Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)

We also support this necessary Bill. This week we read of a teacher whose nose and teeth were broken by a student. On the other side, from the children's point of view, a study by the anti-bullying unit in Trinity College suggested that 35% of boys and 19% of girls were physically attacked during a three-month period. There is no doubt that there are serious problems in our schools that need to be effectively addressed. There have been difficulties with section 29 and the task force on student behaviour proposed that this should be one of the measures the Minister should take in addressing the behaviour of students in schools.

While we will be proposing amendments to the Bill, it only represents a small part of what is required and only implements a small number of the recommendations of the task force. The Minister needs to implement some of the other measures. While this represents a rebalancing of rights and all of us would feel that the rights of the majority of students who want to learn in schools need to be protected, at the same time the children who are being excluded from school also have rights. As a society it will be to our peril if we fail to address the rights of those students also. I would be concerned that the tone of what is being said in this debate focuses on getting them out of the schools, which could then simply operate for the majority of the children. However, what happens to these young people? We complain about anti-social behaviour. John Lonergan has been quoted as saying that the level of education of people in prisons is very low. We cannot simply cast them out, particularly when they are below school-leaving age, and expect the Prison Service to pick them up at a later stage. That is no way to deal with young people and their rights to an education. While we must look after the rights of the majority of students, we must also look after the rights of the minority who in some cases cause serious problems in schools.

Before coming to the House for this debate, I took the opportunity to reread the recommendations of the task force report. The task force was very good and I commend the Minister and its other members. However, its approach was very much holistic and it was not just about kicking the troublemakers out of school. It focuses on setting up the kind of environment in schools and communities around them that would prevent children from being expelled from schools through intervening at an early stage to identify problems. There must be early diagnosis of disorders such as ADD, ADHD, dyslexia or others which cause young people to misbehave in school if we are to assist them, their families and schools.

Chapter 10 of the report states:

The interim report stressed the need for all the key players to come together in an effort to stem the corrosive influence of persistent, serious disruption in our schools. We reiterate that call. This teacht le chéile of stakeholders is a fundamental tenet of the set of Recommendations set out below. Schools alone cannot supply all the remedies. They need and deserve the support of the Department of Education and Science, management bodies, parents and society in general. The Task Force calls on all the players to make their contribution and to do so in a spirit of generosity and collegiality, in the knowledge that as an investment it can yield only good.

It further states:

As highlighted right through this report, some schools are catering for students who bring with them a multiplicity of needs, many of which act as barriers to successful achievement in school. These schools require a range of measures accompanied by adequate resources to guarantee their efficacy. We are confident that the Recommendations that we put forward can make a significant contribution to the creation of a more harmonious teaching and learning environment in our classrooms and schools.

The task force recommended more involvement by parents and the availability of parents' rooms in schools, ensuring harmonious transfer from primary to second level and that those who have supports in primary school continue to receive them at post-primary level. It also dealt with teacher in-service education and ensuring teachers are properly resourced and empowered to deal with the wide variety of problems they encounter with young people in the classroom. Obviously, we are dealing with a changed society.

The report also deals with the introduction of a charter of rights and responsibilities. I note the TUI magazine dealing with section 29 amendments also stressed the need for the introduction of a charter of rights. The task force also dealt in its report with issues such as the introduction of behaviour support classrooms. I welcome the Minister's statement that she intends to do this. Other issues such as reducing class size, the provision in schools of adequate psychological services and addressing the difficulty of getting a diagnosis — I accept this matter does not come within the Minister's remit — under the mental health for children section of the Department of health and Children need to be addressed. There are many logjams in this area which often result in families having to wait for years to obtain a diagnosis. Families are having to go on waiting lists under pressure from many other areas within the health services. This is, for many of them, an added burden imposed on them by the educational services. It is often difficult to obtain the required diagnosis in order to obtain necessary supports for young people.

