching Council does. That is truly a battle. We have worked hard to notify teachers of our activities and acquaint them with our role. We also take opportunities to meet with teachers, but we are talking about more than 73,000 individuals. It is a major challenge and the three teacher unions have worked hard on it. What it boils down to is that a person will only discover what a particular body is for and what it does when its activities impact at a personal level. As it stands, some of the council's activities, such as initial teacher education and induction, are not pertinent to teachers in the classroom. However, our initiatives in regard to continual professional development, the code of conduct and the provisions of Part 5 of the Teaching Council Act 2011 will impact on the more active aspects of teaching and that will change the landscape.

The issue of whether teachers are objecting to having to register was raised. We have seen no evidence of this thus far, but whether it will arise in the future I cannot say. As Mr. Hanevy observed, there has been an information campaign in respect of the coming into force of section 30 of the Act. We have seen no distinct upsurge in the number of applications to be registered. I cannot predict whether there will be objectors; it is possible there will be. There are people who may have held back from registering in the past but who are now aware that it must be done.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

I asked about the cost of implementing the provisions of section 30 of the 2011 Act.

Chairman

I have called Deputy Mary Mitchell O'Connor.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

I am merely seeking the answer to a question I already asked.

Chairman

Deputy Mitchell O'Connor is next on the list, after which I will return to the Senator.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor

Currently, continual professional development is delivered by the unions and the Department of Education and Skills. Does the council intend to engage in that delivery and, if so, who will pay for it? I understand the teacher training colleges are represented among the 37 members of the council's board. Are all of them given equal say or is it a case that there is division between the private and public training colleges and they are not working together? I have listened to what the delegates are saying, but I still cannot get my head around what is involved in the annual registration process. In the case of most teachers, their qualifications do not change much from year to year, apart from the professional development element. This is probably a matter for discussion on another day, but these are the concerns that were raised in the hundreds of e-mails from teachers I have received.

Chairman

They are good questions. However, we might make a decision at the end of the meeting as to whether another session is required The delegates should feel free to respond to any of the questions raised, but I acknowledge that some of them are beyond the scope of today's agenda.

Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor

I am particularly concerned with the question of who will pay for the delivery of continual professional development.

Chairman

Yes. I will now return to Senator Healy Eames.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

Thank you, Chairman. I asked about the cost of implementing section 30 of the Teaching Council Act 2011, which gives real teeth to the council in terms of enforcing the requirement that teachers must be registered in order to teach. This is similar to the requirement in many other jurisdictions. I have taught in New York, for example, where I was required to register with the relevant state body. Like Deputy Mitchell O'Connor, my concern relates to the requirement for teachers to renew their licence annually.

On a separate issue, I was involved in supervising teaching practice until 2006 in both State and private colleges. As such, I am very keen to know what will be done differently in regard to teacher practice supervision as a result of implementation of the 2011 Act and the intervention by the council to which Mr. Ó Gríofa referred. In other words, if I were supervising teaching practice today, what would I be doing differently than formerly and would I require something different of my student teachers?

Chairman

Again, some of the questions are way off today's agenda.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames

They are linked.

Deputy Áine Collins

Since qualifying as an accountant, I have been obliged to complete a prescribed number of continual professional development hours every year in order to have my licence renewed by the professional body of which I am a member. My fellow accountants and I must pay for that ourselves, even though our qualification is considered a masters degree. In that context, I welcome the new registration renewal requirements for teachers. Most professional bodies operate in the same manner.

Chairman

I have several questions relating to the main issue for discussion at this meeting, namely, the concerns raised by the Ombudsman for Children regarding public administration in this State. I accept that the delegates from the Teaching Council are dealing with a very low volume of complaints, 60 or 70 being indeed a small amount in the context of national pupil numbers. However, the reality is that this issue accounts for almost half of the complaints received by the ombudsman. The delegates have outlined the consultation that is taking place in regard to circulars and so on. Perhaps they will send us a note on that so we can share it with the ombudsman. It might be appropriate on some occasions to involve her in that consultation, although perhaps that is not permissible. Will the delegates, in light of what has been raised today, undertake to review the consultation process regarding circulars with a view to considering whether there are other groups that could be involved in it? Perhaps they will be able to tell me immediately that this cannot be done, which is all well and good, but, if not, it is something they might take from the meeting for consideration. As has been pointed out by members, the number of circulars can lead to a lack of accountability and a degree of uncertainty, with any resulting difficulty of interpretation or implementation being potentially detrimental to pupils.

It seems from the Secretary General's presentation that consultation with the ombudsman has improved. Although the concerns expressed by her related specifically to circulars, we got the clear impression that it was her view that there had not been adequate consultation.

Mr. Martin Hanevy

My understanding was the ombudsman's position was whether there should be fewer circulars and more regulation and law, as distinct from the circulars being problematic or that she should be consulted about circulars.

