Teaching Matters: Some readers expressed disappointment at my response in my Saturday column to School Matters, the report of the Task Force on Student Behaviour in Second-Level Schools.

One reader said that my response could be summed up as "the kids are alright" and that as such, it played down the seriousness of the problem facing teachers on a daily basis in second-level schools.

I can understand the frustration expressed, but still stand over the fact that young people in general are not as defiant and deviant as they are often portrayed in the media. Also, I continue to believe firmly that interventions at second level are often too late, and that greater emphasis on supporting families from when children are tiny would secure better outcomes.

However, none of that negates the fact, as I also said in my column, that a minority of young people are seriously disruptive and even dangerous, and that they can succeed in making some schools very unpleasant places for both students and staff. If evidence were needed, the preliminary findings of the TUI survey on discipline provide it, as did an Asti survey published three years ago. There are problems both with low-level, insidious, disruptive activities, and also instances of extremely violent and threatening behaviour in schools.

The surveys are difficult to compare because the TUI survey concentrates on a given week, while the Asti survey looks at a much longer time period. However, it is striking that 71 per cent of teachers in the Asti survey had experienced classes in the current school year where some students had engaged in continuous disruptive behaviour. A startling 97 per cent of teachers in the TUI survey had experienced disruptive behaviour in a particular week.

Broken down, the TUI statistics make for disturbing reading. For example, 50 per cent of teachers had witnessed "unacceptable disrespect and bullying and cruelty to other students by students in their class(es) or in the school". Twenty one per cent of teachers had experienced "unacceptable intimidating or threatening behaviour" directed at them by students. These figures give the lie to the Minister's statement that there is "no crisis". Of course she is right when she says that "by and large our schools are operating well and most students are getting a good, well-rounded education."

However, what about the schools that are experiencing continuous disruption? Even in so-called "good schools" there are alarming incidents that would have been unheard of some years ago, and an increase in constant talking, failure to bring books or homework, and in relentless attempts to undermine an atmosphere of work.

There are many sensible and solid recommendations in the task force report. However, the dust-gathering capacity of reports commissioned by government is legendary. There is one glaring and immediate problem that causes concern as to whether this report will soon be covered in its own thick film of grime. Minister Hanafin has only the painfully inadequate amount of €2 million to implement the report's recommendations. For example, she has announced a pilot scheme to bring behaviour support teams to about 50 schools. Every school in the State could probably do with input from such a team. Obviously, it should begin where the problem is most acute, but the service should be extended as rapidly as possible.

The same is true of behaviour support classrooms. Teaching would be a great deal more effective if students who are disruptive could be removed immediately. The "sin-bin" so beloved of tabloids is less than worthless.

If students are merely removed, a situation very rapidly develops where some students will deliberately misbehave, so that they can join their friends in the "sin-bin". In order for such a classroom to function, it has to be staffed with highly-qualified learning support teachers, and there is a crisis in the provision of learning support as it is.

The task force report is a valuable document, not least because it identifies who should take responsibility for various initiatives, and sets timetables for the delivery of some of them. However, without significant resources, nothing will happen. It will very rapidly become just a series of pious aspirations.

There is a strong recommendation that students with special educational needs should retain the supports that they had at primary school, and that the transfer from one to the other should be seamless. How long have parents and educationalists been begging for that? It also recommends that the current logjam in relation to psychological and clinical assessments should be resolved. Yet despite intense lobbying for years on the matter, the situation is nowhere near resolution.

Similarly, there is a sensible suggestion that year heads should be given less class contact hours in order to focus on discipline and its inseparable twin, pastoral care. It would have been even better if a similar recommendation had also been made regarding class tutors, who are often the unsung heroes of the system. It is not fair to expect key personnel who are to the forefront of meeting the discipline challenge to continue to shoulder the same amount of teaching hours.

The TUI stole some of Minister Hanafin's thunder on this issue. The timely nature of the research made some of her responses look weak and inadequate.

However, if the Minister manages to squeeze greater resources out of the Department of Finance, and put in place transparent and accountable systems to carry out the recommendations, she could still secure a high place in the pantheon of educational achievements.

Breda O'Brien is a teacher at Dominican College, Muckross Park, Dublin.