Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

—concerned at growing indiscipline in Ireland's schools;

—noting the findings of the interim report of the task force on student behaviour that the disruptive behaviour in our schools included threats against teachers and their property, fighting, assault and the carrying of dangerous weapons on school property;

—noting especially that some examples of student behaviour notified to the task force were of such a serious nature as to be considered criminal behaviour; and

—accepting that the discipline problems in our schools reduce the performance of students as a whole, and lead to the potential loss of teachers from the profession;

calls on the Government to:

—immediately publish the final report of the task force on student behaviour, under the chairmanship of Maeve Martin;

—outline its legislative response to tackling school discipline problems, in particular, its response to the difficulties posed by section 29 of the Education Act 1998; and

—put in place specific measures to make schools good places to teach, and to learn, including the implementation of a national anti-bullying strategy.

When Ireland banned school corporal punishment in 1982, it was clearly the right thing to do. At the time we recognised that physical forms of punishment were totally inappropriate in an educational context. It was a good day for our education system and the children of the State. A regulation was circulated to all schools by the then Minister for Education, John Boland. It stated teachers should have a lively regard for the improvement and general welfare of their pupils, treat them with kindness combined with firmness and should aim at governing them through their affections and reason, not by harshness and severity. Ridicule, sarcasm or remarks likely to undermine a pupil's self-confidence should not be used in any circumstances. It further stated the use of corporal punishment was forbidden and that any teacher who contravened either section of the rule would be regarded as guilty of conduct unbefitting a teacher and would be subject to severe disciplinary action.

The regulations were very clear. The use of corporal punishment was expressly forbidden. However, all of the focus was placed on the behaviour of the teacher. The responsibilities of our young people, including how they should interact with their peers and teachers, were not detailed. This is an imbalance we must redress today. Alongside the right to free education, there is a dual responsibility that our young people engage in their schooling in a way that does not undermine or harass their teachers, or disrupt the learning of others. It seems that while the right decision was made more than 20 years ago, we have not yet put in place a proper alternative that every student can understand and respect. To ensure our classrooms are the best possible places in which to learn and teach, this issue must be addressed.

Poor student behaviour and lack of discipline damage the educational prospects of all children at school. The negative impact of disruption in the classroom includes wasting the teacher's time in sorting out disruptions and tying up processing issues due to classroom disruption; students becoming disheartened or intimidated by the behaviour of some of their peers; teacher morale being compromised; the standing of the school in the community being diminished; the educational attainment of students being lowered; and a disproportionate amount of time being allocated to the disruptive students at the expense of those more compliant children and young people. I am deeply concerned at the long-term damage done to individual young people and society as a whole, if we allow some to believe mistakenly that schools are places where anything goes when it comes to unacceptable behaviour.

To address the growing problems in our schools, the task force on student behaviour was set up by the Minister for Education and Science under the chairmanship of Dr. Maeve Martin and began its work a little over a year ago. The task force was asked to consider and report on the issue of student behaviour in second level schools. It produced an interim report in July 2005 which made for chilling reading in parts.

In undertaking its work the task force encountered examples of seriously disruptive behaviour in schools, including threats against teachers and their property, fighting, assault and the carrying of dangerous weapons on school property. Some examples of student behaviour were of such a serious nature that they were considered criminal behaviour. Such activity has no place in our schools. When we focus on unacceptable behaviour in our schools, we should be clear that it is this type of behaviour to which we are referring. Students and young people should be energetic, inquisitive, resourceful, questioning and active, as these are all good traits that should be encouraged by our education system. In addressing student indiscipline we are not seeking to curb young people's individuality, creativity or energy. Instead, we are focusing on the type of behaviour identified by the task force which is clearly unacceptable.

The task force's interim report noted that the perpetrators of disruption represented 5% to 10% of the school population, with those involved in extreme behaviour representing a smaller proportion of this number. However, studies by the centre for education services at Marino Institute of Education found that over 80% of respondents were of the view that the incidence of disruptive behaviour had increased during the years. This is a tide that must be turned. Otherwise, we will lose good teachers from our schools, disruptive students will find that their unacceptable behaviour goes unchallenged, and their peers will have their educational prospects squandered.

