Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give the joint committee. However, If they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. The opening statement submitted to the committee will be published on its website after the meeting.
Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
I ask everyone to make sure his or her mobile phone is either switched off or left in flight or safe mode, as otherwise it may interfere with the broadcasting equipment.

The purpose of today's meeting is to consider the role of primary school boards of management and their relationship with the Department of Education and Skills. We will hear presentations on the matter from the Catholic Primary Schools Management Association, CPSMA, which is represented by Ms Maria Spring and Ms Sinéad Brett; the Church of Ireland General Synod Board of Education, represented by Mr. Ken Fennelly and Ms Joyce Perdue; and the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, represented by Ms Anne McElduff. The Department of Education and Skills is represented by Mr. Hubert Loftus and Mr. Tom Deegan. I invite Ms Brett to make the presentation on behalf of the CPSMA.

Ms Sinéad Brett:

On behalf of the Catholic Primary Schools Management Association and its member schools, I thank the Chair and the committee for the opportunity to make this short presentation this afternoon. I am accompanied by Ms Spring, who is chairperson of CPSMA. First, I acknowledge the great working relationship that the CPSMA enjoyed with the previous Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, and that it continues to enjoy with the current Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Jan O’Sullivan, together with her officials, namely Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú, Secretary General; Mr. Martin Hanevy, assistant secretary; and Mr. Kevin McCarthy, assistant secretary, to name but a few.
The Irish primary education system is dependent on local voluntary effort with regard to management. Boards of management are a wonderful example of volunteerism through the commitment of approximately 20,000 members to the management of Catholic primary schools. These members receive no pay, travel expenses or subsistence. This is a very notable example of local participatory democracy. These schools are very well managed at very little cost to the State. This is an achievement that should be applauded and rewarded at a time when political leaders are calling on the public service to deliver more for less.
The functions of the board of management are set out in section 15 of the Education Act 1998. Section 15(1) states: "It shall be the duty of a board 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." This is the board’s main function.
The provision for the funding of education was given statutory recognition in the 1998 Education Act. The funding of primary schools has been based primarily on the capitation grant. The capitation grant is paid in two moieties, 70% in January, based on enrolment on 30 September of the previous academic year, with the remaining 30% paid the following June. The capitation grant to primary schools has been progressively cut over successive budgets. In 2010 the capitation grant was €200 per pupil, but as a result of successive cuts it currently stands at €170 per pupil. The reduction of €30 per pupil has had a major negative financial impact on schools.
The minor works grant, which was paid annually to schools, was to be used by boards for ongoing maintenance such as roof repairs and repainting. The minor works grant was based on a minimum payment of €5,500 per school plus €18.50 per mainstream pupil and €74 for each pupil with special educational needs. The minor works grant issued to schools in November 2011 for the 2011 and 2012 school year but the grant was withdrawn in 2012. It was reinstated in November 2013 for the 2013-2014 school year. The Minister has indicated that the grant will only be paid in future years as funding permits. The loss of the minor works grant has had a major impact on primary schools. The minor works grant enabled schools to stay afloat until the next instalment of the capitation grant was made. In effect, schools were using the minor works grant to meet the day-to-day expenses involved in the running the school. Cuts in grants or schemes imposed by the Department have a negative impact on boards of management in the exercise of their statutory functions. Boards of management need the Department to reinstate funding to primary schools to previous levels to enable them to carry out their statutory functions and ensure the best educational outcome for the pupils attending such schools.
An announcement of an increase to the pupil-teacher ratio was made as part of the 2012 budget. This increase is having a negative impact on school communities-----

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for interrupting, but I would like to keep the initial contribution to five minutes. Perhaps you could discuss boards of management in particular. I do not mean to be political but I am conscious of time.

Ms Sinéad Brett:

I am trying to set out the function of the board and I can then outline the impact of the Department's actions on boards of management and their function.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My understanding is that we are mainly considering the governance issue. Deputy Daly has requested the debate. We have had much discussion on the issue of cutbacks, and governance is the focus of today's debate.

Ms Sinéad Brett:

The increased pupil-teacher ratio has had a negative impact on boards. Amalgamation of schools could be an option for school communities to consider. Currently, there is no protocol for a board of management to follow where it is considering amalgamation as a possible option. Amalgamation is only possible where it is considered an appropriate and acceptable solution for the local community. Currently, there are no incentives for schools to amalgamate.

With regard to the work of boards of management, boards are becoming more alarmed and frustrated at the amount of work and the level of responsibility that is being imposed by the Department on voluntary members of boards of management nationwide. For example, boards are expected to be familiar with and comply with the onerous requirements of the relevant contracts tax regime and reverse-charge VAT. The consequences of non-compliance are severe, with penalties and surcharges being imposed by the Revenue Commissioners.

Boards of management have worked extremely hard on numeracy and literacy initiatives. The results of standardised tests were forwarded to the Department in good faith on the understanding that such results would be used only for the purpose of assessing literacy and numeracy standards. Boards were most disappointed to learn that these results may now be used to reduce resource teaching and learning support staff in their schools. Such action does not serve to build a good relationship of confidence and trust between the Department and boards of management.

Boards of management spend years developing good relationships with the parents of children attending the schools. The Department recently sent the Primary School Profile Questionnaire 2014 to schools to collect data to establish the social context of each school, which it was to use in considering potential revisions to the existing system of allocating resource teaching or learning support resources to schools. Boards of management were alarmed at the information being sought from the schools. Examples included details of parents' employment status, local authority housing, medical cards and social welfare payments. Such intrusion into the personal life of parents places school management in an invidious position and damages the partnership between parents and school management. Surely such information could be sought through other channels without the necessity of involving the school?

The Department intends to roll out the primary online database in April 2015. Chairpersons of boards of management contacted the CPSMA to voice their concerns, alarm and outrage at the information they were expected to obtain from parents. Chairpersons were also concerned at the increased clerical workload that the imposition of the database would impose on schools without the provision of any additional resources by the Department.

