Dr. Niall Muldoon:

I am delighted to be invited to appear before this committee. As the committee is aware, the Ombudsman for Children's Office, OCO, is an independent human rights institution established under the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002. In light of these statutory functions, I welcome the committee's decision to examine the use of reduced timetables and to shine a light on this issue.

It is important to note that equal access to education is a fundamental right for children under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNCRC, which Ireland ratified in 1992. Two of the main articles provide that all children must be able to enjoy their rights without discrimination of any kind and that children's best interests should be treated as a primary consideration in all actions concerning them. I believe that the current invisibility of the use of reduced timetables in Irish schools is a real and serious concern that is impacting on how we as a country can say with confidence we are upholding the rights of all children fairly and equally. I am aware that schools sometimes use reduced timetables as a positive intervention in exceptional circumstances for the purposes of supporting children at a particularly difficult time in their lives when a full day at school may have become an insurmountable challenge. In these circumstances, schools use reduced timetables to facilitate a child to continue with their education to the maximum extent possible until such time as they are able to return to school full time. This can be understood as a child-centred practice that is underpinned by a commitment to acting in the best interests of the child concerned. Some of Ms Hanahoe's examples were very good. In our experience, their use in these exceptional circumstances rarely causes difficulties and tends to involve a partnership between the child's parent or guardians and the school. However, even in these circumstances it is essential to be cognisant of a potential inequality in the negotiating position of the parents and the school. Therefore, safeguards need to be put in place to ensure that the use of a reduced timetable for the purposes of supporting a child is time-limited, in the best interests of the child concerned and put in place without any pressure having been placed on the child's parent or guardian to agree to it.

Simple safeguards in these circumstances could be a clear, shared and agreed understanding between the school, the child and the parents. It should include the rationale for the reduced timetable, informed consent that has due regard to the views of the child and a formal, written agreement between the school and the child's parents. If there are other parties involved with the child, they should have input to specific details about how long the reduced timetable will be in place and dates for reviewing its use.

I am more concerned about what I consider is the inappropriate use of reduced timetables as an informal suspension in response to behaviour by the child that a school is finding difficult to manage in the classroom. This type of response by schools often occurs in the absence of policy or guidance and may not be recorded within the school and its use is not overseen by any external agency. This means one child or a group of children could be missing significant amounts of education that cumulatively could be far more than a formal suspension. We have heard examples of that today. As we all know, excluding a child's access to education is seen as an extremely serious sanction to the extent that there are specific safeguards under Irish policy and legislation regarding its use. Deputy Byrne mentioned that.

At the moment the use of reduced timetables is invisible. It is not listed as an option. There are no guidelines on its use, no guidance on recording its use and no external monitoring of same. Therefore, the oversight of its use is in individual schools. It is also impossible to determine if some cohort of children are more adversely affected than others but, as we heard, children with disabilities, children with emotional and behavioural difficulties or children from a different cultural background such as those in the Traveller or Roma communities or those in disadvantaged areas are likely to be the main recipients of reduced timetables. Anecdotal evidence would suggest they are. It is important that we do not underestimate the impact of prolonged reduced timetables as an exclusionary measure on children. It may make children feel unwanted by the school community, they may be perceived as different by their peers, they may stop seeing school as a positive place and they may even drop out of school. It can also be very disruptive for family life. If parents expect their child to be in school for six or seven hours but have to pick up the child after one hour, that changes the family dynamic.

What do we believe is needed? In our view, national policy and guidelines need to be developed that set the following out clearly: what a reduced timetable is; the exceptional circumstances in which it is permissible for schools to use reduced timetables; the circumstances in which it is not permissible for a school to do so; the information schools must provide to guardians, parents and children about reduced timetables; the procedures schools must follow when seeking to place a child on a reduced timetable, including the process for engaging with the child’s parents and the children themselves; and the procedures for recording and reporting any event to another organisation. Time limits should be a part of that and review times should be put in place quickly. At the last meeting last week, the joint management board talked about a two-week limit. The national policy and guidelines must also set out the procedures schools must follow to facilitate guardians and children to raise concerns and complain about the reduced timetable and to use the appeals process. That is standard and fair justice.

In this regard, we suggest that consideration should be given to providing appropriate statutory underpinning for the use of reduced timetables. In addition, further attention needs to be given to monitoring the use of reduced timetables nationally. In this regard, I note the current absence of data, including data to clarify the extent to which the practice of reduced timetables is being used by schools; the number of children who are being placed on reduced timetables and the groups of children that are more likely to be placed on reduced timetables. As we are looking to see whether there is a discrimination happening, we need to know those figures.

I acknowledge the huge efforts that have been made by teachers to balance the rights of all children within schools in those circumstances. I have met the special needs principals who are putting huge efforts into this as well. Where it is the case that schools are using reduced timetables as a behaviour management intervention, attention needs to be given to strengthening the supports available to schools through the National Educational Psychological Service, NEPS, the national behaviour support service, the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, and all the other auxiliary professions mentioned by Ms Hanahoe, such as occupational therapy, OT, speech and language therapy, SLT, the child and adolescent mental health services, CAMHS, and counselling.