Vol. 435 No. 10
3 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Minister for Education if the figures published in recent newspaper reports of the unit cost study commissioned by her Department for primary and the different categories of post-primary schools for the school year 1988-89 are accurate; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
7 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Education if a recent report prepared for her Department by three economists showed that, in regard to primary and secondary schools, there was a gap of around £16 million between the capitation grants paid by the State and the actual running costs of the schools and that the shortfall was being made up by parents; if she will publish the report; if, in the context of a policy of free education, she will give her views on whether parents should have to make such contributions; and the steps, if any, she intends to take to increase funding to eliminate the need for such contributions.
18 Mr. Bradford asked the Minister for Education the way in which it is proposed to provide the cash difference between the actual cost of maintaining a student in the various post-primary schools and the current level of capitation grants made available by her Department to the different schools; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
24 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for Education the way in which it is proposed to provide the cash difference between the actual cost of maintaining a student in the various post-primary schools and the current level of capitation grants made available by her Department to the different schools; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
27 Mr. Cullen asked the Minister for Education the action, if any, she intends to take to bring about parity of capitation funding within voluntary secondary schools and State schools in view of the fact that the capitation grant for voluntary secondary schools has remained static at £150 per student for the past five years.
34 Miss Harney asked the Minister for Education the action, if any, she intends to take on foot of the result of a recent survey that confirms the disparity of 22 per cent between funding for State schools and funding for voluntary secondary schools; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
62 Mr. Crowley asked the Minister for Education the way in which it is proposed to provide the cash difference between the actual cost of maintaining a student in the various post-primary schools and the current level of capitation grants made available by her Department to the different schools; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3, 7, 18, 24, 27, 34 and 62 together.
The study in question was carried out by consultants from the Department of Economics in UCD and is based on expenditures in the 1988-89 school year. I do not propose to comment on the figures contained in the newspaper report as they are not set in the context of the total study.
Any conclusions drawn from the study must taken into account that: (i) it deals with expenditure for one year only; (ii) there are differences in the scope of activities provided i.e. in the ranges and types of subjects offered in the different sectors — voluntary secondary schools concentrate traditionally on the provision of academic subjects while the vocational schools and community and comprehensive schools provide a higher proportion of technical-vocational subjects which are more expensive to teach; (iii) in the vocational schools it was not possible to allocate costs precisely between general second level programmes and other courses-activities such as adult literacy and community education and vocational preparation and training programmes — as a result of the data on unit costs per whole time general post-primary pupil for vocational schools may overestimate some expenditures; and (iv) some cost items are not reported consistently because they are directly incurred by schools in some sectors and not in others.
With these reservations, I accept that the study indicates some disparity of funding as between the voluntary secondary schools and the other school types. The main element in the disparity is the pay costs which were being met at school level. In that regard, I would remind the House that since this data was gathered progress has been made in implementing the provisions of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to expand the caretaking and clerical services available to second-level schools. An additional sum of £2.36 million per annum is being provided for this purpose and the scheme will be extended as resources permit. In this way the imbalance of funding is being redressed.
Since the survey was conducted, there have been improvements in the funding for the running costs of national schools also. These improvements have been by way of increased ordinary capitation grants and required local contribution, additional grants for clerical and caretaking assistance and additional grants for schools in disadvantaged areas, totalling in all £7.75 million annually.
The State does not meet all the costs of national schools and voluntary secondary schools. In regard to parents' contributions, the funding regulations for the operating expenses of national schools require that a local contribution equivalent to at least 25 per cent of the State grant "shall be provided by the local parish community or other appropriate analogous community or body from the general funds at the disposal of such community and that there shall be no levy on parents of children attending the school" Contributions made by parents to voluntary secondary schools are not compulsory but such contributions where they are made are valuable and are appreciated.
Based on the figures indicated in the unit cost study and taking account of inflation in the intervening years it is estimated that the cost of meeting the shortfalls in funding for national schools and voluntary secondary schools are in the region of £4 million and £5.5 million, respectively. The case for meeting this shortfall has to be set in the context of other demands for educational funding and taxation levels. The report of the unit costs studies will be published when summaries and my comments on them have been prepared.
In view of the fact that the report has been with her Department since 1988, will the Minister say why it has not been published before now? After all, this is supposed to be the era of open Government, accountability and transparency. Is the general public not to be trusted with the information contained in the report? Article 42.4 of the Constitution states that the State shall provide for free primary education. What is the Minister's understanding of "free primary education" as enshrined in the Constitution? This report shows a yawning gap between what parents have to pay and what is provided by the State.
