Ms Breda Corr:

We would like to thank the members of the Joint Committee on Education and Skills for affording us the opportunity to give the views of our members, which are schools involved in the education of pupils with special educational needs.The National Association of Boards of Management in Special Education, NABMSE, is the management voice of special education in Ireland. We are a recognised school management organisation providing country-wide representation for boards of management of special schools and mainstream primary and post-primary schools providing education for pupils with special educational needs.

In making this submission, it is important that we acknowledge the voluntary nature of the service and contribution that members of boards of management undertake at no cost to the State. It is important to put that out there. Boards need to be resourced and supported to undertake this work. As I have said, the function of a board under section 15(1) of the Education Act 1998 is "to manage the school on behalf of the patron and for the benefit of the students and their parents and to provide or cause to be provided an appropriate education for each student at the school for which that board has responsibility".

As has been stated previously at this committee, most boards of management are doing a very good job. It is important that the voice of school boards is respected and heard in any debate. The best interests of the pupils, their welfare and meeting their needs should be at the core of the work of the school and the board of management. We find with our membership it is generally. We encourage all boards to have robust and effective policies and procedures in place and we assist them in that regard.

While we welcome the spirit of the parent and student charter, which will foster and promote a culture of openness and transparency in the interaction of schools with students and parents, we feel more work is needed on the detail of the Bill and we have several observations and concerns. First, I welcome the definition of student which includes all persons enrolled in a school and thus students over 18 years. We find that quite difficult in special schools, because students often fall between two stools with regard to, for example, child protection. That is quite difficult.

Regarding head 3, on principles, I have outlined my concerns in the submission and I will not go into every single section. My concerns, however, are as follows. What is the definition of a quality school experience? That is quite subjective. Regarding information on school performance, I would be concerned that it might end up focusing only on exam performance and might not provide for schools that make provision for inclusion of pupils with special educational needs or those from social or economic disadvantage. I am unsure what is meant by "Operating quality assurance". That like a business term. One of the sections mentions mediation and remediation. Who will pay for this service and will extra resources be provided to schools if they are to pay, because that is quite expensive?

Section 12 of head 4 of the Bill states that:

In the preparation of guidelines or directions under this section the Minister will also have regard to:(i) how boards may respect student voice having regard to the age and experience of the students

Consideration needs to be given to how all students’ voices can be respected, including those with no voice at all and cannot speak.

Head 6 talks about the Ombudsman for Children. The areas for which the Ombudsman for Children can make suggestions, provide guidance or make recommendations are not clear from this head. A very pertinent question at the moment would be, for example, whether complaints regarding the deployment of teaching resources be included in this remit. That would be a very onerous task.

If resources are required by schools to implement the recommendations of the ombudsman or comply with the directions of the Minister, will these be provided by the Department of Education and Skills?

Moving on to the Education (Amendment) Bill, we are concerned that the establishment of an ombudsman for education would result in an unnecessary layer to oversee the work of voluntary boards of management. There appears to be no clarification in the proposed Bill of the kinds of board decisions that could be appealed to the ombudsman. Having each board decision subject to appeal would leave boards unable to manage the schools, and the question arises as to who would be ultimately responsible for the management of the school.

I will offer some of my suggestions for a way forward, some of which, I think, have been suggested by others. A forum of all partners could be established to examine the parent and student charter in greater detail, the current grievance procedures and other related issues. The current parental complaints procedure at primary level has been in existence since 1993 and we suggest it should be updated without delay. The procedure was agreed between the INTO and the CPSMA and did not include any other education partners. A wider consultation on these procedures is provided for in section 28 of the Education Act. Remedial action for grievances is also provided for in the Act. The informal stage of these procedures could be strengthened and clarified to enable issues to be resolved at a very early stage and at a local level, thus obviating the need for an ombudsman.

NABMSE looks forward to working with all partners on these proposals for the improvement of the school experience for all students.