I am concerned that all pupils are being categorised as troublemakers. While some pupils may just be playing bad others have disorders which were not addressed earlier in the education system. Our primary focus must be on addressing those problems. I accept we must also provide schools with the powers to expel students who cause serious problems. The task force also recommended — I am sure the Minister is aware of this — that implementation and evaluation of its recommendations be monitored. Perhaps the Minister will say if she is planning to do this. I suggest it should be done in light of the fact that many measures introduced do not have the desired effect. A clear recommendation of the task force is that its recommendations be evaluated and measured in terms of implementation and success.

The statistics I received by way of parliamentary questions on the number of appeals under section 29 are categorised under the headings, primary and post-primary and, refusal to enrol, expulsion and suspension. However, we are dealing in the main today with expulsions and suspensions. I hope later to speak on the issue of refusal to enrol. It is clear that the number of appeals at post-primary level in respect of expulsion have been steadily increasing. The relevant statistics are: 2003, 34 expulsions; 2004, 52 expulsions; 2005, 68 expulsions; and up to end November 2006, 76 expulsions. Schools are concerned about the divide between the number of appeals upheld and not upheld. This legislation is designed to ensure schools have the power to expel students who cause serious disruption to the learning of other children. I do not have a problem with that. However, we must find other ways of dealing with students who are expelled from school.

The report also includes recommendations in regard to young people excluded from school. Paragraph 9.1 which deals with out of school provisions suggests approximately 1% to 2% of young people do not fit in a mainstream school because their needs cannot be catered for in a classroom-type situation. In this regard the TUI states:

Pupils are not taught on an individual basis [they are talking about in schools] they are taught in classes of many. Their conduct, if continually disruptive, robs the right to learn of other pupils who do not misbehave in any significant way.

We should heed the task force which states that a small minority of young people are not suited to the classroom situation and recommends the introduction of out of school provision such as the expansion of youth encounter projects which exist in three of our main cities. While we have only a small number of these projects, from my experience they work well. They offer alternatives for young people from the age of 12 years who are unable to get into a school or who have been expelled from school at an early age. The task force recommends that these projects be expanded. It also recommends that Youthreach which caters for students over 15 years be expanded and the introduction of a junior Youthreach for those aged 12 years to 15 years who are out of the school system. I recently visited a Youthreach programme in my constituency. It is doing fabulous work. Many of the young people involved in that programme had been expelled from school and were in a limbo-type situation until they reached the required age for Youthreach. They were studying for their junior certificate and were doing very well. I hope the Minister will address this issue when responding to the debate.

We must, when legislating to exclude young people from regular schooling, provide them with alternatives. We cannot simply leave them out there with no support. The Minister will probably reply that such matters come within the remit of the Educational Welfare Board. I accept that. However, it does not run programmes. It can only try to secure places in programmes for these children or provide them with home tuition. We need the Department of Education and Science to value these programmes and to provide them where needed. We must address the needs of the small percentage of young people who do not conform to what is expected of them in school if we are to address problems such as anti-social and criminal behaviour, bullying, youth suicide and joyriding. I am sympathetic to schools. I know what is required if they are to run orderly, disciplined establishments which allow appropriate learning. However, I feel very passionately that we cannot simply ignore the others. If we do so, we are storing up serious problems for the future.

In respect of the National Behaviour Support Service, I welcome the fact that this support will go directly into the schools this year. I was critical of the expenditure of €2 million last year which went almost entirely on setting up a new bureaucracy, with a full-time administrator based in an education centre, a national co-ordinator, four assistant national co-ordinators, nine regional development officers and 20 part-time associates. Psychologists are included, but they have been taken from NEPS which already does not have enough psychologists. We need hands-on support in schools rather than a bureaucracy.

In reading the report of the task force, I cannot see any place where it recommended setting up this kind of a national bureaucracy. My understanding was that it just wanted support teams which would go into schools which have problems and work with them.

See this speech in context