Organisations representing parents are trying their best, but underfundingand a lack of representation on decision-making bodies are silencing animportant voice in children's education

An apparently innocuous exchange between Noel Dempsey and Pat Kenny during a radio interview last week told us a lot about where the real power rests in Irish education.

The Minister for Education was discussing the recent parent-teacher meetings agreement hammered out between his Department, the teacher unions and the management bodies. Kenny asked the Minister why the whole basis of the agreement seemed to be about not discommoding teachers? Take a typical class, said the broadcaster. There is one teacher and 25 pupils. That translates into 50 parents. Why was the agreement not about accommodating those 50 parents, rather than doing everything possible to accommodate the teacher on the issue of parent-teacher meetings at night.

The on-air exchange is worth repeating.

Kenny: "It just seems to be completely the wrong way around because you have, say, 25 children in the class, that's 50 parents. You have one teacher in the class, I mean, one teacher, twice a year, discommoding him or herself to facilitate 50 people - that would seem to be a reasonable attitude to take, rather than discommode 50 people to accommodate one teacher, I mean it just doesn't make sense numerically.

Minister: "Yes, I don't think you are - I mean, if we get into the numbers game, we could be in serious trouble".

This vignette illustrates the central problem with policy-making in education. Who should have the power to shape the education landscape? Teachers, the providers of education, or the recipients - the pupils and their parents? The Minister in his radio interview made the reasonable point that such distinctions can be rendered meaningless in the sense that teachers are parents and parents are teachers.

Referring to the parent-teacher meetings deal, the Minster said: "Teachers work far away from home as well. They have children, there has to be some kind of a balance in this. I mean, it is not unreasonable either for teachers to say well, look, if your child was sick, for instance, you would come straight home from work to bring him or her to the doctor".

Such concerns are understandable.

There were a plethora of reasons given by teachers for opposing late evening parent-teacher meetings. What if they had completed their working day; how responsive and efficient were they likely to be after hours spent in front of a class? What about the security issues in a small, rural school where there might be only two teachers? There was also the reasonable view that if teachers were being asked to work outside their normal contracted hours, they should be paid accordingly and broad parameters should be set.

Teachers also argued that parents should be able to make special arrangements for something as crucial as a parent-teacher meeting.

Presumably some of these arguments were voiced by the teacher unions during the recent talks on the parent-teacher meetings. But who spoke for parents in all of this?

The body which deals with system-wide problems in schools is the Teachers' Conciliation Council. As the name suggests, it has no parental representation, although the Department regards it as an industrial-relations body. But its decisions impinge on parents all the time.

The recent arbitration hearings on the parent-teacher meetings issue did not involve parents as a negotiating party, although Fionnuala Kilfeather of the National Parents' Council (Primary) was a witness.

The National Education Welfare Board, which deals with expulsions and school attendance, has only one parent representative, from the primary sector.

The body which deals with special needs, the National Council for Special Education has no parent representatives. The Department's Education Disadvantage Committee has no formal parental representation. The benchmarking body, which decided on customer service in schools, had no parental representation.

The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) does a little better with two out of its 25 council members parental nominees.

Overall, the sense is that parents are not at the table when important decisions are being made. The Congress of Catholic Secondary School Parent Associations (CSPA), formed in 1977, is trying to change this. Its PRO, Barbara Johnson, shot to fame during the ASTI strike following controversial comments about the conduct of that dispute.

Her organisation is now studying its legal options. "We are like the fireworks at Hallowe'en. People know we are there, but nobody wants to officially admit that," she says.

She has never met the Minister for Education, she points out, even though parents' associations in 100 schools are affiliated to the CSPA.

Johnson says the CSPA funds itself via affiliation-fee income and is prepared to accept whatever schools can afford. The Department cut the little State funding the organisation received recently, she points out.

The Department of Education, via the 1998 Education Act, only officially recognises one umbrella body for parents, in the shape of the National Parents' Council (Primary) and (Post Primary). It does not deal with bodies outside this structure (the CSPA group left in 2002).

So Johnson, along with CSPA president David Hegarty, is looking at a legal challenge. "We believe we fulfil the criteria set out in the Education Act. We are based in a significant part of the State, for example, and that is one of the criteria."

A lot of outsiders looking in will wonder whether Johnson's sometimes outspoken views have put her organisation beyond the pale as far as Department mandarins are concerned.

Fionnuala Kilfeather, of the NPC (Primary) believes that one united voice is the only way to get the Department and the Government to listen to parental concerns.

"The big problem is that the providers of education are the focus all the time. But what about the consumers? It's like being in a restaurant, you don't ask the chef about the quality of the food, you ask the customers," she says.

The picture at post-primary level is not too encouraging either. There is the National Parents' Council (Post Primary) group, but the CSPA is not a member. The NPC is badly under-resourced and its leaders hold down other day jobs.

Its president, Eleanor Petrie, while not as well known as Johnson, has spoken out forcefully on the issue of special needs. She told the organisation's training conference recently that despite the difficulties experienced in the past, a vast amount of commitment had been given by parents to the NPC over the past 18 years. But a report last year by Department official Jack O'Brien was critical of structures in this whole area.

Petrie told The Irish Times there was no need for confrontation with teachers. Both sides were interested in improving education. But giving parents a new voice would not be easy.

"I am frustrated. But I think we can work this through. We are beginning to get the focus finally. We need to connect with the parent on the ground. That is the most important thing."

She said plans were afoot to create a new full-time executive position within the post-primary branch and to establish research facilities. As for Johnson and her team, Petrie is flexible. "We would welcome CSPA back. They were always an interesting group."

While there is plenty of honest endeavour, the parents' groups are like a Nationwide League team trying to compete in the Premiership. Look at the resources the three teachers' unions can marshal compared with the likes of NPC. It is not a fair fight right now, some would suggest.