The commitment, dedication and hard work of approximately 20,000 volunteer members of boards of management should be acknowledged, applauded and appreciated. I take this opportunity to thank members of boards of management of primary schools for their continuing excellent work.

Mr. Ken Fennelly:

I thank the committee and the Chairman for the opportunity to make a short presentation this afternoon. I am the secretary of the General Synod Board of Education of the Church of Ireland, which is the body within the Church of Ireland's structures that has responsibility for the Church’s education policy. In that capacity the board represents the interests of the Church of Ireland in education. It provides an advisory service to boards of management in Church of Ireland primary schools and also to the ten Church of Ireland school patrons at primary level. The joint managerial body is responsible for advising Protestant second level schools on school management issues. I am joined here this afternoon by Ms Joyce Perdue, who is the principal of Rathfarnham national school and who is also a member of our General Synod Board of Education.

As the Committee is aware, the current term of boards of management at primary level expires in November 2015. We welcome today’s meeting as a timely opportunity to reflect on the role and functions of boards of management in running our primary schools. An important starting point from our perspective is to highlight that each of the 1,300 board of management members, with approximately 20,000 nationally, give their time entirely voluntarily. This amounts to a significant commitment of the personal time, which is given freely by each individual to the service of their local community through being involved in their local school. This is a level of commitment and engagement that ought to be acknowledged by all of us today. Those volunteers serve on boards which operate in an increasingly complex legislative and legal environment, with ever-increasing levels of responsibility. It should come as no surprise to members of the committee to learn that despite the high levels of local commitment to schools, it can be a challenge at times to get people to serve on boards of management.

As we are all aware, boards of management have come a long way from the days when the local national school was run by a single manager, usually the parish priest, appointed by the patron. The Education Act 1998 codified the development of boards of management and placed them on a legislative footing, giving them a corporate identity. In the context of the provision of Irish education, it is important not to underestimate the significance this structural change made to the role of the school in the local community. Responsibility for the running of the school cannot be abrogated to some other entity, either church or State, but rests with that particular group drawn from the school itself and local community. It is also worth noting in passing that this is in harmony with international best practice across the world in terms of school governance.

This is not of course to suggest that schools are unaccountable or can operate in a singular fashion. They are subject to the oversight of their patron for the general management of the school. They are subject to inspection by the inspectorate of the Department of Education and Skills through both whole-school evaluation and school self-evaluation. In the context of compliance, boards are bound by the circulars of the Department of Education and Skills in nearly every aspect of school life and are subject to national agreements on various management policies as agreed between the teacher unions, the relevant management body and the Department of Education and Skills.

They are also of course subject to the law and can be sued. Should it be necessary, any board member can be removed by the patron and the board itself can be dissolved. The primary legislation regulating the operations of Irish schools is of course the Education Act 1998 but schools are also subject to a variety of other pieces of legislation listed in my submission to the committee. Therefore, boards of management at both primary and secondary level operate within a highly complex legal context. The Education Act 1998 marked the first codifying of the provision of education in Ireland, putting it on a statuary footing. Prior to this, the primary source for the provision of education in Ireland was the Stanley letter of 1831. The regulation of the management of primary and secondary schools has developed into a complex regulatory area in a short period.

The board of management of a primary school does not work in isolation. There are a variety of external groups and bodies who interact with the school such as visiting teachers, other principals, the HSE, the HAS, the Department of Education and Skills, the Irish National Teachers Organisation, the Irish Primary Principals Network, the National Parents Council, the relevant management body, the National Educational Welfare Board, school suppliers, and the local parish and clergy. The composition of boards of management reflects both the internal and external nature of the relationships within the life of the school community. The board has representatives of the patron, elected nominees from the school's teaching staff, parents of children in the school and others drawn from the local community. The membership of boards is therefore finely balanced between all members of the school community.

The central message we try to get across to board members in our training sessions is that, once appointed, all members of the board must leave behind the individual constituencies from which they have either been nominated or elected onto the board and work together as one unit. This can be a difficult concept to grasp as some boards might feel an obligation to either bring matters to the board on behalf of their electors or to report back to their electors on the outcome of matters raised at board meetings. We are clear with boards that this is not an acceptable practice given that all members of the board have an equal collective responsibility for the running on the school.

Within the school community, there are key relationships that are essential to supporting the educational development of pupils. Good staff relationships among the teaching staff, SNAs, secretarial and caretaking staff are also of vital importance in ensuring that a proper learning environment is created and maintained. Ongoing communication with parents about the progress of their child is the priority relationship for all schools. A large body of academic research internationally underpins this. As any teacher will attest, there is a well-charted correlation between the support a child gets at home and educational progress.

Communications are also important where difficulties arise between parents and the teacher or the school in regard to the experience of their child. Members of the committee will be aware that there is a procedure for dealing with complaints by parents. The procedure was agreed between the INTO and management bodies a number of year ago. There is a provision, section 28 of the Education Act 1998, for the Minister to make regulations in relation to the resolving of disputes and grievances in schools. In that connection, the former Minister for Education and Skills indicated on a number of occasions that he was exploring the possibility of a parents’ charter. Boards of management will be interested to see the proposals for this concept, especially given that two elected parents already sit on every board of management. Boards are already accountable to the patron, Minister, inspectorate and the law. It will be interesting to see how it interplays with existing structures.

The letter inviting us to attend this meeting mentioned the Department of Education and Skills, with which we have a good working relationship at senior level. The feedback from schools is that the customer service from the Department is positive.

Boards of management are volunteers who give free of their time out of a sense of dedication and service to their local community and school. The model of local boards of management running local schools for the local community is one which we, as a nation, should be proud of. In the case of the Church of Ireland, it reflects very closely our system for the running of parishes through select vestries and it is a model with which we are comfortable. We thank the committee for the invitation to attend and look forward to trying to answer any questions.

