Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion and I thank my colleague, Deputy Enright, for putting it before the House. Changing values in society have led to an increasing problem of disruption in schools. The past ten years have seen increasing instances of anti-social behaviour. ASBOs, an acronym unheard of in this country eight years ago when the Education Act was passed, are now seen as a necessary mechanism to help address the mounting tide of anti-social behaviour.

Some of those responsible for anti-social behaviour outside school at night are sitting before teachers in classrooms the following morning. They form a small minority disrupting the education of the majority of students in the classroom. The interim report on student behaviour found that up to 10% of second level students engage in constant, low-level disruption. In the average classroom of 30 students, therefore, this means that two to three students are behaving in this way all the time. The report also highlighted some more serious breaches in discipline. A worrying trend in behaviour is lewdness and vulgarity, especially directed at young female teachers.

Serious breaches in school discipline can have a profound negative effect on teachers and on the educational attainment of students in the classroom. We must accept that disruptive students do not have the right to undermine other young people's educational opportunities. Many teachers believe that the rights of non-disruptive students are being ignored while the rights of the ill disciplined, out of control pupils are being strengthened by legislation. We must address how to preserve the rights of the majority of motivated, engaged students while, at the same time, safeguarding the welfare of the minority of students who challenge the system to breaking point.

At present, teachers have few options open to them when dealing with continually disruptive students. It is always the aim of a teacher to keep a student in the classroom setting but if it becomes impossible, the teacher has no option but to withdraw the student from that situation. However, to what will they be withdrawn? Teachers have told me that resources are needed for early intervention programmes where somebody would be available with the time, expertise and training to withdraw the student from the class, deal with the behavioural problem and draw up, in consultation with the teacher, a programme for that student's reintroduction into the classroom. Such early intervention would ensure that disruptive students receive the help and support they need while also allowing other students to learn.

In this regard, the provision of only €2 million for indiscipline in last December's budget means the Minister is only committed to token measures and not to addressing the issue. One of the most practical steps the Minister could take to improve the quality of discipline in schools is to reduce class sizes, a Government commitment which has been ignored. The large class sizes in schools exacerbate the problems of negative behaviour. There are almost 5,000 primary schoolchildren in classes of more than 35 pupils and the average class size in this country is 24.5 pupils.

Practical class size in second level schools is 24 students. Can the Minister imagine 24 students doing wood technology, metal technology, engineering or construction studies with access to and operating dangerous machinery? It is a challenging task for a teacher in this environment to maintain discipline but it is almost impossible to deal with a disruptive student. What is required is a general workshop technician who would work alongside the teacher, look after the operation of machinery and help the teacher focus on his or her teaching.

The Minister should review the Department's published guidelines for teachers for dealing with discipline problems. The current circular, which dates from 1991, is wholly unacceptable and inappropriate in today's environment. I also call on the Minister to review section 23 of the Education (Welfare) Act 2000, which requires school management to ensure that each school has a code of discipline in operation. However, there is no standard format for such a code, which leaves decisions by boards of management open to challenge because the Minister is not prepared to provide direction. Teachers need ongoing training and development to relate to their students. At present, once a teacher qualifies, they are abandoned in the classroom. There is no monitoring, support service or assistance.

The Minister talked down this motion. She should look at her record. There is an increase of €2,000 for the National Educational Psychological Service, a service that is not available to half the schools in the country. The National Educational Welfare Board requires more than 200 additional staff just to deal with the current problems of truancy and non-attendance. This Minister has been good at spin and public relations but she has failed in the basic elements of delivery. There is little point talking down to the Opposition when she cannot get her act together. I commend the motion to the House.

See this speech in context