Chairman

Yes, that is correct. I am merely asking whether the delegates might consider opening up the consultation process. The accountability issue was raised, not just by the ombudsman but also by others at previous meetings of this committee. We are merely talking this through. In fairness, Mr. Hanevy's presentation brought a great deal of clarity to the issue.

The Secretary General referred to robust systems grounded on principles of equity and fairness and the importance of being open to reviewing any such rules. There is often a view, which came through at the meeting with the ombudsman - it is something that applies across many Departments and agencies - that there are rules to apply and boxes to be ticked and if a person does not fit into a box or under a certain rule, there is little scope to apply common sense. This probably is an issue that sums up the concerns. It is not always possible to introduce common sense because of precedents and so on but it is an issue members frequently encounter in respect of Departments. It is also true in respect of the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. I acknowledge there must be rules and boxes but sometimes a better way must be found to deal with someone who does not fit into a particular box or to whom a certain rule does not apply. This probably is the best way to summarise what emerged from the joint committee's meeting with the ombudsman, as well as from other meetings. The question is how to deal with matters that are not simple and do not fit into a box. It has been made clear to members that the decision-maker, who makes the decision based on a circular or rule, is not always on the ground when dealing with the person concerned. The decision-maker is removed from the point at which things happen or where the concern lies. Perhaps this area could be improved on in order that a decision-maker should become more involved with the client in respect of a case that does not fit the general rules. This suggestion emerged very clearly in the course of our meetings.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú

If I might come back before we do the Teaching Council matters again, I refer to the volume of complaints. To be fair to the ombudsman, we obviously have seen the 2010 report and while the 2011 report has not been published yet, she has told us the percentage has risen from the high 30s to the mid to high 40s in respect of her office's general complaints. To be fair, she might receive four or five similar cases and then only advance one to an investigation because she knows they are related and does not wish to inundate with the same thing. She takes what she considers to be a sample case about a particular issue regularly. In general, the Department has a limited number that we process centrally. At a management level in the Department, we take an overview every week of the complaints that are coming in to be able to ascertain what issues are popping up and what are the issues of concern. We have no idea about the issues the Office of the Ombudsman for Children is raising directly with schools, other than what the ombudsman includes in her annual report or what she tells us at meetings, because we would not know.

Chairman

That sounds like a failure in the system.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú

No, because it shows the schools are responsible for addressing those issues. While we know the sorts of issues about which she informs us, we do not know about the individual cases and nor should we, because they are a matter for schools to resolve. This is an important part of it. Consequently, it is very helpful that the Department has an overview of the sorts of issues that are involved and that can feed in.

As for circulars, I will discuss the systems initially before returning to the circulars. The key issue for us is the Department cannot make exceptions because were we to so do, we can be found out by all the other people to whom the exception would have applied. Effectively, what we must do is change the rule and we do so as quickly as possible. I will provide a brief example, in order that members can understand, again in respect of school transport. The ombudsman had a case whereby concessionary school transport was being sought by someone with special educational needs. Concessionary school transport arises when someone does not attend his or her nearest school but goes to another school at which there happens to be a school transport option available. However, we can only guarantee it for a single year because it may not be available in the following year. Our policy had been quite simple, namely, we would not allow special educational needs students to avail of such concessionary transport because they would get settled in the school and the transport might not be available in the following year and because they were only attending the school because it was available. Given a certain case, the ombudsman asked us to reconsider and to provide transport straight away. Having tossed it up and down, having met and having discussed it, we decided to introduce a scheme. However, we cannot make an exception for an individual until we have a scheme in place. It took us a while to introduce a scheme, which we implemented by circular.

Chairman

So there was a gap between agreeing on the solution and its implementation.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú

There was a gap but the problem was that we knew there were ten or 20 people in a similar position who would want the same thing. We also knew it was very important that the context in which it was being done was very clear, namely, it could result the following September in the parent being obliged to switch to another school because school transport would not be available, because it was a concession on an annual basis. This is because the State cannot intervene to have absolute choice and then to maintain it for the lifetime of a student. They are never simple issues and this is the reason we must work them through.

I revert to the Chairman's point about applying common sense. In the late 1990s, Mr. Jim Mulkerrins's section of the Department, based in Athlone, was inundated with special educational needs cases and the Department staff were obliged to make the call. We deliberately introduced a system in which specialists would advise in this regard, which was the reason for the establishment of the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, and the introduction of special educational needs organisers, SENOs. This is the reason we have them. We cannot second-guess their judgments and to so do would be entirely inappropriate. Department staff would have no competence to second-guess their judgments. Yes, they must apply common sense and must ask questions back and ask them to reconsider but what we cannot do is take the consideration away from them. Nor can we take consideration away from educational psychologists under the National Educational Psychological Service as that would be inappropriate.

Effectively, this is the tension we have with the ombudsman. We have talked it through with her after her meeting with this joint committee and she understands what is our point and has asked us to try to consider in particular where we might intervene back to challenge. While I do not wish to put words in her mouth, we conveyed that we could not have a situation whereby someone in the special education section or someone on school transport was second-guessing a SENO. It simply is not appropriate and would lead to an immediate breakdown in the system. That system understanding is a key point. Yes, we need to have understanding of individual cases but we cannot second-guess. The individual cases must lead to rule changes.

