Richard Bruton (Dublin Bay North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

We have had this debate previously. As Senator Ruane has recognised, section 23 of the Education (Welfare) Act 2000 requires schools to develop codes of practice in accordance with statutory guidelines prepared by the former National Education Welfare Board, which is now the educational welfare service of Tusla. This body has been given statutory responsibility for overseeing the requirement to have proper codes of practice and has published statutory guidelines for schools on developing codes of behaviour. These guidelines provide guidance to schools on supporting student behaviour and on the procedures to be followed in respect of suspension and expulsion. Statutory guidelines are already in place. Any potential review of those guidelines is a matter for the educational welfare service, Tusla and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, to which Tusla now reports. As the arrangements to be followed by schools in respect of expulsion and suspension are already provided for in legislation and in statutory guidelines and are under the remit of a separate Department and Minister, I cannot accept this proposal.

When I took the opportunity to examine the practices that exist in this regard in our schools, I formed the view that they are very strict. A school's code of behaviour must disclose the specific procedures to be followed before a student may be suspended or expelled from the school. The statutory guidelines in respect of suspension advise that a decision to suspend a student requires serious grounds relating to the student's behaviour, etc. Those grounds must be set out. The guidelines require schools to consider various factors such as the context for the behaviour, the impact of the behaviour, the interventions that had been tried, the question of whether suspension is a proportionate response and the possible impact of suspension.

Fair procedures must be followed when a school is proposing to suspend a student. When a preliminary assessment of the facts confirms that there has been serious behaviour that could warrant suspension, the school should inform the student and his or her parents of the complaint and give the student and his or her parents an opportunity to respond. The board of management must provide an opportunity to appeal. The guidelines outline that expulsion should be a proportionate response to the student's behaviour.

The expulsion of a student is a very serious step that should not be taken by a board of management other than in extreme cases of unacceptable behaviour. The school should take significant steps to address the misbehaviour and to avoid the expulsion of a student, including, as appropriate, meeting parents, making sure the student understands the consequences of expulsion, ensuring all other avenues have been considered and seeking the assistance of support agencies such as the National Educational Psychological Service, the HSE, community services, the National Behaviour Support Service, the child and adolescent mental health service and the National Council for Special Education.

This is a good code. I have not heard anyone saying otherwise. In cases in which people feel the code has not been followed, appeals can be submitted under section 29. The last time the Senator raised this matter, she asked about the number of expulsions. I can inform her that in the most recent year, there were 195 expulsions at second level and 19 at primary level. This means that expulsion is required in the cases of 0.57% of students, or one in every 1,750 students. The Department received 77 appeals relating to expulsions in the same period, which indicates that approximately one in every three expulsions is appealed. Approximately 31% of appeals are upheld, and the expulsions are found not to have been validly applied, when these hearings take place. This matter falls under the remit of another Department and is the responsibility of a statutory agency. I do not have a reason to believe there is evidence that we should be demanding a review. The current arrangements seem to be reasonably robust from a layman's point of view. Having reviewed the evidence since Committee Stage, as the Senator asked me to do, I am afraid I am not disposed to change the approach that is currently adopted.