Ms Anne McElduff:

The INTO thanks the committee for the invitation to appear. My colleague, Ms Elizabeth Kirwan, is currently in the INTO head office but is a teacher in St. Luke's national school in Tyrrelstown, Dublin. I acknowledge the constructive relationships we had with previous Ministers, the current Minister, Mr. Seán Ó Foghlú and the officials of the Department of Education and Skills.

The relationship between boards of management and the Department of Education and Skills is determined by their respective functions. These functions are governed by the Education Acts 1998 to 2013 and various other legislative provisions, the rules for national schools, Department of Education and Skills circulars, and the constitution of boards and rules of procedure. Boards of management of primary schools ensure that schools are managed in a spirit of partnership, on behalf of the patron of the school. Local boards ensure that local voices and concerns are reflected in the management of the school, and that the interests of pupils and their parents, staff and the community are represented.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will have to suspend in a few minutes for a vote in the Dáil.

Ms Anne McElduff:

It is the duty of the board to manage the school on behalf of the patron and for the benefit of the students in order to provide an appropriate education for each student at the school. By and large, the boards of primary schools carry out this duty and enjoy the confidence of the school community. In a recent High Court decision in 2013, Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley stated that the structure by which most schools in the country are run, with a professional staff managed by a voluntary board representative of the parents, the community, the patron and the staff, is an admirable one which gives an opportunity for all those groups to participate in this most important field but that it was a model that places burdens on those involved. The judge stated that the voluntary members of the board will often be people without any particular experience in the range of matters, from budgeting to health and safety to management of staff, for which they must take responsibility and that it is necessary for the board to respect the expertise of its staff, while ensuring that it does not abdicate its responsibilities.
It is worth noting that the most recent report by the chief inspector found that in 88% of cases, in the period 2010 to 2012, the overall work of boards was satisfactory or better. Boards of management are bodies corporate, with statutory functions, including those under sections 15 and 24 of the Education Act. These functions include, inter alia, the upholding of the characteristic spirit of the school, enrolment and the appointment and dismissal of teachers.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So many members must leave to vote that the committee must suspend. I am sorry about that.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I invite Ms Anne McElduff from the INTO to make her presentation.

Ms Anne McElduff:

The relationship between boards of management and the Department of Education and Skills is determined by their respective functions. These functions are governed by the Education Acts 1998 to 2013 and various other legislative provisions, the rules for national schools, departmental circulars and the constitution of boards and rules of procedure. Boards of management of primary schools ensure schools are managed in a spirit of partnership on behalf of the patrons of the schools. Local boards ensure local voices and concerns are reflected in the management of the schools and that the interests of pupils and their parents, staff and the community are represented. It is the duty of a board to manage the school on behalf of the patron and for the benefit of the students in order to provide an appropriate education for each student in the school. By and large, the boards of primary schools carry out this duty and enjoy the confidence of school communities. In a recent High Court decision Judge Iseult O'Malley stated:

The structure by which most schools in the country are run, with a professional staff managed by a voluntary board representative of the parents, the community, the patron and the staff, is an admirable one which gives an opportunity for all those groups to participate in this most important field. However, it is a model that does place burdens on those involved. The voluntary members of the board will often be people without any particular experience in the range of matters, from budgeting to health and safety to management of staff, for which they must take responsibility. It is necessary for the board to respect the expertise of its staff, while ensuring that it does not abdicate its responsibilities.

Whole-school evaluations indicate that the overall quality of most schools' communications with parents is good. High proportions (95%) of the parents surveyed as part of the WSE process during 2010-2012 agree that schools are welcoming of them. Inspection reports frequently note a range of other strengths in parent-school communications such as regular parent-teacher contact, school newsletters to parents and up-to-date informative school websites. The vast majority (94%) of parents viewed positively the schools' arrangements for parent-teacher meetings.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That covers the gist of it. We will come back to the other aspects. The final presentation is by Mr. Hubert Loftus on behalf of the Department of Education and Skills.

Mr. Hubert Loftus:

I thank the Chairman and committee members for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Department about the role of primary school boards of management and their relationship with the Department. The role and responsibilities of boards of management are set out in the Education Act. A board is responsible for the overall management of a school and accountable to the patron and the Minister. In performing its functions the board is required to operate in accordance with policies determined by the Minister. The school principal is responsible for the day-to-day management of the school and accountable to the board for that management.

Boards of management operate on a voluntary basis and their membership is typically drawn from the local school and its surrounding community. Boards of management are supported with guidance documentation, advice and training provided by the relevant management bodies and the Department, and also through the work of the school principal, who typically acts as secretary to the board.

The composition of boards of management is based on centrally agreed arrangements between the relevant stakeholders. The composition of boards of management at primary level was last changed in 1997 following consultation and agreement. Under the revised composition the patron no longer appoints a majority of the board and provision was made for the inclusion of community representatives.

The number of boards that have a lay chairperson is steadily increasing. Currently, over 57% of boards have a lay chairperson. The term of office for boards of management in primary schools is a four-year period. The current boards of management of primary schools were formed in December 2011 and are next due to change in December 2015. The Department has recently commenced the consultation process with the relevant stakeholders in relation to any updating that is required to the documentation that is provided to new boards of management regarding the constitution of the new boards and their rules of procedure. This documentation includes a useful overview of the role of the board and an outline of some key activities in which effective boards of management routinely engage, such as school planning, self-evaluation, teaching and learning, and management of resources in its role as employer.

The most effective boards are those that have a clear understanding of their governance role and are fully aware of the importance of good communications with the school community, including, in particular, parents. Changing how schools engage with, listen to and respond to parent concerns will be an important part of a parent and student charter for which the Minister plans to make provision in law as part of an amendment to section 28 of the Education Act. Providing parents with the rationale for any decision is important. If schools help parents to understand the basis for a decision, parents are more likely to accept the fairness of the decision.

