Towards a Better Future

Recommendations

Info

Chapter Seven: The School System: Equality, Inclusion and Rights by the way they profile themselves, or by the criteria they choose for admission, indirectly exclude students from particular social backgrounds (ibid.). If certain social classes are excluded from a school through these kinds of sociological mechanisms, it is difficult to see how they can be inclusive, or how greater equality can be achieved. Indeed, exclusionary practices, of whatever kind, have no place in the system if the DES is to achieve the inclusive system envisaged as a goal of its current strategy (DES, 2015a). While social class has a very strong influence on educational outcomes, school social mix is found to have a very significant impact on post-school outcomes, with those who attended middle-class schools having particularly high levels of participation in higher education (McCoy et al., 2014). In contrast, young people who had attended working-class schools are much more likely than those in middleclass or socially-mixed schools to enter the labour market directly upon leaving school, even taking account of their Leaving Certificate grades (ibid.). However, in recent decades general school completion rates and transfer to higher education have improved very significantly. For example, Central Statistics Office data show that 38% of Irish 25-64 year olds had attained a third level qualification in 2011 and 48% of 25 – 34 year olds had a third level qualification (www.cso.ie). This places Ireland very favourably in the matter of attainment levels in comparison to many European countries. Nevertheless, in spite of these undoubted gains, there are still substantial inequalities relating to social class. The impact of a range of austerity measures brought into effect in all Budgets since 2008 is very likely to be a negative one in the area of social class inequality. These Budgets introduced substantial cuts in public expenditure, which impacted disproportionately on the poor. The effects are already evident. In 2008, 6.3% of all children aged 17 and under were living in consistent poverty. By the year 2014, the most recent Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) shows the proportion had risen to 11.2% (CSO, 2015). A recent UNICEF (2016) analysis points out that in Ireland, the household income of the child at the 10th percentile is 41.5% lower than that of the child in the middle of the income distribution – the median. Such is the level of child poverty in Ireland that the Children’s Rights Alliance in its annual Report Card (2016) awarded the government an E- grade on this area. This report points out that the children at high risk of poverty include children in lone parent families, children in jobless households, Traveller and Roma children, children living in direct provision centres, children with a disability, and homeless children. A range of recommended actions to address child poverty is included in this Report Card. While cultural and social capital plays a key role in educational achievement, there is ample evidence from Ireland and other countries that children from poor households are much more likely to do poorly in school and to have lower levels of achievement than others. An increase in child poverty will aggravate existing levels of educational inequality and will increase the risk of socially destabilising factors such as early school leaving, future unemployment, juvenile crime and early parenthood. — 117 —
Towards a Better Future: A Review of the Irish School System In the 1998 Education Act, an Educational Disadvantage Committee was established to advise the Minister on policies and strategies to be adopted to identify and correct educational disadvantage. The first Educational Disadvantage Committee presented its final report in 2005, with a comprehensive, evidence-based range of recommendations and strategies to address educational disadvantage arising from a range of circumstances, including of course socio-economic disadvantage. This Committee took an approach to educational inclusion and equality based on fundamental principles of human rights and social justice. It adopted six principles underpinning the proposed strategy: a rights-based approach to equality; the inclusion of diversity; integration of strategies, structures and systems; coherence of provision; focused target-setting and measurement; monitoring of outcomes and results (p. 27). Although the Educational Disadvantage Committee was established by statute under the 1998 Act and was clearly intended to have an ongoing advisory role in relation to disadvantage, it has not been replaced since 2005. Indeed, on the contrary, Section 32 of the 1998 Education Act, which established the Committee, was repealed under the 2012 Education (Amendment) Act. Such a Committee, were it to be re-established, could clearly play an important role in advising the Minister on evidence-based policy development and implementation. It is now widely acknowledged that a proportion of children (albeit a minority) continue to suffer from some form of abuse – either physical, emotional or sexual. Such abuse is not related to social class, per se, but in some cases can certainly lead to educational disadvantage because of its profound psychological effects. Thus, all schools must have a child protection policy. The DES has produced guidelines for schools, the most recent of which are Child Protection Procedures for Primary and Post- Primary Schools (2011b). These guidelines and procedures are based upon those in Children First (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2011) and provide substantial detail and guidance for schools and teachers. It is therefore a matter of concern that research has found that a significant proportion of newly-qualified (primary) teachers are unaware of the national child protection guidelines for teachers and the policies of their own schools (Buckley and McGarry, 2011). Half of the respondents in this study did not know whether their school had a child protection policy or not. Of those who were aware of their school’s child protection policy, only just over half had read it. Well under half of the respondents knew whether there was a Designated Liaison Person (DLP) with responsibility for child protection in their school. Furthermore, nearly two-thirds of respondents reported uncertainty or lack of confidence in being able to identify suspected child abuse. A significant number were also unaware of whom to contact if they encountered suspected child abuse. The study has also shown that the training received during teacher education has made very limited impact (ibid.). These results indicate a need for greater input on child protection in initial teacher education and in continuing professional development. — 118 —
Page 1 and 2:
Towards a BETTER FUTURE A Review of
Page 3 and 4:
Published in Ireland by IPPN (the I
Page 5 and 6:
Towards a Better Future: A Review o
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82: Towards a Better Future: A Review o
Page 131: Towards a Better Future: A Review o
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
show all

Towards a Better Future

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?