Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Educational Welfare Service.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 19 February 2004

Thursday, 19 February 2004

Ceisteanna (3)

Paul Nicholas Gogarty

Ceist:

3 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Education and Science the number of educational welfare officers now in place; the number expected to be in place by the end of 2004; his Department’s estimates of the minimum number of officers required for the National Educational Welfare Board to be able to carry out its statutory duties adequately on a nationwide basis; the likely timescale for reaching that number; the statutory role of the educational welfare officer under the Education (Welfare) Act, and the difference between this role and that of a home school liaison co-ordinator; if a vacuum currently exists in terms of responsibility for children who drop out of school; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5217/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (6 píosaí cainte)

The National Educational Welfare Board was established to ensure that every child attends school regularly or otherwise receives an education. The board is developing a nationwide service to provide welfare-focused services for children, families and schools. The board's authorised staffing complement is 84. It has recently advertised a competition to fill 15 vacancies. When these vacancies are filled the staff composition will be as follows: 11 head office staff and 65 educational welfare staff supported by eight clerical support staff.

As provided for under section 10 of the Education (Welfare) Act 2000, I have arranged for officials of my Department to work with the board to ensure that any opportunities for integrated working between educational welfare officers and staff on other educational disadvantage programmes whose work involves a school attendance element are exploited to the maximum. I consider the implementation of protocols for such integrated working on attendance matters between the NEWB and, in particular, the home-school-community liaison scheme, the school completion programme and the visiting teacher service for Travellers, to be very important. When in place, these will assist the NEWB in carrying out its remit and ensure that all available existing resources are utilised to the full. I consider it essential that the board should focus on ways in which it can deliver the service with its authorised personnel and with the help of other personnel involved in the area. When this has been achieved, I will consider the position again taking into account the available resources.

The duties of the educational welfare officer include: fostering an appreciation of the value of education; advising schools and parents on school attendance issues and on strategies to promote regular school attendance; dealing with poor attendance or early school leaving case referrals from schools using a welfare-orientated approach; and initiating legal proceedings under the Act, where appropriate.

The duties of the home-school-community liaison co-ordinator include developing processes for active co-operation between home, school and relevant community agencies in promoting the educational interests of the children and visiting parents' homes. School attendance issues and learning needs are commonly discussed during these visits. Their duties also include developing parents as prime educators, enabling them to support their children's learning and addressing, through a local committee, school-related issues in the community which impinge on attendance and learning. There is significant scope for integrated working between educational welfare officers and home-school-community liaison co-ordinators and discussions between the NEWB and officials of my Department are continuing with a view to finalising protocols for this as soon as possible.

Section 21 of the Act requires the principal of a recognised school to inform an educational welfare officer in writing where a pupil is absent from school for more than 20 days or where he or she is of the view that a student is not attending school regularly.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

This covers cases in which a student under the age of 16 drops out of school entirely and the NEWB has put procedures in place to classify all such cases as urgent and prioritise them accordingly. Arrangements are also in place in the areas covered by my Department's school completion programme to target children under 16 who have dropped out of school for particular support, with the aim of ensuring their earliest possible return to full-time education. I am satisfied that these procedures address the issue of responsibility for children who drop out of school early.

Is the Minister aware of the substantial criticism of the Government over early intervention for school leavers? This is having a knock-on effect on those such as the 17 year old boy before the courts yesterday, for whom, fortunately, a place was again found in Ballydowd. Is the Minister aware that an independent report states that the full implementation of the Education (Welfare) Act requires a complement of 360 staff? Even if the Minister feels this is not required, there is a big difference between 360 and the 99 that will shortly be in place.

Is the Minister aware of the comments of his colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, who said: "Remember, for several decades now——

The Deputy is not entitled to quote during Question Time.

He alluded to the fact that for several decades we had a system in operation in many schools, whereby liaison between the home and the school exists. However, they have not been able to get all the children to attend school because in some impossible cases there is no co-operation forthcoming from the child or parents. While I agree with the Minister of State wholeheartedly, would the Minister not agree this means that the educational welfare officers, who have the power to take legal proceedings, are needed more than ever to ensure children do not end up in prison later on? If the staff is not increased from 85 to 360 as soon as possible, it would be like giving a junior hurling team drumsticks to take on Kilkenny — they would make considerable noise but would not get a result. While money has been thrown at the system since 1997, would the Minister agree we also need a coherent strategy and to staff the areas needed given the statutory right for educational welfare officers to promote attendance and take legal proceedings where the necessary?

Meath men know nothing about hurling.

The report referred to by the Deputy was not an independent one. It was commissioned by the National Educational Welfare Board and based on a brief with which I would not fully agree. It did not take into account the numbers of people in other areas of the education system who have a duty and obligation, as I mentioned, to look after children and ensure they attend school. I accept that home-school liaison officers, visiting teachers and so on do not have the ultimate statutory sanction of legislation. They cannot take legal action against the parents of a child who is not attending school. However, the Deputy will agree — it is no great secret — that the National Educational Welfare Board is most reluctant to go as far as prosecution. It would prefer to take a more welfare-based approach initially, with which I agree.

Perhaps the report to which the Deputy is referring took into account the wonderful work being done under the school completion programme by the home-school-community liaison officers and visiting teachers and considered in more detail how they might all co-operate with each other. If this happened we could have a far superior system. That is what we are trying to achieve.

Barr
Roinn