The Department recognises that if boards are to be fully effective in their management role and are to be a real support to school principals, they need to have access to support and training themselves. In this regard, the funding provided by the Department to the various management bodies plays an important role in the provision of training, guidance and advice to boards of management.

In summary, the Department recognises that boards, and the volunteers that serve on them, play a key role in the successful running or our schools. The Department's approach is to guide and support the work of boards as best as possible within the constraints of our budgetary parameters.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will move on to questions. I understand Deputy Jim Daly has agreed with Deputy Charlie McConalogue and Deputy Jonathan O'Brien that he should begin, rather than the other way around. Deputy Jim Daly requested this meeting.

Jim Daly (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witness for taking the time to appear before the committee and apologise for the sideshow that came between us for a while. I thank them for their patience in staying the course. We appreciate their input. I also thank the Chairman and the secretariat for facilitating the meeting.
The issue of boards of management has been a bugbear of mine for some time and I have been trying to get it onto the agenda of the committee. I come at it from a different perspective from what all the witnesses have submitted. I appreciate that we are dealing with voluntary bodies and that their time is their own. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to members who populate boards of management. I honestly believe that boards of management are one of the last bastions of Irish society on which a light needs to be shone, and a very strong light needs to be shone on some of the activities in a limited number of cases. There are certainly cases that I as a public representative have come across about which I am greatly concerned. The difficulty with boards of management in primary schools in particular is that they are not accountable to anybody, so far as I can ascertain. I accept the submission from the Department of Education and Skills that the Minister can effectively dissolve a board of management, but when has that happened? Is there any example in which that has happened?
I have followed with interest cases in which parents have had issues with boards of management. God help us all, and the parent involved, if he or she tries to take on a board of management, because effectively they are a law onto themselves. Boards of management are entities that are wholly, totally and completely answerable to themselves alone. When a board of management works well it is all great and good, and we all acknowledge the volunteerism. When it goes wrong and when a decision is made in which a parent is wronged, or something happens that is not favourable to the parent, there is no avenue for that parent to get recompense or to seek justice vis-à-visthe decision of a board of management.
There are examples of boards of management all over the country in which the chairperson is in situfor 20-plus years and in which members of the board appointed by the patron are in situfor 20, 30 or sometimes up to 40 years. I come to this as a former school principal. I was secretary of a board and a member of numerous boards at second level, particularly during my time in County Cork Vocational Education Committee. Just to focus on primary schools, the effective role and function of a school board of management is to rubber-stamp the decisions of the principal and to provide cover for the principal. That is how it operates on a day-to-day basis. Everybody has a hands-off attitude because they are volunteers. We need to look at that issue, and that is what this meeting is about. I wish to bring a focus to it.
I am aware of one case, which I brought to the attention of the former Minister, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, in which there is more than €100,000 owing to a supplier of goods and services by a board of management. The supplier cannot get these moneys despite their having been paid to the board of management. There is an issue here when something goes wrong, and that is what I am trying to get at. I am not trying to undermine the work, the volunteerism and the spirit with which the vast majority operate. Recently there has been emphasis on boards such as that of Rehab. Boards of management will have to come under a similar regime. We have to wake up and smell the coffee and, as a society, look at the real issue.
I have been in contact with the Ombudsman and have had many dealings with him to ascertain whether the actions of boards of management can be investigated. I have also checked with the Department, its Secretary General, the Minister and the patron, and I have exhausted all avenues trying to find out where one can go with a complaint, be it legitimate or perceived, but everybody passes one around and one finds that ultimately the board of management, in its constitution, is entitled to do what it wants. If it demands that a child should come to school standing on its head, in reality there is very little place to go with that type of complaint afterwards. I will give an example. Most primary school principals will use the good offices of the INTO for advice on school boards of management. The INTO membership took offence at the JobBridge scheme introduced by the Government a couple of years ago. Is there any one board of management across the length and breadth of the country that stated it was responsible for the decision as to who worked in its school and taught its children? The point was made earlier that the constituent members do not represent their constituency. However, a principal will tell a board of management that the INTO is against JobBridge and the board will back off straight away and agree not to take on anybody under the JobBridge scheme or allow any student teacher into its school. That is proof positive that what I am talking about is a problem, unless anybody can give me an example in which a board of management did what it was supposed to do and looked at the wider interests of the school and the greater representation, not just those of the INTO members. That is an example of a situation, of which there are many, in which boards of management are toothless and are just providing cover where something goes wrong. In his contribution, Mr. Fennelly referred to the old days of the parish priest as manager. We are still in the old days of the parish priest as manager but we are also in the old days of the principal as manager. My experience for the most part is that the principal says this is how it is and the board will rubber-stamp it.
I have a couple of questions for the Department as I seek to move the debate on. What is the position with the enactment of section 28, under which people can appeal decisions of boards in respect of admissions and so on? What is the position with the parents' charter? I am not trying to undermine boards of management, decry them or tar them all with the same brush, but to give parents the real, legitimate input and rights that they should have. From my limited experience of the education system I do not believe they have such input or rights, other than in aspirational and holier-than-thou language. They are not there in reality, and I am going to fight for parents to ensure we get them.Where are we at on the parents' charter? Are there any data or figures available on the number of complaints sent to the Department about the actions of boards of management? That will prove my point that they have not been investigated by the Department in 99% of cases. Has the Department ever disbanded a board of management or removed a member of a board of management?

I rest my case on the answers to those points. Thank you again, Chairman, for your indulgence.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do members want me to take all the questions now? Is that the way we will do it?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests for the presentation today.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I ask a question? With due respect to Deputy McConalogue, since Deputy Daly organised or requested the meeting and since he has a thorough knowledge of the matter, could his questions be answered first in this instance? Does anyone else mind?

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will do that. We will start with Mr. Loftus.

