IPPN

Good morning, everybody. I am delighted to be here once again in Killarney in the company of such an esteemed gathering of 800 school leaders, most-welcome guests and good friends.

I wish to thank you, Minister, for addressing our Conference and for your continued support of IPPN. It is very significant that half of our 800 colleagues present here today are Teaching Principals. This is due in no small measure to the provision, for the first time, of 2 days substitute cover for the IPPN Conference. Minister, I want to thank you for making this happen.

Being the Principal of a school is a job like no other. It is tremendously exciting to have such a key influence on the primary education of children. It is a privileged role and, although it's a word we don't often use, most of us love what we do.

Unfortunately, the job we love to do is becoming a bit of a stranger. As every year goes by we are being dragged further away from our core responsibility - leading the quality of teaching and learning.

Governance
One of the reasons for this, is the governance structure of our schools. Yesterday, our President Larry Fleming, spoke about governance from the perspective of patronage and ethos. Today I'd like to address school governance from another perspective: leadership and management. The current BoM structure was designed back in 1975. More than a dozen Acts of legislation have impacted on schools since. In addition, School Development Planning, the Revised Curriculum, the inclusion of children with Special Education Needs, newcomer children, DEIS and the Welfare Board, have all added their own incremental changes. My question is can the management system established in 1975 meet the management needs of schools in 2008?

It has been said that Governance is about doing the right things and Management is about doing things right. I would argue that the priority of a school board should be governance. I say this also, because it neither has the core competencies nor the capacity to deliver a management function. Management cannot be delivered by remote control. In reality, it is you the Principal who manages the school. Boards, or whatever we choose to call them, should be engaged in strategic planning, policy development and setting goals. Of course, such a model could only work if Principals are provided with skilled administrative support. Equally, professional services in the key areas of Finance, Human Resources, Health and Safety, Construction and Legal matters must be accessible to Principals and Chairpersons on a needs basis.

Our research shows that many Principals have a challenging relationship with their Boards of Management. Is it any wonder, when Principals often have to recruit, inform, train, advise and enthuse Board members and are, at the same time, accountable to this same Board? It is also fair to say that most Boards do not understand where their role finishes and the Principal's role begins. Such confusion is a recipe for conflict and is poor governance practice.

Because of the changing profile of the Irish population, it is inevitable that there will be changes to the governance of schools in the years ahead. My concern is that, unless professional management services are provided on a needs basis, new governance structures will be no more effective than the current Boards.

However, we cannot afford to wait for the perfect model. You are already asking IPPN to support Principals and new Boards with key information and guidance using podcasts and other easy-to-download briefing materials. We will be asking for your help with this in the near future.

In the longer term, for any new structure is to be effective, the Department and management bodies must provide Boards with

1. absolute clarity about individual and collective roles
2. meaningful training
3. procedures to address internal board conflict
4. department employed full-time administrators
5. payment for out-of-pocket expenses for board members

We must insist that our schools are given proper management capacity so we can return to our core responsibility - the leadership of teaching and learning.

Three years ago, with an eye to the future, IPPN made these points as part of our submission to the Oireachtas Committee on Education and Science. We have also undertaken a significant research project on school governance, the initial findings of which you will hear about tomorrow from Caoimhe Máirtín. OECD

Performance Management
In 2005, IPPN publicly stated that the issue of under-performing teachers and Principals needed to be acknowledged and workable procedures put in place. At the time, there was a predictable knee-jerk reaction. Since then, there has been a gradual acceptance that the issue must be addressed. The Department has begun developing procedures under the partnership agreement Towards 2016.

I am actually not comfortable with the term 'performance management'. Teaching and learning is not a 'performance', it's about the relationship of trust and confidence between the teacher, the child and the parent. Every Principal wants the best for every child and undoubtedly has a key role when it comes to the quality of teaching and learning.

We must also acknowledge that a small number of teachers do 'under-perform'. Those that Can't do their job - a competence issue; those who Won't do their job and those who Won't let others do - which are behavioural matters.

Problems with under-performing teachers impact directly on children, other teachers and on Principals. For decades, the system has continuously failed Principals when they try to address under-performance. New proposals for dealing with Performance Management will also fail to address the problem if they are more focused on the 'optics' of addressing the issue than actually doing so. The notion of allowing the staff group dynamic to self-evaluate quality issues in teaching and learning using the School Development Planning process has value but it cannot by it's nature conclusively deal with under-performance. The Department seems to be steadily shifting responsibility from themselves, the Inspectorate and the Board of Management, to Principals. This is despite the fact that, due to outdated thinking, IPPN have not been professionally consulted in relation to these new procedures - procedures which cannot and will not work unless Principals are on board. It is totally unacceptable that a Principals' Professional Body is not formally consulted about such a key issue.

At our County Network meetings, you were very clear that you want the independent support of the Inspector to enable you deal with under-performance. Addressing under-performance effectively can only be achieved by putting in place robust and realistic procedures where there are clear agreed roles for the Principal, the Inspector and the BoM. Of course, Performance Management applies to Principals too! But who will monitor and assess Principals? If they are to be credible, what experience and expertise will they require?

