Q. I have been offered a place at Brighton University. I won't have to pay fees but I simply cannot afford to maintain myself. I have sought help from the college and a British maintenance grant in vain. I am eligible for a grant here under the means test, but am told it cannot be paid if I study outside Ireland. Can you suggest anything? - Co Wicklow student.

A. I hope there will be some help available for you by the time you actually take up your place in September. Indeed, it probably depends on today's budget.

The Minister for Education, Niamh Bhreathnach, did announce last year that she was going to extend the student maintenance grant scheme to students studying within the EU, rather than restricting it to students studying within the island of Ireland as happens at the moment.

There has been no further announcement or move since then and I understand that it probably depends on the funds available after the budget. The situation as of now is that if you are eligible for a maintenance grant you can get it if you are studying in Ireland or if you go to Northern Ireland to study. But if go abroad - leave the island in effect - then you lose your grant entitlement.

There are those who argue persuasively that this in effect contravenes various EU regulations which provide for equality of treatment of students across the EU and urge that mobility of students be facilitated; and there is a strong possibility that, if it were ever tested, they would be right.

In your case you have a place on offer in Brighton which you could not get in Ireland and it does seem totally unfair that you should be denied a maintenance grant on this basis. It means that young people whose parents' can afford the maintenance are better placed as they have a choice of UK college places, whereas someone depending on a grant does not; we hope that the Minister's announcement of last year will be implemented in time for you.

Q. My daughter is doing her Junior Cert in the summer but her teachers have has missed 40 classes so far this year. I appreciate that teachers get flu, too, but we are alarmed at the number of classes she is missing and we are never given an explanation. Have we any rights in this matter? - Dublin parent.

A. I don't think there is an awful lot you can do and you are not the only parent to raise this problem with us. In defence of the schools, it has to be said that flus and winter bugs hit them as much as they do they do anyone else and that getting substitute teachers in is technically difficult for all sorts of reasons.

What you complain more about in your letter is the discourtesy, whereby the class is simply told "get on with your homework, Miss Smith won't be along today". To quote from your letter: "It is presented as so matter of fact that the children are easily led to believe that ah sure it doesn't really matter whether they miss a class or not."

It would be unfair on teachers if every time they had a health problem the class had to be told "Miss Smith is out with laryngitis", but I do think that you have a point in the sense that, as a parent, you have no idea whether it is teacher sickness, in service training courses or whatever which is causing the dropping of classes.

I don't think any parent should worry about a number of missed classes over the year, but if we are talking about 40 class periods in one term, then it would seem to me to merit at least the principal acknowledging to parents where the problem lies and what exactly is happening.

Generally speaking it is not feasible to get another teacher to take an absent teacher's class - a geography teacher cannot be expected to suddenly take a history class, so what usually happens is that the class is told to study or do homework and it may or may not be supervised by another teacher.

I would advise that you take the matter up with the parents' association and see if you can collectively find out from the principal what is causing the problem - and can the parents do anything to help.

Q. Our son's school closes down completely at lunch time, just simply locked up and everybody goes off to lunch. Yet, in other schools I notice students doing sport, projects and all sorts of thing over the lunch period. What is the official situation? - Dublin parent.

A. Most schools do stay open over lunch but I have had reports of a few schools recently which have taken to closing down entirely at lunchtime. And it does seem to me quite extraordinary.

You are talking about secondary schools and they do seem to have a lot of problems with providing supervision for the pupils if they remain open. As long as the school is open, then it is legally responsible for the pupils if any accident happens, for example. But if they officially close the school and send people home, then, it appears, they are not legally responsible during the closed period.

People outside of schools may not be aware that second level teachers are not obliged to supervise pupils during break or at lunchtime. In national schools it is the norm and the vast majority of national teachers undertake the boring - and very chilling job of patrolling the playground at break on a rostered basis.

This is not the case in most second level schools, however, and it is not unusual for the principal - or the principal and vice principal - to be the only ones to undertake this duty. It varies from school to school depending on how rigidly the school is unionised or how strictly union rules are implemented. But is common to see a poor, harassed principal patrolling the corridors on her or his own during break.

It is part of the wider problem of a very unsatisfactory management structure and a lack of definition of the duties of holders of posts of responsibility which forms part of the negotiations on the teacher early retirement package being negotiated at the moment.

Have you thought of offering the school a roster of parents for lunchtime supervision?

Q. According to the rules a student must be 17 years of age in order to qualify for tree fees or a maintenance grant. I'm not sure whether this refers to the January of the year in which they apply or the January of their first year of study. Could you clarify this? - Co Cavan mother.

A. It is the January of the first year of study. In other words if you're looking for a grant or to have your fees paid you should be 17 in the January of your first year at college. If it were the January of the year in which you applied, it would meant that people who would not reach their 17th birthday until, say May or June would be excluded and this would, of course, be totally unacceptable.

Frankly, I don't see why they have an age limit at all. It seems to me that if a person gets into college, then that should be enough. Why someone who is 16 years and 10 months in the middle of his first year should be denied a grant while someone who is 17 years should get it seems totally arbitrary.

Having said that, firmly of the belief that 16 is too young for anyone to go to college. I would think that a rough rule of thumb would be that students should be 17 by the time they start college. The average age of those entering college is rising all the time and colleges themselves report that students who are that little bit older do much better than the younger ones.

The way primary school operates now, most students would be 12 or near 12 on transferring to second level school. If they do a Transition Year that means they will be 18 on going to college. Even if they do not do Transition Year, with repeats and deferring, two thirds of all college entrants are aged 18 or over and one fifth of them are aged 19-21; a 16 year old would be at a very considerable disadvantage in that environment.