Chairman

The point is the circular is the quickest way in which to make that rule change.

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú

That is it, yes. Therefore, we see it as a positive response that is better than regulation and better than law.

Chairman

How quickly can that process happen?

Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú

It depends on the situation. For example, a circular could be changed within a couple of days but others might require consultation and change on the ground, as well as explanation because quite often, people wish to opt into something but do not perceive its downsides. I have just demonstrated this point with the school transport example. It is important that people would work through and would understand those issues.

As for circulars, we certainly can articulate to the joint committee in writing our practices but it really depends on the area. We could articulate the general areas and could summarise the different areas in which the Department makes circulars - because they are not made across the board - perhaps at different times where different consultations would take place in those areas. Much of the time, we need to do things quite fast, arising from the budget and so on. At other times, however, such as with the school transport issue, we would have somewhat more discussion and so on.

It might be useful to bring in Mr. Jim Mulkerrins to talk through some of the special needs examples because he works as the principal officer in the section and has been obliged to deal with such issues in respect of redrafting circulars.

Mr. Jim Mulkerrins

I will give two examples. The first concerns a relatively small issue when the post-primary management group, which is the representative group of post-primary schools, approached us before the summer to raise a problem. As members are aware, the post-primary sector does not have a general allocation model and they would now be taking in a cohort from the primary sector into the post-primary sector without the benefit of assessments. They needed to have an arrangement put in place immediately in order that certainty would be given to the schools. We turned around a circular within two weeks on that issue. It was a circular that was drafted in full consultation with the post-primary management groups and they were very glad that we were able to respond very quickly. That is one of the benefits of circulars.

In the meantime, I understand this joint committee was made aware of an individual case, I will not get into specifics about the identity of the child or anything like that, on which the ombudsman had published around the time she appeared before the joint committee. It was indeed an issue of concern to us and there had been ongoing engagement, through the NCSE, with the school in question. Essentially, the point was that the scheme in question was quite restrictive. It is a highly restrictive scheme and the ombudsman had asked us to consider a degree of flexibility in it. In this particular case, the ombudsman herself provided us with very suitable and useful wording in her report that would enable us to introduce the type of flexibility required and we currently are in the process of going through the preparation of a circular on that. In recent weeks there has been significant consultation with the education partners. Consequently, we are able to respond in this particular case quite positively.

I understand, from a question the Chairman raised a moment ago, that there might be a concern about what happens to the child in the meantime while the circular process is under way. Again, we remain engaged on the particular case and in this instance, the school was in a position to make a provision for the child and to adapt some information technology equipment that at least filled the gap until the new circular was in place.

Chairman

That is positive news. I apologise that some Deputies are obliged to leave but the debate on the Education (Amendment) Bill has begun.

Mr. Brendan O’Dea

We have a role in respect of continued professional development, CPD. I understand it will be commenced by the Minister within the next two to three years. An amendment is coming through, as part of the amendment Bill passing though the Houses of the Oireachtas to which the Chairman referred, that will allow the Teaching Council to make conditions in respect of annual renewal of registration, one of which will relate to continued professional development. Its delivery will not be through the Teaching Council, as that is not our role. We accredit continuing professional development programmes and promote the practice. We will probably put in place a framework setting out expectations on an annual or multi-year basis of what a teacher should be doing to keep himself or herself abreast of teaching practice. Its delivery would not be through the Teaching Council but within schools, as we see a broad approach being taken. It would not, by any means, be completely in-service training.

Once-off registration would have been the practice, in effect, before the Teaching Council appeared on the landscape. A primary or post-primary teacher would have signed up either with the Department or the old registration council. He or she would have done so when he or she was 22 years old. As Deputy Collins mentioned, with a professional body there is an annual process and certain requirements must be met as part of it. That is where we fit in. There are simple declarations of where a teacher is teaching and his or her current position. In the future there may be disclosures of evidence of character, Garda vetting or continuing professional development. That is the purpose of the annual renewal process; although it is a mild pain in the neck, it is important.

The issue of teaching practice supervision was raised by Senator Fidelma Healy Eames. As part of our process of going to colleges to review and accredit programmes, we have observed teaching practice in close detail and made many recommendations for improvements in terms of consistency of standards, what should be achieved, reporting and giving feedback to the student teacher. We have raised the standard in that regard.

With regard to teacher educators, there are a number of nominees on the council from the teacher education fraternity, the primary colleges of education and the universities' departments of education, who bring great value to the council. They all have their own approach, which is normal on a 37 member council, of which they are a very important part.

Chairman

I appreciate the comments of participants as we strayed into many issues. They brought clarity to the concerns of members. I thank the delegates for their contributions.

The joint committee went into private session at 11.35 a.m. and adjourned at 11.40 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 9 May 2012.