Mr. John Boyle:

As vice president of the INTO and on behalf of our members and our union I thank the Joint Committee on Education and Skills for the invitation to express our views on the two proposed Bills.

At the outset, we note that the two Bills are somewhat contradictory. The Education (Amendment) Bill 2015 is providing for an ombudsman for education and an appeal mechanism against decisions of boards of management in respect of grievances against schools, while the proposed parent and student charter is proposing various amendments to the legislation governing the Ombudsman for Children to enhance the role of that office in dealing with school matters. The INTO is not in favour of two offices of ombudsmen having responsibility for similar functions with regard to the operation of schools. This is unnecessary and would prove cumbersome, costly and confusing. The focus should be on supporting and resourcing schools in the carrying out of their functions as opposed to requiring accountability for the very same matters in a range of fora.

Systems of accountability should be clear, effective, streamlined and not duplicated across different fora. Accountability requirements must also have particular regard to the statutory role of boards of management and the provisions of the Education Act 1998. That Act prescribes that it is the statutory duty of boards of management to manage their schools. In respect of that statutory responsibility, boards are already accountable to their patrons and the Minister. These provisions are re-affirmed in the governance manual for primary schools and in Department Circular 52/2015. Accordingly, the INTO would have significant reservations about section 66 of the Education (Amendment) Bill which is proposing a right of appeal to an ombudsman for education "against a decision of the board in respect of an appeal or grievance made to the board". The INTO notes that the Bill is silent on the detail of how such appeals would be conducted. In terms of fair procedures, any de novoappeal would inevitably require a full re-run of the hearing. That would be a just and fair process. The INTO reiterates that it has serious reservations about any such approach which could unnecessarily prolong matters for the parties involved and run counter to the principle of finality in decision-making and the statutory functions of boards of management. However, the INTO draws a distinction between a full de novoappeal and a review on procedural grounds. Similar clarification is required in relation to the proposed expansion of the role of the Ombudsman for Children.

In regard to the proposed general scheme of the Education (Parent and Student Charter) Bill 2016, there does not appear to be any so-called ground up demand for this, and many schools will see the proposals as seeking to address no known problem. Nevertheless, the INTO is not opposed to formalising the terms of relations as currently exist at school level. In this regard, we strongly urge the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Bruton, and the committee to note the evidence of the high levels of trust which are placed in Irish schools and educators, as evidencedinter aliain the chief inspector’s reports, the OECD’s Education at a Glance report and surveys commissioned by the Teaching Council. The INTO submits that the culture and tradition of trust must not be damaged by over-formalising and specification of rights, processes or both.

The culture of the Irish primary school system is one of open engagement with parents or guardians and the school community. In this context, it has always been the case that schools operate an open door policy, fostering positive dealings with parents and guardians. Parents and guardians are encouraged to come to schools before or after the school day. Teachers meet parents informally and formally every day. There are regular parent-teacher meetings once or twice a year. This is the culture in which primary schools operate. The INTO submits that this positive engagement culture should be fully acknowledged and supported in any new proposed parent and student charter.

In 1993, a huge amount of work was done between management bodies, the Catholic Primary School Managers Association, the Church of Ireland Board of Education, Educate Together and An Foras Pátrúnachta to agree a formal parental complaints procedure. That procedure is in place and has worked very well in schools. The first paragraph of the existing complaints procedure puts it in a nutshell. It states: “The purpose of this procedure is to facilitate the resolution of difficulties where they may arise in an agreed and fair manner.” The emphasis is on the word “resolve”. Parents or guardians are encouraged to raise their concerns informally with the relevant teacher in the first instance, as is right and proper. If the complaint is not resolved, it goes to the board of management following a few short steps. The existing complaints procedure fully complies with fair procedures and due process. It is incremental in approach and it balances opportunities for repeated informal attempts at resolution.

Parents or guardians were not party to the discussion on the complaints procedure in 1993. Several years ago the INTO participated in round-table discussions convened by the Department on this issue. Unfortunately, the results of that engagement have not been published. While attempts were made by the education partners, particularly at primary level, to develop procedures under section 28, it is timely and fitting that this now be progressed. Existing local complaints procedures have been developed and agreed between school management bodies and the teacher unions.

The big issue for the INTO is that if there are to be new procedures, there would be a general agreement reached between the education partners on a one size fits all procedure for our 3,250 schools. There are huge issues in schools-----