I welcome the Minister. I am relieved to have made it to the House by the skin of my teeth. I was at an educational establishment, St. Patrick's Cathedral Choir and Grammar School, which dates back in some ways to 1432. I thank the staff of the House with whom I kept in contact by telephone and who were exceedingly helpful, as they always are.
The matter I raise refers to a special school which operates under the ABACAS — Applied Behaviour Analysis Centre for Autism Schooling — system. I have the highest regard for those involved in this process — the teachers, pupils and parents — and what I say is not intended to be negative, nor should it be interpreted as carping with regard to them. I have mentioned one specific school and should also declare that I have an interest in it to the extent that my niece is one of the teachers in the school. She is not alone, however, in her concern about developments involving the Department, as her concerns are shared by parents and other members of staff.
The school in question is one of 12 in the same position. A new contract which alters the status of teachers from being tutors to special needs assistants is being issued by the Department. The deadline for making a decision on whether to accept the contract has just passed. I do not intend to be critical in any way of special needs assistants and Members will know that I have spoken very positively on their behalf, defended their interests and praised them in previous debates and at the Joint Committee on Education and Skills when I sat in on proceedings related to this matter.
The new contract was issued in a letter dated 8 December and recipients of the letter were given until today, 17 December, or nine days, to make a decision on whether to accept it. This is a short timescale in which to require someone to make such a serious decision, particularly where there are questions marks. The matter is of such concern, as I discovered during my research, that it is has already been the subject of a parliamentary question in the other House. I am not alone, therefore, in expressing concern.
The issue is worrying, particularly in the light of the final paragraph of the letter accompanying the forms which were sent to the tutors in question. It reads:
Should the BOM [Board of Management] not have a written response from you in order to offer back to the DES [Department of Education and Skills] by December 17th 2010, the DES will take that as a request for voluntary redundancy. We wish to avoid this action based on lack of response and so ask that you make every effort to respond in writing by the designated deadlline.
That means the board of management is placing responsibility on the Department of Education and Skills for this very short deadline and the requirement for a definite answer.
The offer of contract documents also contains a final paragraph which is similar but is highlighted by being placed in bold type and underlined. It states: "If a completed option form is not received from a staff member by close of business on 17 December 2010 it will be assumed that you will opt for the voluntary redundancy option, Form B1, and this option will then be processed." That appears to be rather high-handed and bullying. I wonder if it is actually legal because to be enforceable, there must be mutuality in a contract. The letter also states, "Please feel free to seek assistance from your union and any other external supports."
I am a very strong union person but the union in question has not been responsive, whatever may be the reason. Perhaps it is SIPTU which does not have a massive engagement with the teaching area. My understanding is that a number of people attempted, without success, to obtain a response from the union which apparently has been negotiating on behalf of people who it has not consulted. If this is accurate, it is very odd. I will be in contact with the union to find out if it is the case. Texts have been sent and phone messages have not been answered. This is a very poor response.
The degree of coercion involved would probably lead to a successful action for constructive dismissal but I do not believe anyone wants that. My understanding is that all the teachers, including those to whom I have spoken, and the staff in general are very supportive of this measure and allied schools and do not want to take redundancy or be unnecessarily critical.
The issue arises as to the implication of being redesignated from tutor to special needs assistant. I understand this would involve a restriction on the activities that may be completed professionally by those designated as special needs assistants. There is a concern about whether they would be covered should they be required to do such work. My understanding is they are being required to do so. There is a very clear conflict. I refer to the question posed by Deputy Joanna Tuffy in the Dáil on 6 July 2010. She asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Mary Coughlan: "the circumstances under which qualified tutors in the applied behaviour analysis programme are having their status changed to that of a special needs assistant; the reason her Department is ignoring its own circulars by requiring current applied behaviour analysis tutors under the proposed changes to fulfil a teaching role as a special needs assistant when previous circulars have clearly stated that a special needs assistant is prohibited from teaching; and if she will make a statement on the matter". That is the nub of the question. On the one hand, the Department states they should not teach and on the other it states they must because they will have the same role. The reply of the Minister was unsatisfactory:
The Deputy will be aware that the 12 centres in the ABA pilot scheme have applied to be recognised as special schools. Following discussions with the ABA tutors' union it has been agreed that the ABA tutors will become Special Needs Assistants . . . in the special schools. The question of ignoring Departmental circulars does not arise as the normal terms and conditions of the SNA grade will apply.
That is a very legalistic reply and does not cover the question at all. It is a trade union reply quoting terms and conditions and does not supply an answer. Redundancy packages have been agreed.
I refer to a communication from a very worried parent whose identity I will not indicate. It refers to the Minister's answer and is definite in its wording. Therefore, any nonsense about ABA tutors being able to fulfil their current role under new SNA contracts is hogwash. The parent states:
I believe that knowingly operating outside the terms of the contract and outside the terms of the circular could leave the teacher personally in the classroom and the school at risk of legal action . . . I don't believe the insurance company will cover it. Ask them if they have a written statement from ABACAS's legal advisers or its insurance company overtly stating that teachers can continue with their present duties under an SNA contract.
That appears to be the critical element. I understand the Minister has special responsibility and expertise in another area. Within the past week I have heard him speak very extensively about this area. I do not say he has no knowledge of or competence in the area of teaching. I assume he will read the prepared reply. I ask him to bring the subject matter of this debate directly to the attention of the Minister in order that the situation can be resolved. The most urgent and primary concern is the welfare and assistance supplied to students who are autistic in order that they may have the best possible capacity to develop. That is what all the tutors, special needs assistants, staff, parents and pupils want.
A final point is that in a number of these schools, including the one in question, when this action is taken the school will be left without any persons on the staff who are designated as qualified teachers. They will all be special needs assistants. I wonder if that is best management practice.
