Schools and Responsibility

From the Irish Independent, April 12, 2003:

Schools 'must accept responsibility'

THERE is a growing trend of primary schools disclaiming a range of responsibilities in relation to their pupils, according to a parents' leader. National Parents Council Primary (NPCP) chairwoman Patricia Forde Brennan complained about conditions attaching to a Code of Behaviour parents are being asked to sign when enrolling a child.

In her keynote address to the NPCP annual conference, Ms Forde Brennan has also hit out at the "heavy handed" approach of some schools to the operation of new school attendance regulations. She said the Code of Behaviour was causing concern because it included a statement saying parents must collect their children "on the dot of closing".

This was ludicrous, she said, because for children awaiting school transport this could take up to half an hour after school closure. "The school is responsible for the welfare and safety of the child and cannot be allowed to derogation by the inclusion of such a clause," she said. Complaining of a "growing trend of schools disclaiming a range of responsibilities" she called on the Minister for Education and Science to address the issues immediately.

These included deciding who was responsible for the storage of prescribed medicines - because some schools denied they were - for administering to a young child on daily prescriptive drugs, or for a child injured while bussing to home or school.

On the issue of school attendance, Ms Forde Brennan said some schools were "threatening" parents with the Educational Welfare Officer without any attempt to speak to the parents.

Katherine Donnelly

© Irish Independent

__________________________________________

The new school attendance regulations requiring parents to sign a Code of Behaviour when enrolling their child in a school have been roundly criticised at the recent (April, 2003) National Parents' Council Annual Conference by National Parents Council Primary (NPCP) chairwoman Patricia Forde Brennan.

The Code of Behaviour, required by the Education (Welfare) Act 2000, places a legal responsibility upon parents to ensure that their children behave appropriately while in school. Just how parents are expected to restrain their children when they are not actually there at the time is not, however, specified in the Act.

Electronic implants, perhaps? With remote controls, enabling you to administer a mild electric shock when your pager informs you that your child is misbehaving?

Why should parents be compelled to sign a legally-binding 'Code of Behaviour' in respect of their children when they have not received a signed, legally-binding 'Code of Practice' from the school - a legal document stating that the school guarantees absolutely (among other things) your child's physical safety while at school, including a promise that your child will not receive any injuries, mental or physical, through bullying?

-Debra James