Benchmarking
Since 2000, IPPN has worked relentlessly to ensure that Principals' issues are to the fore. That's why a properly-researched, professional submission was made on your behalf to the Benchmarking Body in 2006. While the goal of a separate salary scale for Principals must wait for another day, it must be said that some progress has been made. It was unprecedented that one role within the entire primary and secondary education system - the Primary Principal - was singled out as deserving of a salary increase, albeit a very modest increase of between 1.7 and 3.9%. Hardly likely to start a stampede for Principalship!

The persistent highlighting by IPPN of the recruitment and retention crisis in Principalship proved to be a critical factor as it was one of the key criteria used by the Benchmarking Body in prioritising awards. I want to take this opportunity to thank the many Principals who assisted with IPPN's research which enabled us to publish Investing in School Leadership, a document which was widely regarded as the reason why Principals were prioritised. I also wish to thank those others who advocated on our behalf.

A separate salary scale for Principals is the only viable long term solution to address recruitment and retention problems as it will encourage teachers to seek promotion through the grades and create a steady stream of future leaders. This is particularly important in the case of Teaching Principals. The shortage of Principals is most acute in smaller schools. To reward Teaching Principals with a Principals' salary plus an allowance for their teaching duties, would radically alter the perception of the role.

The much-promised parity with second-level Principals was not achieved. According to the Benchmarking Body, only secondary schools have more than 36 teachers and furthermore, the role of the Post-Primary Principal is 'more demanding' than ours! It was only last week that I was talking with Pat Goff who leads a team of 46 Teachers and 28 SNAs. And he is one of many.

I wonder how many consultants it took to make such a blatant benchmarking blunder?
How could anyone in their right mind say, on the day the Benchmarking reported, that this was parity?
The Department has never had greater expectations of schools and school leaders, never had more tools of assessment of teaching and learning, never had greater emphasis on inclusion and integration. Minister, we need to learn from other high performing education systems worldwide and see how they have successfully used salary structures to incentivise teachers towards school leadership.

Inclusion
There are few words in education that trigger such an emotional response as 'Inclusion'. The majority of Principals have displayed exemplary commitment towards including the vulnerable, be they children with special needs, Traveller children, the New Irish or the exceptionally able. Yet when Principals call for greater resourcing for Inclusion, it is disheartening to hear the same mantra over and over again about the number of Special Needs Assistants and Language Support Teachers that have been put into schools at great expense. The tone of this message seems to infer that Principals and Teachers should feel guilty for this extra cost burden.

For example, how can such a critical service as NEPS be delivered on a quota basis like war-time rations and, in some cases, withdrawn arbitrarily? Minister, I fully acknowledge your personal commitment to prioritizing children with special and other educational needs. Nevertheless, you cannot at once take credit for delivering on Inclusion while, at the same time, complain about the high costs involved.

I genuinely believe that few people outside of schools understand the real impact that mainstreaming of children with Special Needs has had on schools during the last 10 years. The level of change introduced to classrooms in terms of children's' learning, behavioral and language needs has been unprecedented. The absence of a meaningful reduction in class numbers to balance the increased need of some children means one thing for certain: the child in the mainstream suffers. Perhaps this truth will not be recognized until some day the parents of a such a child will successfully sue the State for neglect.

Larry spoke yesterday about his neighbour's child Maeve and her future schooling. I wonder how Maeve would fare if she were in a class with a significant number of children with special needs? Would the current system ensure that she was not disadvantaged in her education? The General Allocation Model based on a formula of weighted resources is in itself a good idea. Unfortunately it's missing some key elements. If it is recognised that certain learning needs require weighted resources, then surely that should mean a corresponding reduction in the total number of children in Maeve's class.

Principals want successful Inclusion. To make it happen, we need access to services for all the children in our care, not just those who fit into predefined categories. In addition to the psychological services provided by NEPS, there is a pressing need for clinical psychologists, child psychiatrists, language therapists, counsellors and translators.

We have already seen the ugly side of getting it wrong. Our population is growing rapidly but over 99% of the children who enroll in our primary schools are born in Ireland and are kind enough to give us four years to prepare and plan for their arrival in school. Let's not blame the children for arriving in unexpected numbers. Last September we saw the return to almost biblical scenes of the innkeeper closing the door on innocent children only to be accommodated at the last minute in a 21st century stable - the prefab. As Principals, we have a moral duty to include all children in our schools which is why IPPN congratulates Archbishop Martin and the Boards of Management of St Patrick's and St Mochta's, and their Principals Padraig Clerken and Terry Allen, for showing leadership in piloting enrolment policies that reflect the diversity of their school communities. All Principals are duty bound to ensure that there are no barriers, real or perceived, that discriminate against any child in any school.

If the Department is serious about inclusion, a proactive approach needs to be taken to the enrolment of those they seek to include. It will require a radical change of policy to achieve a more even distribution of children with additional needs. We cannot allow ghettoisation.