Mr. Hubert Loftus:

I thank the Senator for ensuring the questions are brought to me sooner. The Department's experience of boards of management may not be fully consistent with the views of the Deputy. We consider that boards manage schools in a very open and transparent way. The inspectorate's reports on boards and schools is published. As the representative of the INTO remarked, the chief inspector's report is clear in terms of the feedback from surveys and inspections that are carried out on the quality and the management of schools by boards of management. That is not to say there are no issues with individual boards. I can confirm for the Deputy that there have been a small number of cases in which the Department has taken the lead in seeking the dissolution of a board of management. That would have been on foot of a serious school inspection report. There have been such cases.

In total, there are more than 3,000 primary schools. At any given time there may be ten or 20 schools that do not have a board of management. The reasons vary. The school may be in a start-up situation and it may be simply impractical to appoint a board at the time in question, the patron might have determined that it is not appropriate to have a board, or the board may have been dissolved based on the views of the patron; there is an element of the Act that provides for that.

Section 28 and the matter of enrolment was raised. Deputy Daly may be aware that the Minister proposes to go to Government with a school admissions Bill to provide a framework for school admissions. The Minister will propose amendments to section 29 of the Education Act. The Minister intends to put a parent and student charter on a statutory footing. The drafting of that legislation is well advanced at the moment and the intention is for the Minister to bring it to the Government soon, in the coming weeks.

I will ask my colleague, Mr. Tom Deegan, to make a comment on the number of complaints to the Department relating to boards.

Mr. Tom Deegan:

The Department receives between 25 and 35 complaints on a weekly basis about schools generally. Most of these are about bullying; some relate to the schools themselves, school management or the boards of management of schools and certain related aspects.

The matter of investigating complaints was raised. The Department has no role in investigating the actions of a board of management. The Department is neither empowered nor entitled to investigate a board of management or direct a board of management to do anything in response. All the Department can do for complainants in respect of boards of management is to advise them of the situation - that is to say, the board of management manages the school on behalf of the patron and, therefore, failing satisfaction at board of management or patron level, parents or other complainants are entitled to approach the Ombudsman for Children about concerns they have relating to anything involving their child, including in a school.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does anyone else want to comment?

Ms Anne McElduff:

I thank Deputy Daly for his comments. I do not accept that boards are rubber stamps for principal teachers. As Mr. Loftus has said, we have over 3,000 primary schools. A board is obliged to meet five times per year. The principal is obliged to give a report and does give a report to every board meeting on what is happening in the school from a child protection perspective and any other issues. In our experience, principals are open and transparent with their boards about the issues in schools. Obviously, boards will listen to people working in the area, including the principal teachers. However, each individual board member will make up his or her mind after that.

There are more than 3,000 schools, with eight people on every board. That amounts to 24,000 people, at a minimum, managing the school system, a considerable number of people. This is where we come back to training and support for these people. There may be cases where there are some issues, but I imagine, given the comments of the chief inspector and the general view, that the system is working well. Improvements can be made, but it is unfair to say that they are simply a rubber stamp for principals. There is a good dynamic between principals and boards. There should be and there is a mutual respect between both parties.

The Deputy referred to section 28. We have always indicated support for the implementation of section 28. Some years ago a committee in the Department instigated discussions on the implementation of section 28. If that is started again we will participate and support it fully. Section 28 provides that procedures may be proscribed for dealing with grievances and complaints in consultation with the partners. Certainly, we are open and willing to do that. The other issues raised are largely policy issues. Those were the main issues relating to boards. I would be happy to come back on any issues in particular.

Ms Sinéad Brett:

I thank Deputy Daly for his comments. I agree with my colleague Ms McElduff in respect of the comment made by Deputy Daly about boards simply rubber-stamping the decisions of principals. Deputy Daly is doing approximately 20,000 volunteers a grave disservice by making such a comment. Mr. Loftus from the Department has indicated that there is training for boards. It is not a one-person entity; it is a corporate entity. Members come together and make board decisions. I cannot agree with Deputy Daly's comment about boards simply rubber-stamping the decisions of principals.

Deputy Daly also made a comment to the effect that boards were not accountable. Boards are accountable to their patrons. One of the principal functions of boards is to manage the school on behalf of the patron. They are also accountable to the Department.

Jim Daly (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The chief inspector has said that they are not. Let us be fair and real.

Ms Sinéad Brett:

Boards are subject to the provisions of circulars. They must comply with Acts of the Oireachtas. Where people have issues, where parents have particular issues-----

Jim Daly (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, Chairman; I have to interrupt again. The advice given is wrong. Boards are not bound by circulars. Circulars are merely advisory. In many cases, boards do not even see the circulars. I have to correct the record.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps they have a certain legal quality. Do you wish to comment, Mr. Loftus?

Mr. Hubert Loftus:

As the person who issues many of those circulars, I wish to clarify the point. I said in my statement that the board is required to operate in accordance with policies determined by the Minister and that the board is accountable in that regard. The board is an independent entity in respect of its functions. It is a corporate that is entity accountable to the patron. However, it is required to carry out its functions in accordance with the policies determined by the Minister.

Jim Daly (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Circulars are advisory by their nature. The Minister has given me a reply to a Parliamentary Question to the effect that circulars are advisory by their nature.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are supposed to keep to the law, but the issue is that they are not accountable in the sense of how we enforce it. Is that the point?

Jim Daly (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is it exactly. If a circular is not adhered to, what avenue is available for someone to pursue?

Mary Moran (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a major problem. A circular on uniform policy was issued last year, but schools were not obliged to fill in the information. It was merely advisory.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will let Ms Brett finish. We will take further questions then.

Ms Sinéad Brett:

Reference was made to parental complaints. There is an agreed procedure which has been referenced in presentations already. That procedure, like all other procedures that schools use, is underpinned with the principles of natural justice and fair procedures. I deal with principals and chairpersons of boards of management on a daily basis. I advise boards in respect of dealing with parental complaints.

