Dr. Michael Redmond:

The discussion so far has rightly focused on the needs of vulnerable individuals in our systems. Schools are probably the most complex structured and heavily regulated institutions in the State. Within that a secondary school timetable has to answer the questions of who teaches what to whom, and when and where for hundreds of students at any given time. School timetables end up like a locked-in jigsaw. Secondary schools have limited flexibility to design a bespoke timetable for any particular student who needs a range of so-called practical subjects, for example, where these happen to run concurrently.

We should at this point distinguish between a reduced curriculum and a reduced timetable or school day, as these are not always the same thing. A student can be studying a reduced number of subjects but still have other learning opportunities that provide for a full day every day, and the new junior cycle framework allows for this.

Schools do not take the decision to reduce a student’s timetable unilaterally or lightly. In my experience, these decisions are taken in consultation with parents or guardians and the professional services, where they can get them. For every student who has a reduced timetable developed for him or her, there can be a long back story of efforts, interventions, creative solution seeking, professional engagement and encouragement provided by his or her school. This approach is almost always a last resort. The consequences of reducing the school day can be to reduce the breadth of the curriculum and interrupt continuity of tuition in some subjects. Therefore, decisions to reduce a timetable are often taken as a trade-off. It can be unrealistic and unfair to force an adolescent into the straitjacket of a full-on timetable and socially intensive school day when she or he is clearly not able for it for a period of time.

A concern arises, however, where a reduced timetable may be put in place instead of a more effective strategy. Why would a school contemplate this, even with the agreement of the parents? The answer, as many people have observed this morning, lies in the failure of the State to provide a wrap-around, professionalised therapeutic, psychiatric and behavioural therapy service to students. It is virtually impossible to get timely and recurring access to an occupational or speech and language therapist or a specialist in emotional and behavioural support. School principals find themselves landed in the roles of counsellor, psychotherapist, behaviour management specialist, family mediator and decision-maker well beyond their fields of expertise or qualification.

The promised NCSE framework for supporting students with additional care needs is being trialled but it cannot come soon enough. Meanwhile, many principals have a sense of being abandoned to care for students in crisis and still ensure that the educational experience and outcomes of the majority in our overcrowded classrooms are protected. There now exists an opportunity to resource properly the NCSE strategy for supporting students which will eliminate in most cases the need to reduce a student’s school day.