Parent power: a lot done, more to do

'We still have an education system that, while it performs reasonably for most children, is failing children and young people who are disadvantaged,' argues Fionnuala Kilfeather, who is stepping down as chief executive of the National Parents Council - Primary.

There is a lot to celebrate in our education system. In the 15 years I have been working for National Parents Council - Primary (NPCP) we have seen a bright new child-centred curriculum developed with parental input. We have in-service for teachers. Legislation is in place that has given legal rights to children and parents and, importantly, rights for children with special needs.

The role of parent associations and the National Parents Council are now underpinned by statute. An office of Ombudsman for Children has been established with a role in individual schools and hospitals. Parents and young people are consulted by the inspectorate when schools are being inspected and school evaluations are now published by the Department of Education and Science (DES). The school year has been standardised and parent-teacher meetings take place outside children's teaching time.

Alongside the good things, many have pointed to a historic lack of strategic focus and the absence of an integrated plan for the future of the education service. While there are signs that the Minister and department are tackling this, some problems have been inherited, some have doggedly persisted and some are new.

We have a number of disjointed support services, each with its own national infrastructure and no real evidence of joined-up thinking on delivery or on policy. With each service there are committed professionals working hard to make a difference but struggling against structural weaknesses of the disjointed system in which they operate. Teachers, parents and school boards are trying to negotiate the borders between the services. There is no place to try to construct a shared vision. We need an integrated learner- and school-support system with a regional administrative structure.

Even with huge investment in education, we are not getting the full payback for this investment. We still have an education system that, while it performs reasonably for most children, is failing children and young people who are disadvantaged.

Parental choice of school

Parents have the Constitutional right to choose their child's school. The only question to be resolved is what is the best mechanism for doing this. Local consultation is the appropriate mechanism. The NPCP had long sought consultation, by local authorities and the department, with parents and local communities before a school is established, in order to ascertain their views on the type of school they want for their children.

The significant step taken by the Minister for Education and Science, Mary Hanafin, in approving the establishment of the first community primary school, as a pilot project, under the auspices of Co Dublin VEC is to be welcomed. One school is not enough and more schools should be added to the pilot project.

At around the same time, a Catholic patron instructed his boards of management that they should give precedence to baptised Catholics in their enrolment arrangements. Given that 95 per cent of schools are denominational and 92 per cent of schools are Catholic, the local Catholic school is often the only school available to children in the community. This lack of choice is not in keeping with the needs of a multicultural, increasingly secular society. For too long any questioning of the provision of school types has been wrongly portrayed, by some at least, as being anti-religion. The State was timid and ignored the Constitutional rights of parents and failed to open discussions. The consultation now planned by the Minister needs to go well beyond the traditional interests and involve open and straight-talking consultation with parents and public and include newcomer families.

Accountability

For a long time the teacher unions, with the tacit support of the DES, had engaged in a sterile debate about league tables. They cited the certainty of damage to the education system, to the schools, to the morale of teachers that would arise from the giving of information about pupil and student achievement. The irony of all of this was that debate took place in a situation where there was no official source of information about the work of schools, apart from achievements in public examinations.

A second irony was that the international monitoring body, the OECD, was already identifying significant weakness in the system, especially for children who were socially disadvantaged. We had collectively buried our heads in the sand. NPCP was a lone voice on behalf of parents and the public in seeking openness and accountability in the system. (NPCP had always sought a package of information, including information about outcomes for students.)

The Minister listened and the results of whole school evaluations (WSEs) are now published on the DES website. That's a good start, but the evaluation system needs to become more robust.

Quality of teaching

A mechanism for evaluating the work of the individual teacher is not part of WSE. While it is true that the vast majority of teachers are doing a great job, it is almost unknown for a teacher who is persistently underperforming to lose their position.

Dealing with underperformance is an important part of the Towards 2000 partnership agreement. Assuring the education and welfare rights of children must be central to the ongoing discussions.

It has become clear in recent weeks that the Department of Education is distancing itself from any responsibility for what is happening in schools and placing total responsibility on school boards. This culminated with the Chief State Solicitor sending letters warning parents not to sue the Department of Education for physical or sexual abuse that had taken place in schools as they would be pursued for costs. The department has also recently stated that the board in a school has the responsibility for both the appointment and dismissal of teachers.

The experience of NPCP going back over many years is that some problems, significant problems, being experienced by children are passed from board to department, to the inspectorate, to the patron and back again. This passing of responsibility can go on for years. It is clear that with more than 4,000 schools and 55,000 teachers in the State, school boards, like any board, must take responsibility. In the case of schools, the quality of education, well-being and safety of the children is their key responsibility.

However, the State, through the Minister for Education, has Constitutional responsibilities and exercises financial authority; it sets laws and regulations; it sets the curriculum and State exams. It evaluates the quality of what happens in the schools. With so much authority how can they say that all responsibility lies with the boards?

By attempting to distance itself from responsibility for children's safety and well-being while in school, the department and the Minister are surely reneging on their duties; a worrying vacuum is left at the heart of the education system. The concern to protect the State's finances would appear to be taking precedence over the duty to protect the State's children.

Section 29 of the Education Act provides for the Minister, in consultation with the partners in education, to allow parents to appeal decisions other than expulsions, suspensions, and refusal to admit. This provision could relate to a decision that concerned, for example, a board failing to address a serious complaint by a parent or an injustice to a child.

It seems particularly incongruous that, while placing responsibility on boards and distancing the department from responsibility, the section of the Act that would allow a parent or student to take an appeal about the decision of the board has been ignored. Where are these children to go?

I and others in National Parents Council - Primary have been privileged to be consulted in the development of legislation and much has been secured for children and parents in terms of legal rights. However, as documented, the results as far as the individual parent and child are concerned are mixed. The objective should now be to continue to move forward together as partners in education to achieve the goal of a world-class education for children. This partnership has yielded results, albeit slowly. In those immortal words, a lot done, more to do.

Fionnuala Kilfeather plans to work as a consultant in education