Parents are perfectly entitled to raise whatever issues they have with school management and, in the vast majority of cases, those complaints are dealt with satisfactorily. What the member is pointing to are specific circumstances and situations but the vast majority of complaints are dealt with satisfactorily by boards of management. It is a board as a corporate entity - all eight members coming together - dealing with issues when it gets to that stage in the procedure.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for attending. The vast majority of boards of management are dependent on voluntary efforts. That is crucial to their operations and dealing with the increasing pressures placed on boards in carrying out their role in recent times. The key point Deputy Daly raised involves accountability in cases where parents are not in agreement. That is a difficulty and I would be interested in any comments witnesses have on ways to improve matters. They all work on a daily basis in the area and have experience of the vast majority of cases which work well. What is their experience of cases that are difficult? Are there proposals which could assist in that, particularly from the management bodies that are with us today? Mr. Fennelly in particular seemed slightly sceptical about the parents' charter and what it would mean. I am interested in the views of witnesses from outside the Department on the charter, how it could be helpful and what it might involve in order to assist.

Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not normally attend the committee, but I am deputising for Deputy O'Brien. I compliment boards of management. It is great that people volunteer their time. The boards work very hard and have a great responsibility on their shoulders in what they do on behalf of their communities. Like Deputy Daly, I have received a number of complaints about boards of management, albeit not a large number. The consequences of the structure or policies governing boards of management can be profound for students and parents. I give an example. A young lad in his first year of secondary school was accused by a school principal in front of the school population of engaging in bullying behaviour. CCTV proved subsequently that he had no hand, act or part in it but I understand that the principal refused to apologise to the child in front of the school population. The young lad was profoundly psychologically damaged by it.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to ensure that nothing is said that would identify the person.

Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not identify the person or the school.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is important.

Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He left the school and has been taught at home for the last three years. The Department of Education and Skills has paid for the home education of the child. I am not making any judgment whatsoever on the initial cause of this as I only got it second hand, but it is a matter that should have been resolved on the spot and was not. I saw the damage it did to the young student but also to the parents and other family members. It was raised with the board of management and the Ombudsman for Children. I raised it with the Minister. I kept coming back to the same answer to the effect that it was the responsibility of the board of management. That is not the delegation of responsibility, it is its abdication by the Department.

There is no oversight. I read the wholeschool evaluation of that particular school with great interest. Couched in advisory language were findings, which I would not necessarily call adverse but represented advice to the board of management as to what it should do. The people who carried out that wholeschool inspection never spoke with the child or his parents, which is absolutely scandalous. Do the witnesses have any thoughts as to how parents' and students' interests can be protected in the small number of cases such as this without them having to resort, as some people have, to legal action? Is there any possibility of formal oversight and appeals procedures to govern the operation and decisions of boards of management?

I am reluctant to raise a second issue as some people might start jumping up and down and saying that I am trying to close small rural schools. I am certainly not trying to do that. There can be a difficulty in small schools, however, where one has a teacher with recurring periods of illness. Different teachers will come in as locums which interferes with the continuity of the children's education. Is there a possibility of having a floating teacher within the redeployment panel for schools in a catchment area to try to keep that continuity?

Boards are looking for more resources and supports, including training. What form of training, how much will it cost and what impact would it have?

Hildegarde Naughton (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses. Given the responsibilities of boards of management, are they ever legally responsible for any act or omission within a school or is it the patron or the Department that takes the risk? The training of boards of management was referred to by Ms McElduff. Do boards receive training currently on risk management and corporate governance and, if so, who provides it? Ms McElduff referred to the uptake of training. Can she elaborate on that? Something needs to be done with regard to training and assistance.

On complaints procedures, many schools operate the standard INTO model to handle complaints against teachers while other schools adopt their own policies. What are the views of the bodies represented here today on adopting a standard complaints procedure?

Have the implications of the O'Keeffe judgment been considered with regard to the responsibilities of boards of management, the Department and patrons? It is a very important issue. The European Court of Human Rights judged that the State was liable, but here we are hearing that boards of management have huge responsibility in the day-to-day running of schools. There is a significant grey area that must be dealt with. I would be very interested to hear the witnesses' views of the implications of the judgment.

Michael Conaghan (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have sat on boards for over 30 years and my experience has been that they tend to be very respectful of members' positions, interests, knowledge and expertise. It is a learning encounter. I have never heard any great emphasis on legalistic interpretions of the role a member holds when he or she sits down at the table. It is not an easygoing but a more informal process, which does not mean the work is unimportant. Maybe my experience has been very different. I think it has when I listen to other members.

I am surprised at some of the things-----

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Deputy referring to the VEC board?

Michael Conaghan (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, the VEC boards of different schools and colleges. I believe everyone learns from each other. There is a kind of mutual respect for where people are coming from and their role and responsibilities. I have always found that everyone comes away enriched in terms of what that school and the young people in that school are achieving. That is the whole purpose of it. We have to ask what sitting around that table is doing for the child or teenager in the school. Generally, that is uppermost in people's minds, or that is my experience.

Mary Moran (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming in for this very worthwhile debate, although it is unfortunate we had so many stops and starts. I would like to thank Deputy Daly for bringing this matter forward today. I commend him on his remarks, 99% of which I would concur with. Having over 20 years experience of teaching, the first thing that would strike me with regard to boards of management, and it is something I would ask, is that their membership needs to be made clear on school websites. I have searched many school websites and while I can find out who the principal is and other information, I can never find out who is on the board of management. I have had many representations from parents who wish to approach board members but they cannot find out who they are. It seems to be a golden secret in many schools, which is something I believe needs to be addressed.

I have experience in both the VEC and in the secondary situation. I would concur with Deputy Daly on this point. In the secondary model, I have yet to hear of a case where a board of management has come out strongly against a principal and I believe they tend to support the principal 100%, no matter what the decision is. My experience with VEC boards is that the conversations are much more honest and open in this regard.

