Dr. Ken Fennelly:

My remarks echo much of what people have already said today, so I will try to be quick and move on through them as quickly as I can. We are grateful for the opportunity to input into deliberations here.

As I have remarked before committees in the past, a significant part of my role involves liaising with both principals and boards of management chairpersons, especially in to instances where they are dealing with a parental complaint. While the vast majority of these complaints are resolved and good relationships are restored, the reality of life is that this is not always the case. To date, school communities - parents, teachers and school boards of management - have relied on an agreed parental complaints procedure. As members will know, there is a provision under section 28 of the Education Act 1998 for the Minister to prescribe procedures in this regard. That has not been done.

However, this proposed Bill, referred to as the Education (Parent and Student Charter) Bill, is addressing this issue through primary legislation. We agree that the Bill has some laudable proposals. It would be our view that schools are currently living out these principles and such a culture has long been adopted in schools. Indeed, some of the principles outlined are required by existing legislation. As members will know from their work as public representatives, people are sensitive to language and perception. The language contained in this Bill seems to be binary in approach, rather than adopting a collegiate-partnership approach, which was the vision of the Education Act 1998. I absolutely accept the view that the creation of a culture of positive relationships based on good communications and healthy and on-going interactions within the school community can make a key difference in fostering a culture that prevents grievances arising in the first instance. This is to benefit of all involved and is a model which we, as a church, are most comfortable with. We note that the Department of Education and Skills issued a circular in 1991 on the relationship between parents and schools. We suggest that it is timely to revisit and revise that circular as a practical and positive step towards re-articulating the understanding that we all share on this issue.

It is clear to all of us involved in school management that the current parental complaints procedures need to be reviewed. Recent developments relating to teachers' disciplinary procedures have made this a necessity. We have had a few instances where the taking forward of a parental complaint has caused a procedural difficulty when that process moves into the procedures for suspension and dismissal of teachers. Disciplinary procedures have their basis in section 24 of the 1998 Act, and I ask that the committee give serious consideration to allowing the same format for the parental complaints procedure, in other words, that there is a provision for such procedures in primary legislation, but that the procedures themselves are nationally agreed among the various education partners, which was suggested earlier today. The procedure itself needs to have the ability to adapt and be adaptable to further developments. We suggest to the committee that for practical purposes, this is the most appropriate model with the revised parental complaints procedure being agreed nationally, but having its grounding in primary legislation. Members will know that section 28 of the 1998 Act currently makes provision for this to be done.

Members will be aware that education matters are currently under the remit of both the Office of the Ombudsman and also the Office of the Ombudsman for Children. The Ombudsman has a remit for a number of third-level bodies, while the Ombudsman for Children has responsibility for complaints relating to school. On the scope of the Office of the Ombudsman for Children, it can review the procedure of matters determined by school boards of management, but not the decision. This is as it should be. The board of management is the corporate body charged with the responsibility of managing the school. The board is not an entity of the State. Rather, it is a voluntary body appointed by the patron of the school, albeit subject to the rules and regulations of the Department of Education and Skills, the State and law. As members will know, the Teaching Council has commenced its fitness to teach procedures, and we would hope and expect that the number of parental complaints regarding teachers would significantly reduce as a consequence.

The other piece of legislation under consideration here today aims to address the relationship between the school and parents, and indeed is seeking to amend the remit of the Ombudsman for Children. There seem to be two things going on at the same time. We suggest to the committee that this is a case of “sufficient unto the day is the worry thereof”, and to give credence to the concept, the necessity of creating a new ombudsman for education is matter that needs to be revisited when the various proposals made by the various national bodies to the committee regarding the handling of parental complaints have been fully considered. Obviously that is a matter for the committee. If one looks at the area of the handling of school complaints beyond that at school boards of management, one can point at the Office of the Ombudsman for Children - which currently has remit in this area, as has been said - the Teaching Council which now offers another avenue for complaints against teachers, the inspectorate under section 29, and also the willingness of education partners that have come before the committee today to revise the parental complaints procedures. There are many avenues there now. Given the progress that has been made since this idea was first proposed two years ago, we are of the view that the case for the establishment of this new office of an ombudsman for education is weak and does not pass the test of necessity.

It is important for us to state that we view our schools as communities. They are not simply service providers to clients. The life of a school community is an enterprise in partnership. It should not be characterised as a conceptually one-dimensional interaction. Schools are communities within communities.

The concept and language of a “charter” is based in the corporate world and is only a step away from a “service level agreement”. We question whether this is a positive development in terms of public policy and the common good. As a society, we seemed to have moved away from the concept of the school acting in loco parentis. This needs to be reflected on. Our schools seek to develop and nurture the whole person in a collaborative way. Why is this Bill being called the parent and student charter? Why can it not be a more general charter for our schools?

The INTO made the point at its Easter conference that teachers are not recognised in the conceptualisation of this Bill at all and we agree with the INTO on that. Teachers should be included. So too should everybody involved in the life of the school - students, parents, teachers, SNAs, administrative and care taking staff, local clergy and other volunteers. School life is a collaborative life with the child at its centre. We suggest to the committee that while we welcome the intention of the Bill, legislation from this Oireachtas that focuses on only two elements of those involved in school life does not send either an affirming or supportive signal to school communities in their entirety.

Again, I thank the committee for the opportunity to contribute to this discussion.