Ms Lorraine Dempsey:

Deputy Jim Daly asked what we did about the 2% of schools. Our purpose is not to take the offensive against all schools in the State system; we certainly do not portray a picture of principals running mini-cabals with boards of management. However, the issue is one of deciding what to do about the 0.1%, 2%, 3% or 5% of schools where problems arise. Some boards operate dysfunctional decision-making practices and some principals take issues very personally when a parent raises a difficulty in the provision of special educational needs support for a child or makes a complaint about one of a myriad of other issues in a school. The issue arises when the complaint is compounded by not being addressed, despite the intervention of other agencies.

We know special educational needs organisers, SENOs, who will act as advocates on behalf of a parent and a child. However, it is not within their remit to act in that capacity, yet they will try to act as mediators. I am aware that there are proposals to include this in the remit of SENOs in the new inclusion support service. SENOs do not have any say in the decision a school can make.

With regard to the cohort of people we represent, namely, parents of children with special needs, we interface with health and educational support services all the time, of which there is a severe lack. A therapist may come to a school to enable it to deal with difficulties arising from a child's disability. When this is not taken on board and a situation breaks down, it may lead to a breakdown of the school placement. Despite the parent trying to act as an advocate on behalf of his or her child and work in a collaborative fashion with the school, the interpersonal relationship between the parent and the principal may break down. When trying to navigate a solution, the parent may go through the official complaints procedure which leads to the board of a management which consistently sides with the principal. We have even seen this happen in cases in which an accusation of assault was made against a member of staff or the principal. These cases occurred prior to the Teaching Council being given the power to enforce disciplinary actions. The 2% of schools with which we must deal are those where the board of management shuts down in the face of the problems I described. I have personal experience of such cases. Changing culture for the main school body may bring about a change for the 2% of schools where there may be peer pressure. They may deal with matters in a certain way or perhaps the operation of the boards might need to be examined.

I have a list of telephone numbers which I give to parents who do not know how to navigate the system. Some parents contact me to tell me they have been in touch with the Office of the Ombudsman for Children. I tell them to call the Irish Primary Principals Network and provide it with information on what is happening in the school in question. Depending on who answers the telephone, the parent may be directed to a colleague who will offer advice. In such cases the organisation is at least aware of what is happening in the 2% of schools, even though it is not within its capacity to sort out the issue. We direct parents in the direction of the IPPN to ensure it notes that there is a problem in certain schools.

I note that the parent and student charter which would be more appropriately titled the student and parent charter proposes oversight mechanisms where required. It does not appear that it will provide for the strong arm of the Minister in relation to all activities in schools. It deals with the 2% of schools where there are no other avenues of redress for parents and children.