Will Mr. Fennelly and the other witnesses give us their views on the parents charter and how they think it will help? The question Deputy Daly asked of the Department of Education and Skills is exactly where are we with the parents charter. I know it is expected to come out but what is the exact position at this time?

Another point that needs to be taken up is training for parents representatives in particular. Much of the time parents go on boards of management without realising exactly what they are letting themselves in for. Again, I stress that an amazing amount of work is done by boards of management, particularly from the parents' side. However, while I not know if it happens everywhere in the country, it seems to me that many principals end up as chairpersons of the boards of management, and I do not know if that is a good idea all of the time. We need fresh blood and fresh and different ideas rather than getting people who are retired and gone out of the system to then come back. There is a whole conversation to be had there as well.

Mr. Ken Fennelly:

I recognise what Deputy Daly is saying. To sound a note of balance and perhaps honesty, I talk to chairpersons of boards of management and principals on a daily basis during the week. I agree there are problems. I recognise what the Deputy is saying, namely, it is not all rosy in the garden across the country in terms of the running of boards of management. I recognise there is an issue with complaints procedures in terms of how parents' complaints are dealt with. When one goes through the whole procedure, it comes to a point where the board's decision is final and, if the parent is not happy with that, where does the parent go next? That is what the Deputy is saying and I recognise it is an issue. However, there is a whole range of issues around that as to how one would strike a balance for the next step and whether there should be a next step in order to be fair to all parties involved. I understand exactly where the Deputy is coming from on that.

The issue of training was raised. There are five modules of training for boards of management and we would do that across the country. There is a difficulty, however, which is that these are volunteers. I would love it to be the case that we had a situation like that for pensions, where there is compulsory training, including online training. However, we would have to literally drag people out of their houses in the middle of the night on winter nights to come to training, and to do that is very difficult. We cannot compel volunteers to do the training and the feedback from boards of management is that it is difficult to get people to attend. In the Church of Ireland, we have a very good turnout for training simply because people like to come along for an evening to meet others and to chat, and then go to a training session. That is in the culture and they like to do that. However, getting people to come to training is an issue, although I would like it noted that we are well resourced by the Department.

Senator Moran mentioned listing the membership of boards on websites, which is a good idea. An annual report goes to the parents association every year and the members of boards of management are mentioned on that.

Mary Moran (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not out there. For example, parents newsletters should have the names of the members of the board of management across the top.

Mr. Ken Fennelly:

That is a good idea in terms of openness and transparency. However, we would not want a situation where members of boards of management are approached directly on issues by parents. There is a procedure to be followed on that.

Mary Moran (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I still think the parents should be entitled to know.

Mr. Ken Fennelly:

On the parents' charter, the most recent mention of this in a big way in the public domain was by the former Minister at the National Parents Council primary, although there was no draft text or anything like that. Reflecting on how that might work, is the idea that the board would be accountable to the parents externally, as well as to the Department and its inspectorate and the patron? How would the mechanics of that work and how would it work legally? It will be challenged legally down the road if that is the case, and we have to be realistic about that. We would not want a situation where boards are open to litigation simply due to trying to do something in a positive way which would then expose the board. That would be a question I have, although I do not know the answer as I am just thinking aloud.

Deputy Daly referred to the length of service of appointees and chairpersons. That is a question for patrons to consider and answer. There is an issue about people staying on boards of management for years as chairpersons, but the converse of that is it is very difficult to get somebody to be a chairperson of a board of management and to serve and stay on. Usually, if somebody is there and happy to do it, that is great. There is a converse to that and if we were to bring in a time limit for serving as a chairperson of a board of management, that might introduced a problem. However, that is an issue for patrons to think about.

Ms Anne Mc Elduff:

I would assure the members that while we are talking about some complaints, and that is obviously very serious, more than 95% of concerns and issues are resolved directly between teachers and parents. That is something we encourage and something teachers and principals are committed to doing. Every single day in the school, a very worthwhile discussion takes place about that. Our complaints procedure is standard in the sense of moving from informal to informal, encouraging informal dialogue first to resolve matters and then going more formally to the board.

It is the case also that, no matter who makes a decision, there are many decisions taken by boards that teachers are equally not happy with. Somebody has to make the decision and there is no right of appeal for the teacher either when the teacher is on the other side of it.

For some of the areas mentioned today, policies on issues such as discipline or bullying would have been drawn up in consultation with the parent body. I appreciate that there are difficulties in regard to bullying. Nobody wants to label children, whether victims or perpetrators. Sometimes there can be a mismatch between an expectation and what a school can do. Often, bullying issues arise outside schools but come into them. Teachers try to deal with these issues in a holistic manner.

In regard to children who miss school for a long period, there are provisions for statutory appeals and for the education welfare officer to become involved in those cases.

Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Both options were tried, but did not work.

Ms Anne McElduff:

I cannot comment on that, because I do not know the detail of the particular situation.

Whole staff training is welcome. I understand it is a question of resources, but in the matters of child protection, bullying and such issues, taking the whole staff for training for a day would be worth considering. This is something we do not have currently.

On the issue of disruption caused by the absence of teachers, as a policy we would like to see more supply panels. These would address that issue and provide a continuity of service while teachers are absent. However, once again, this is a resource issue.

Ms Sineád Brett:

A number of members mentioned that few complaints are left unaddressed. They have pointed out that only a small percentage of complaints are not necessarily completed to the satisfaction of parents.

In regard to the parents' charter, we have only scant details on this from the Minister's speeches at the various conferences. From the perspective of the CPSMA, we would welcome a parents' charter and greater involvement with parents. I am sure boards of management across the country would say the same. Open communication is good. We were asked how we can improve or what suggestions we can make for improvement. Sometimes the difficulty is a lack of communication. In the majority of cases, procedures and policies have been adopted and put in place in the schools, and these are followed. In most cases, these policies and procedures sort out the problem. However, I acknowledge that there are cases in which parents may not be happy with the final outcome. Good communication is key to sorting out issues between boards of management and parents.

