Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

I support the amendments. I thank Deputy Boyd Barrett for tabling them because they would not have been raised otherwise. Let us consider the definitions listed in section 42 of the principal Act. They can mean many different things to many different people. We need far more definition of what constitutes the subject of a complaint. Let us consider "poor professional performance". What does that mean? Does it mean after a week, a month or six months? No time limit is put on it. Any person, for example, Deputies, could have poor professional performance, but at least they have a period of five years to get their act together and raise their performance. There should be some time ongoing. Numerous other words could have been inserted to make clear what the Minister means. "Poor professional performance" could involve a teacher showing up late for a week or not preparing for classes for a week when she has a child in hospital or a relative who has died. She could be going through something else. The idea that these grounds would be the subject of a complaint in and of themselves makes no sense. We need tighter definitions in this section. Let us consider the proposed section 42(1)(b), which refers to professional misconduct. Again, there is huge variety of interpretation within that. At least the word "serious" puts some kind of onus on school management to take a complaint seriously.

Another subsection refers to a teacher being medically unfit to teach. I would have expected a raft of subsections in addition to that clause. Again, it is open. Does a teacher come in with a doctor's note, stating she is suffering from depression? There is a stigma around that. The language is very lax and leaves carte blancheto vexatious parents, for example, or school principals.

Let us be clear. I have nothing against school principals and there are many brilliant school principals, but they have considerable power in schools. When I was a branch secretary in the ASTI, I encountered umpteen cases of disputes in schools between principals and teachers. Any principal could use any of those conditions to put a teacher's job in jeopardy.

There should be a tightening-up of the provision in terms of what is meant by having a complaint.

We should bear in mind that where a complaint is made against a teacher, it will go on his or her record. Teaching jobs are hard to come by at the moment because of the huge cutbacks in education funding, which have seen a significant reduction in the number of teaching posts. Even if a complaint against a teacher does not stand up, this is a small country and it might well be raised at interview. As it stands, this provision is shabby and unfair. It requires a huge amount of additional detail to ensure fair treatment for teachers. I have seen ongoing disputes between principals, boards of management and individual teachers where the teacher was disliked for whatever reason. This provision will facilitate complaints being made and acted upon, given that it is usually the principal and board of management who decide whether they will be pursued. I am disappointed that this provision has not been tightened up. The inclusion of the word "serious" would at least raise the bar to some extent.

See this speech in context