The report was not received by my Department until February 1992. I intend to publish the report, which has been the subject of some examination. Having regard to the need for fairness and transparency, it is only right that the report should distinguish between the funding given to various schools, the reasons this funding is provided and the headings under which it is provided. I am happy to make the report available. With regard to costs, the newspaper report referred to a difference of £32 between the capitation grant of £150 and the average cost per pupil in voluntary secondary schools of £182. The average cost of maintaining a pupil at secondary school included a sum of £11.44 for substitute teachers. This is not a cost as it can be recouped by the Department of Education. I am not saying there was not a shortfall in regard to voluntary schools, but we have to look at the different payments and the headings under which they are made. It is not correct to say that there is a difference of £32 when a sum of £11.44 can be recouped by the Department. After the report is published I will comment on it, and I will welcome the comments of the Deputy and other interested parties on it.
With regard to primary schools, a local contribution equivalent to at least 25 per cent of the State grant is provided by the local parish community or other appropriate body. In the case of multi-denominational schools this funding is provided in a different way. It became apparent during the recent national debate on education that we have very few, if any, free primary schools; rather we have a series of schools which are in receipt of State funding.
I wish to tell the Deputy, and those who have made representations to me for more funding in certain areas, that the question of choice in terms of the money available is a particularly difficult one at present. We have to decide how best to use the contributions by the State. All voluntary contributions are welcome but contributions are not compulsory although I have had cases brought to my attention about the apparent compulsory nature of some contributions. Parents who are worried about costs should bear in mind these are voluntary contributions.
Will the Minister accept that the amount of funding a local community must raise for the upkeep of its school is now far in excess of the 25 per cent capitation grant made available by the State and that the study to which we are referring confirms that by highlighting a shortfall of approximately £16 million?
Will the Minister accept that while the contributions in schools may be termed voluntary, when a child comes home with a note from the school requesting money, it would be a very hard-necked parent indeed who would not send the child back to school with the contribution? Will she also accept that while in theory these contributions are voluntary, in practice they are compulsory? Has the Minister plans to increase the capitation grant in the coming year, acknowledging that there was a modest increase in the grant last year? Has she any further plans in the lifetime of this Government to increase the capitation grant to shorten the gap and deal with the problem that parents and local communities have in raising money on a daily basis to keep their schools operating?
There has been a remarkable increase in funding to primary schools. The local contribution increased from £26.50 to £33 per pupil. There was an advance in the funding of clerical and caretaking assistance in primary schools which was an acknowledged drain on the resources of the schools. The cost to the taxpayer is £2.2 million annually. Since 1988-89 the Department of Education has designated schools as disadvantaged. The number of those schools has increased and those are the schools for which the Deputy and I have a common concern with regard to the burden placed on parents in the funding of their children's education.
The total additional grants paid to those schools increased from £316,000 in 1988 to £1,267 million in 1993. That is an extraordinary increase towards the operation and upkeeping costs of the school. The combined improvements in funding for the operation costs of primary schools is by way of the increase in the ordinary capitation grant, the required local contribution, the additional grants for caretaking and clerical assistance and the grants for disadvantaged schools. The Deputy must acknowledge that £7.75 million annually has been put into a system that urgently required it.
Referring to the second part of the Deputy's question in regard to the voluntary nature——
The Minister has not answered the first part yet.
I answered the first part. He stated that matters had disimproved but I am telling him they have not. In fact, schools finding it difficult to maintain standards of accommodation and conditions have been assisted dramatically in the last year compared to 1988-1989.
If the Deputy wants me to answer the second part of his question, I refer him to a reply I gave to Deputy Higgins. Voluntary contributions are obviously not compulsory. However, I take the Deputy's point and that is why I repeated twice what I said in my initial reply. We need to be able to give advice to parents who feel they are under pressure and that advice I have given on a constituency level — perhaps the Deputy and I share the same constituents — is that instead of embarrassing the child, the parents should write a note to the school explaining their position. I have asked people to get back to me if they have not had a satisfactory response to that sort of communication, which can be done privately between the school and management, not between the child and management. To date, nobody has come back to me in regard to this matter. Some parents feel they should contribute even though it is voluntary, and it is up to us to advise them.
The funding of schools through a capitation mechanism is one I particularly favour. With the increase in the grant to primary schools last year, we were able to target further the disadvantaged schools so that rather than giving a grant across the board we were able to top up the grant for disadvantaged schools which cannot provide the facilities available in other schools.
I am extremely concerned about the inordinate amount of time involved in dealing with two questions. As Members will observe, the time available to us for dealing with these important priority questions is fast running out.
Be specific, a Cheann Comhairle, it is because we are getting waffle from the Minister.
The questions are not the problem, it is the waffle we are getting from the Minister.