I wish to reiterate the points made by Dr. Fennelly in regard to training for boards. Training is delivered nationally, but it is difficult to get people to come out on a winter's evening to attend training. We always encourage members to avail of the training, which is detailed and of great benefit to those who attend it. Feedback and comments from members commend the training.

On the complaints procedure, members of the CPSMA follow a standard complaints procedure when a complaint is made. Ms McElduff outlined this procedure. It starts with an informal stage and ideally the issue should be sorted between the parent and the teacher, if the issue is with the teacher. If not, it may then go through the various stages. The majority of issues are resolved using this procedure, but I accept the point that there are situations where parents may not be satisfied with the outcome.

Mr. Hubert Loftus:

I will ask Mr. Deegan to provide an update on the parent and student charter first and I will then respond on the various queries raised by members.

Mr. Tom Deegan:

It is the intention of the Minister to publish guidelines for a school charter for parents and students before the end of this school year. Each school will be required to have a charter. Section 28 of the Education Act has been mentioned and changes will be required to that section in order to enable the framework for a parent and student charter to be put on a statutory footing. The value of a parent and student charter is that every school will be required legally to have one. The drawing up of the charter will need the active involvement of the parent representatives, parent associations and parent councils. This representation has been lacking in past grievance procedures. Previous procedures were devised some time ago by the CPSMA and the INTO and noticeably lacked parental involvement. The major difference in the parent charter project is that it must have parental involvement. The change in section 28 must be worked out in order for the charter to be put on a statutory footing. The elements of the charter will be worked out and developed in consultation with all the education partners - the management bodies, teacher unions and national parent councils. The intention is to publish and finalise this before the end of the school year.

Mr. Hubert Loftus:

Developing that point, the idea and rationale for the charter is about helping to ensure there is consistency throughout 3,000 schools in terms of good and open communication, so that we get to a point whereby matters will not need to progress up the line to complaints and difficulties that cannot be resolved. This charter will be helpful and useful. Our view is that by providing the information to parents, they will understand better why a board makes a decision and are more likely to accept the fairness of that decision, even if they do not agree with the outcome. This is important.

In terms of the accountability of boards to the Minister, I would like to point out that boards are required to comply with the policies of the Minister. Also, section 17 of the Education Act enables the dissolution of a board of management by a patron, at the request of a Minister. This would only happen rarely, but it has been used to deal with issues where the Minister was not satisfied that the functions of a board were being effectively discharged.

In regard to how the interests of parents and students are protected where there is a need for a civil action, we believe the parent and student charter will be an important element in that. Under the current arrangements, where a matter has gone through the grievance procedures, a parent can go to the Ombudsman for Children. There is a process that allows for that. Also, there is an appeals process provided for within the Education Act to deal with higher-level issues such as enrolment, suspension and expulsion. This allows for issues to be dealt with without the need for civil action.

On the issue of floating teachers, I should mention that the other half of my job deals with teacher allocation and redeployment. We operate within constraints such as limits on our teacher numbers and our payroll budget, which make it difficult to add additional teachers to the school system to create supply panels for covering for absences. In the past, when we had a supply panel, that supply panel and the teachers on it were utilised only about 50% of the time. They were on the payroll all the time, but might only be utilised to cover a sick leave absence on a rare occasion in the schools they covered.

The O'Keeffe case related to a period in the early 1970s. The key issue was that there were no child protection procedures and processes in place for such cases to be dealt with. That case was of its time, but there are lessons to be learned from it. The landscape in terms of how child protection is dealt with now - the procedures in place, Children First being on a statutory footing and the other legislation in place - is different. However, this is not to say there are not implications from the case that will be considered. I am not a legal person and cannot answer on every legal aspect of those implications.

On training, notwithstanding the budgetary constraints, the Department provides training and support to school management bodies to help them provide the training to boards. This is very much a demand-led process.

Members made valid points on how we can encourage more people to avail of that training. We will be examining this issue as part of the consultation process on the appointment of new boards of management, in respect of which we are currently engaging stakeholders, with a view to encouraging greater use of web-based training and other ways of facilitating people who otherwise would not have opportunities to attend training sessions.

Jim Daly (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of the 10,000 cases investigated by the Ombudsman for Children, 6,000 related to governance of schools and management issues. That paints its own picture of the issue. I do not care how small the number of complainants may be; they have a right to recourse. I have heard nothing today to counter the view that they do not currently have recourse. The Louise O'Keeffe judgment is very interesting because, notwithstanding the fact that it was a different time, the issue remains that boards of management are aloof and isolated from what I would call the law of the country when things go wrong. We all appreciate that the vast majority are going fine.

In regard to time limits for chairpersons, it is a vicious cycle, because if boards of management were given real power and decision making abilities, more talent would be encouraged to join them. I stand over my comments about rubber-stamping for principals, because when one uses the lingo of education and all that goes with it, it is possible to drown people out on contentious issues.

It was interesting to observe JobBridge from a distance. I do not believe there was one board of management in the entire country that saw fit to prevent the vested interest of the union from superseding that of the school community. Boards could have stood up as representatives of the students and expressed their belief that an additional teacher would be beneficial for the school concerned. To my knowledge, it has not happened in any school in this country that a board went against the wishes of a principal who was a member of INTO. That illustrates my argument very starkly.

I understand that minutes of board of management meetings are not made available to parents. Openness and transparency are important. I am glad we started the debate today and I am sure we will be returning to it in future.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The VECs have a certain level of democratic accountability which does not apply to the rest of the sector. That is something which should be considered. It is unfortunate that our meeting was curtailed, because we would have benefitted from a longer discussion. We may revisit the issue at a later opportunity, however. I thank witnesses and members for their contributions.

The Select Sub-Committee on Social Protection will take Committee Stage of the Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill 2014 on Wednesday, 5 November 2014.