asked the Minister for Education if, in the light of the commitment given in the Programme for National Recovery that the burden of adjustment in education would not fall on the disadvantaged, she will outline the steps which are being taken to ensure that those national schools recognised as disadvantaged for grant-aid but not for staffing purposes are protected from the effects of Circular 23/88's revision of the teacher appointment schedule; if she will designate a further number of schools as disadvantaged for additional staff purposes; if she will approve new remedial teacher posts; the steps she intents to take to ensure the replacement of non-teaching staff such as child care assistants when such posts are vacated in special schools; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Adjustment in Education.
Schools which are already recognised as disadvantaged for staffing purposes are being exempted from the revised teacher appointment schedule. This provision was agreed to in talks between the Government and the INTO under the Programme for National Recovery.
The posts of child care assistant in special national schools come within the terms of the Government directive prohibiting the filling of vacancies occurring in the public service. The Government directive applies to all areas of education, with the exception of teaching posts which are subject to pupil-teacher ratio rules. In the circumstances, it is not possible to authorise the filling of vacancies for such staff.
What I really wanted to know was why a disadvantaged area is not a disadvantaged area? Why are areas which under all the criteria are recognised as being disadvantaged not recognised as being disadvantaged by the Department of Education for the purposes of staffing in schools? Is the Minister aware of the ridiculous anomalies being created where schools side-by-side in the same disadvantaged areas have different staffing levels? Will she adjust this anomaly and accept all disadvantaged areas as being disadvantaged?
This differentiation as between being disadvantaged for staffing purposes and being disadvantaged for the payment of special grants has operated for some years. It is not a new arrangement. The House and Deputy Mac Giolla know that. There are two distinct schemes in operation and the inclusion of a school in one scheme does not automatically entitle it to inclusion in another. A total of 164 schools are included in the financial aid scheme which is operated by the special education section. Of these, 68 are also included in the payments section scheme of concession posts while a further 36 have applied for inclusion in the staffing scheme also. The remaining 60 schools are outside of that. I agree that an anomaly arises between those designated as disadvantaged for staffing purposes and those designated for grant purposes only. That anomaly has existed for years and when conditions improve it can be looked at by the Department.
The Minister has given bureaucratic reasons for the anomalies. Is the Minister aware of the effect on the schools which more than any others require remedial teachers, resource teachers, guidance counsellors and so on? Because of this bureaucratic decision these schools cannot have essential teachers. Will the Minister take this matter up with the Minister for Finance who is responsible for the directive and point out to him the anomalies and their effect on the children in these disadvantaged areas?
The arrangement whereby schools currently designated disadvantaged for staffing purposes are exempt from any changed ratios was worked out with the INTO and the Government and is included in the draft agreement. The anomaly to which the Deputy referred is an issue which I hope to put to the Minister for Finance at some time in the future.
This year.
Excuse me. I would like to do that but in the current climate this year it is not feasible. In line with the signed draft agreement between the Government and the INTO in relation to the staffing of schools currently designated as disadvantaged, existing arrangements will be maintained.
The programme did not make a distinction between——
Deputy De Rossa, please do not defy the Chair. Please resume your seat. I was about to call Deputy Birmingham and request a brief supplementary so that I might facilitate Deputy Quill also.
The Minister has conceded that there are anomalies here. Would she accept that the introduction of these anomalies into the arrangements for staff allocation negotiated between her Department and the INTO has produced some bizarre conclusions? I would put by way of example the situation which exists in Scoil Fhursa in Kilmore West where the girls' school is in the same complex, Scoil Íde, is regarded as disadvantaged for staff purposes.
The Deputy is referring to a specific matter worthy of a separate question.
Scoil Fhursa is not so regarded and the result is that it is doubly disadvantaged. Would the Minister accept that a school which is regarded as disadvantaged for grant purposes but not for staff purposes is doubly disadvantaged in that it does not enjoy the concessionary posts which are available and is subject to the less attractive PTR that is now in force?
The anomaly which I have readily recognised did not come in under my stewardship of the Department of Education.
It is an historical quirk.
It came in at an earlier time.
It is the children who count.
The Labour Party were in Government at the same time. The Deputy asked a particular question with regard to Scoil Fhursa. I would not have at my disposal the answer to that question but certainly I will get the facts and have them forwarded to the Deputy.
There is something inherently dishonest about the present classification as it is working on the ground. Situations of the kind described by Deputy Birmingham are to be found all over the country. Regardless of the administration under which this anomaly arose, I put it to the Minister that the obligation is on her to put it right. Surely it is the children who count. In relation to that part of the question which deals with the non-teaching staff, what is the Minister's policy on the appointment of school secretaries in schools situated in category A disadvantaged areas for the purposes of both grant aid and staffing? I have in mind a school in my constituency which has an enrolment of 913 pupils and provides in addition for two separate classes for the children of travelling families.
Deputies are tending to refer to particular cases. Deputy Quill ought to put down a separate question on that matter.
Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. In a school of that size coping with circumstances of that nature, does the Minister not think that a secretary ought to be appointed?
With regard to the first point raised, Deputy Quill used the word "dishonest". I am sure it was not used intentionally in the full meaning of the word. I and my Department want to be disassociated from the use of the word. I accept that the Deputy did not mean it in the sense in which she presented it to the House, but I wish to be quite correct with regard to my duties. With regard to school secretaries, that is not included in Deputy Mac Giolla's question and therefore does not warrant an answer. It is not encompassed in my answer but I would be very pleased to give the information if the Deputy puts down a separate question or meets me about the matter.
I am calling Question No. 11.
What about non-teaching staff?
I wish to ask a very brief supplementary.
The Chair will be obeyed.
It is only fair that I should have the opportunity of asking one further supplementary question. This is making a nonsense of Question Time.