The Munster student has a history of classroom violence. He is back at school after appealing his expulsion. His teachers are furious, writes Louise Holden.

Martin* started post-primary school in September 2004. Within days, his teachers began to comment on the 13-year-old's inappropriate behaviour.

"The first time I had him in my class he kept spitting on the floor," a teacher recalls. "I knew that his confrontational attitude was likely to lead to trouble. I warned the principal that the boy was going to be difficult."

Complaints about Martin's behaviour began to filter through from staff.

It was a long list. Obscene language, refusal to stay seated, spitting and walking out of class were routine. By November of his first year, Martin's parents had already been called to the school several times and he had been suspended. In mid-November Martin was found in possession of a knife.

The incidents of indiscipline continued - and worsened. In February 2005, after an altercation with a teacher, Martin made a threatening remark and left the classroom. He later returned to the classroom unnoticed by the teacher and approached her from behind holding a hammer. The teacher became aware of his presence and took the hammer from him.

These incidents and others were investigated locally in the school by the year head, principal and teachers.

After several suspensions, discussions with the board of management and meetings with the Martin's parents, they were notified, in April 2005, that Martin was to be excluded from the school. His parents were advised in the letter of their right to appeal the decision under Section 29 of the Education Act. This option is available to all parents in the event of their son or daughter being expelled.

A hearing was held in June 2005 to consider the appeal made by the student's parents on behalf of their son.

The school gave evidence and the principal outlined a series of events culminating in a physical attack on a teacher. The principal reported that the student had started in first year in 2004 and that by October of that year, disruptive, aggressive behaviour was already being reported.

The school had four meetings with the boy's parents, which had not resulted in any change in Martin's behaviour, the hearing was told. The boy was released to participate in anger management training, but had refused to take part in the exercise.

The parents of the boy claimed at the hearing that they had not been informed of the nature of the incidents which led to the boy's suspensions and eventual expulsion. The first account, they said, was presented to them prior to the hearing.

The parents claimed that the boy's behaviour had improved after a meeting in November 2004, but that the school had failed to follow through on agreements made at that meeting, leading the boy to believe "he could do as he liked".

The committee decided that at this point in his school career expulsion would seriously limit Martin's life chances and his stated ambition, which is to get an apprenticeship. It was recommended that a behaviour management programme be put in place at the school, with the assistance of the National Education Psychological Service (NEPS) and that this should be carefully monitored.

It was recommended that Martin be reinstated under the condition that the principal would request the NEPS to provide a complete assessment and behaviour management plan for Martin, and that a mentor would be appointed to carry out a weekly review of his behaviour and the operation of the NEPS plan and report on this to the principal each week.

Martin's continuation at the school, the committee assured, would be dependent on his good behaviour.

He returned to the school last month.

His first action on the day of his return was to issue verbal threats to other students, display aggression, question the authority of the teachers and to use abusive language. He walked out of his first class shouting that "he didn't give a f**k about rules".

"This child has been out of school for a year, and now has been returned to the class he left," said a teacher at the school last week. "He is battle-hardened by the events of the last year. This is not fair on him or on the other students."

At this point, technology teachers in the school have informed the principal and the union that they will not accept Martin into their classes for health and safety reasons.

"There is no way I will take this student into my class, even if the department forces me," said one. "I will go sick. When he comes to class, teaching goes out the door. This child is only in second year now and he thinks he can do what he likes. Imagine what it will be like when he gets older and physically stronger."

In recent weeks, a behaviour plan was devised for Martin by the school psychologist, principal, year head, liaison officer and resource teacher.

Martin is now only admitted in the school building between 9am and 11am each day. If he gets three verbal warnings in one class, he is asked to leave. If he is asked to leave two classes in one morning, he is sent home.

Three days after the plan was implemented, Martin was involved in a violent incident in a corridor. Two female teachers attempted to break up the fight and asked watching students to help. They all refused, saying that "they would get a beating too."

Last week, the union representative at the school wrote a letter to the union describing the current situation at the school.

The situation, he warned, is intolerable and dangerous for pupils and teachers. He asked: "Where will the responsibility rest if the situation continues to deterioriate?"

*Martin is not the student's real name