Inclusion isn't cheap. Inclusion doesn't happen on enthusiasm alone. We acknowledge that significant investment has been made, Minister, but it requires strong moral leadership, with clear vision, planning, resources and especially, action. We want to ensure that every school can be proud of being fully inclusive.

After all, 'ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine'.

Health and Safety and Self-Care

The health and safety of Principals is a matter of growing concern to all of us. Minister, three years ago you told us in Citywest that you were going to prioritise the reduction of Principals' workload which is the primary source of stress for Principals especially teaching Principals. Colleagues, have we noticed any difference? IPPN was invited to participate in a Department working group to address Principals' workload and in-school management. The core issues of nailing down real time for in-school management and eliminating the veto against reviewing posts were taken back into Industrial Relations negotiations at the end of 2006. Because they have still not been resolved, not a single positive outcome for Principals has been achieved. It now looks as though the North Pole will have melted before Principals get an ISM circular!

Minister, Principals have always gone the extra mile, displaying generosity and integrity despite added responsibilities and workload. We have been taken for granted. If we showed similar disregard for pupils, teachers and parents in our own schools, we'd be quickly brought to account. Our patience is wearing thin. Even an elastic band has its breaking point!

What about the health and safety and self care issues for Teaching Principals? The 400 among us who have the unenviable task of being both Principal and Class Teacher experience a level of challenge that can only be appreciated by someone who has been in that situation. You are familiar with the guilt of neglecting your own class, with the frustration of being unable to fulfill two roles at one time, exhaustion from multi-tasking with no breaks and disillusionment from constant compromise. 'Ní féidir leis an gobadán an dá thráigh a fhreastal'

In 2005 IPPN's research paper 'New Horizons for Smaller Schools and Teaching Principals' broke new ground and provided brand new thinking on viable alternative structures for the multitude of small schools.

A recommendation in that report is worth mentioning. In the pupils' best interests and your own as teaching Principals, I strongly advocate that, where feasible, and with the approval of the Board of Management, you should not allocate yourself to a class teaching role but instead to a role of SEN, Learning or Language Support. But what about the circular that says you can't? What about it? Maybe it's not a good circular? Maybe someone should change it. Maybe you shouldn't wait until its changed! Maybe you should focus instead on the bigger picture. And maybe, one day, policy will yet again follow good practice.

Just remember, there are no Scott medals for bravery, no purple hearts or iron crosses for Principals making self-sacrifice in the line of duty. Being a Principal is like being on a treadmill. No matter how fast or fit you are, the treadmill can increase its speed to challenge you up to and beyond the point of total exhaustion. This is a serious health and safety issue for our employers and I don't believe they are taking it seriously. If you intend to continue in your role as Principal for the medium and long term, you must take control of your role, set reasonable limits and boundaries, learn to distribute responsibility and take all the support you can get from IPPN locally and nationally. If you don't, the role will overwhelm you and the consequences for yourself, your family and friends will be severe.

I believe that we need to be proactive agents of change both as individuals and as members of IPPN. We must take greater control over the aspects of the role that we can control and focus less on the parts we can't. A key challenge for IPPN as a Professional Body is to use our network as a more effective peer support mechanism. We must identify those Principals who are confidently in control of their role and enable others to benefit from their experience.
In my experience, the school leaders who have been most effective and who have gained the most job satisfaction are those who apply fresh thinking to their role and have a very strong instinct and self-confidence about what is the right thing to do for children. They do not rush in to take responsibility for matters that rightfully belong to others. They do not have a habit of seeking permission before making decisions and instead rely on the chances of forgiveness if they do get it wrong. They also have the ability to maintain a separate persona from their role as Principal. None of these personal qualities can be found in a book or learned on a course.

Minister, it's time that you and your officials began to realise that your interests and ours should coincide. Your department has worthy ambitions for primary education. All the experts say that Principals are pivotal to successful schools. Why is it that your Department flies in the face of international best practice by failing to meaningfully consult the Professional Body that represents Principals? Listening to IPPN and respecting the value of Principals' experience will guarantee your Department a truly fresh and creative approach to Primary Education.

If a group of people pursuing a common vision can achieve a lot, is there any limit to what can be achieved by a group of leaders? Each school day, 3300 Principals are responsible for the leadership of a half a million children and their 25,000 teachers in communities throughout our country. This operational phenomenon is a reflection of your leadership.

In the words of Martin Luther King, Principals live in 'the fierce urgency of now'.
We refuse to be trapped by old thinking, patterns of the past and outdated structures.
Let there be no doubt. Principals:

relish change â€Â¦Ã¢€Â¦ if it makes things better

see children â€Â¦ not race or religion

are leaders â€Â¦..and will be heard.
Friends, we broke the mould when 8 years ago we created IPPN - an independent professional Body for school leaders - and we have every right to be proud of it.

Through IPPN we give each other support, guidance, energy and most importantly an uncompromising professional voice. Never has it been so important that the authentic voice of Principals be heard. I thank you for the privilege of working on your behalf. Thank you / Go raibh míle maith agaibh.

ends