Catherine Martin (Dublin Rathdown, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I am not convinced that the guidelines released to the media yesterday ahead of this meeting will ensure the use of reduced timetables is the exception rather than the norm. I welcome the Minister's statement, but when one looks at it, one can see that it is seven pages long, with the issue of reduced timetables dealt with in three very small paragraphs on the last page. In the rest of it it seems that the Department is patting itself on the back, stating, "Aren't we great in the Department of Education and Skills.? This is what we are doing." However, it is not tackling the issue. On the form use, will the Minister consider requiring a school to document the other measures taken to deal with an issue before a child is placed on a reduced timetable? I know that the form asks for information on the support the school has sought, but it needs to outline exactly what has been done.

Who has the right to say "No" or "Stop, we don't want this"? What happens when a parent says he or she does not want it to happen? What are the guidelines given to the school? What monitoring or reporting will take place during the time a child is placed on a reduced timetable? At the end of each plan, is there a requirement to notify all parties concerned of progress, regardless of whether it is being sought to renew it? Even renewing it is bizarre. Is there a requirement to report progress on how a reduced timetable is working?

According to the guidelines, the NCSE must be notified when a reduced timetable is agreed to for a student with special educational needs. Does the Minister intend to include or specify a further role or will it remain the case that the NCSE or the special educational needs organiser, SENO, must be notified and that is it, full stop? What is the role of the educational welfare officer or the SENO, particularly when it comes to renewals?

Regarding guideline K which stipulates a school must only consider an extension in exceptional circumstances and only with the further written consent of the parents, it should be made very clear in guideline A that the practice should only be considered in exceptional circumstances.

There is a mention here of when a reduced timetable might be used, but I think it should start in the key requirements, stating that this is only to be used in a exceptional circumstances. That should be reiterated to the school if it is considering it.

Would the Department consider making it a requirement not only to consult the parents or to get their written consent but also at least to have consultation with NEPS or another outside disability service provider relevant to the child in question? I am sure the witnesses read the Inclusion Ireland report, Education, Behaviour and Exclusion, in which it seeks that. I think it should be done. Does the Department intend to put a hard limit on the use of reduced timetables? Six weeks is given as a guideline and I think the word "ideally" is used. "Ideally" is not the word that should be used here because that leaves a lot of scope for abuse. I would prefer to see a hard limit. I think six weeks is an extraordinarily long time for a student be removed from school, to be on a reduced timetable, and to be isolated socially from his or her peers. Maybe the witnesses will look at that again. I notice on the information collected in the form - it may be an oversight - that there is no reference to gender. I see ethnicity but not gender. Is there a particular reason it has been left out?

What assurances can we be given that the teachers placed with these students have been given the robust training that they need? It cannot be a case of a teacher drawing the short straw and being told he or she will have the students on the reduced timetable because he or she happens to be free. That is not fair to the students, to the parents or the teacher. It is a disservice to all involved. What guidance is given to the school about what subjects the students will have access to? When one starts probing into a reduced timetable, there are questions of what teachers will be qualified and what subjects will be taught. It is very problematic.

Deputy Byrne referred to challenging behaviour. There is no definition of challenging behaviour and this is an ongoing issue across the world with departments of education. It leads to abuse of the term "challenging behaviour". There has to be training in challenging behaviour and resourcing of teachers, staff, schools and principals to address challenging behaviour. That means it is not child-centred, and instead of trying to support those children, they are just removed because of the so-called challenging behaviour that no one can define. Is the Department liaising with or does it intend to liaise with the Minister for Health and the Minister of State with responsibility for mental health to ensure that child and adolescent mental health services, CAMHS, and the National Educational Psychological Service, NEPS, are properly resourced to provide the necessary assistance? What interdepartmental communication has taken place since we discussed this in Joint Committee on Education and Skills during the summer? We must make sure that at-risk children are given the appropriate help.

I know that one recommendation in our interim report is that any guidelines relating to the use of reduced timetables must also outline the complaints process if a parent is dissatisfied. Parents must know how they can complain and the process must be in black and white. Where is that? The guidelines do not include that and I think that should be put in place. At the root of all this is the question of why schools are resorting to the use of reduced timetables, especially for children with disabilities. The Inclusion Ireland report stated that one in four children with a disability had been placed on a reduced timetable, with half of those being for more than 20 days. How can we ensure that every student with a disability or learning need has access to an appropriately trained teacher? How will schools be supported with these issues so they do not have to go to reduced timetables?

If the Department is going to go ahead with these guidelines, which I have a problem with because I do not think they are rigid enough, could we have an annual report on the use of reduced timetables? Everyone could see every year the gender, socio-economic background, ethnicity, if there is a disability, and the length of reduced timetables. We need to see that every year. I have raised the issue of the inspectorate's critique every year since I was inspected. The inspectorate has to be asked to remove the question of why there are so many students with special educational needs as a critique of a school, whereas schools that do not have many students with special educational needs should be asked why and what they intend to do about it. That attitude needs to be changed.