The findings of the interim report highlight the challenges that we face in making the school environment a good place to be for both students and teachers. The task force also stressed the negative effect that disruptive behaviour could have on the educational attainment of all students in the classroom. Today, we must accept that disruptive students do not have the right to undermine other young people's educational opportunities or achievements. Some teachers' representatives have questioned the findings of the interim report, stating they do not adequately reflect the realities that they face each and every day in the classroom. Certainly, the task force has encountered examples of student behaviour which could easily have been reported to the Garda Síochána.

When it comes to student behaviour and discipline, our schools are not receiving the backup they need from the Department of Education and Science and other bodies. The Department guidelines entitled, Towards a Positive Policy for School Behaviour and Discipline, were published in circular M33/91 in 1991. It is time to revisit the guidelines and make changes where necessary.

Under the Education (Welfare) Act 2000, school boards of management are obliged to draw up codes of behaviour for students. The National Educational Welfare Board is drafting guidelines for schools on how to address this code. I hope they will be available soon. In recent years there have been considerable developments and changes in Irish society. Many students have mobile phones and access to the Internet at home and school, leading to the emergence of new forms of bullying and bad behaviour. These developments need to be reflected in up-to-date guidelines that take account of technological and other developments.

The Minister should without further delay publish the final report of the task force which has been with her since January. I note from the Government's amendment that the report will be published in March. I look forward to this but it is a pity it will not be published earlier. To expedite the recommendations of the task force, the publication of this report is clearly necessary. Teachers and educators are waiting to assess the recommendations of the report and see what action will be taken by the Minister to implement new proposals. Obviously, the action taken on foot of the report is a priority.

In its interim report the task force noted that many schools were deeply frustrated with section 29 of the Education Act 1998. In the majority of cases, section 29 is used to undermine the authority of schools in expelling seriously disruptive students. This can lead to schools being forced to accept as students young people previously expelled for seriously disruptive behaviour. In such cases, the students return to the school secure in the knowledge that there is no real action the authorities can take against their unacceptable behaviour. This is unacceptable. The Irish Vocational Education Association has estimated that of the 34 student appeals against expulsions in the vocational education sector in the past three years, only seven pupils had subsequently been expelled. Its general secretary commented: "In a number of cases, our schools report to us that they are under particular pressure to reintegrate the pupil, who then often returns with a swagger, having achieved a victory against the school authorities".

In the last school year alone the Department of Education and Science overturned at least eight school expulsions, returning to these schools students who had been deemed to be seriously and continuously in breach of the school code of behaviour. What message does this send, both to the individuals concerned and the school? Surely this system undermines the ethos of discipline and acceptable behaviour in our education system. In addition, the time it takes to process appeals is onerous, removing the school principal from the day-to-day tasks that demand his or her full attention. While individual rights must be respected, we must also have the utmost regard for the rights of the school community. One individual does not have the right to disrupt the education of every other child in the class.

School codes of behaviour must be very clear as to what behaviour will result in suspension or expulsion. Students and their parents must be left in no doubt as to the seriousness of certain types of behaviour. In addition, the school code of behaviour must outline clearly the process which must be followed in the case of a school making the decision to expel a pupil. If these matters are made crystal clear for all students, appeals against the decision to expel should only consider whether the correct process had been followed by the school in question. If the school has followed a fair process and documented each step of the way leading to the expulsion of the student, the Department should recognise and vindicate the actions of the school and not overturn the decision to expel. We must have greater trust in our schools and teachers and respect the fact that the decision to expel a student is never taken lightly. Appeals to the Department under section 29 of the Education Act 1998 should be amended to take account of this fact.

Schools also come under pressure to accept disruptive students once again into their ranks because the Minister has failed to provide real educational alternatives for young people displaying challenging behaviour. While we must support the right of schools to expel in certain situations, we must also address the needs of those students who do not fit into the school system. A more dramatic response is required. We should examine the establishment of a small network of new schools which would be designed for students with very challenging behaviour, who have been expelled or dropped out from mainstream second level schools.

See this speech in context