Vol. 439 No. 5
11 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Minister for Education the amount of capitation grant paid in respect of each pupil in secondary school; the date on which the capitation grant was last increased; the amount the grant would now be if it had been increased in line with annual inflation increases; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
The capitation grant payable in the case of secondary schools is £150 per pupil. This rate has been in operation since 1990.
The provision this year is being increased by £2.768 million, which represents an increase of 9 per cent. The increased provision will be distributed with particular emphasis on disadvantaged schools.
The details of the disbursement are being finalised and I will be making an announcement on the matter shortly. Had the rate of grant been increased in line with inflation since 1990, when it was last increased, it would now be £161.40, an increase of 7.6 per cent.
Will the Minister acknowledge that no organisation, institution or individual would accept a pay freeze for four years, which is the present position? The capitation grant is all that is available to schools to assist them with the running costs, heating and maintenance of the schools. It has been proven in a survey carried out by the Department of Education that there is massive discrimination against voluntary secondary schools when one considers that they receive £150 per capita for each student, whereas a vocational school receives £295 and a community comprehensive receives £258 per student. Why has the voluntary secondary system been discriminated against so heavily?
I am concerned about the level of capitation grant and that is why in this year's budget I announced an increase of £2.768 million in the area of capitation. We have had many lively debates in this Chamber on the unit costs facing the various types of school. There are three groups of schools involved. The voluntary secondary schools receive £150 per pupil. The Protestant schools do not receive any capitation grant but are in receipt of a block grant. In addition there are now in place the caretaking and clerical services that would have been included in the unit costs study. There is clerical assistance in the case of schools with 200 pupils or more. Then we move on to the different ways in which we fund students of the community comprehensive schools and Vocational Education Committee schools. I am conscious that different payments apply. I am sure Deputy Jim Higgins, having listened to me on previous occasions in this House, is aware that there is not a flat per capita grant because, under the various headings, there are different subheads. I have sought an increase in the Departmental budget because the capitation grant, not alone in secondary schools but in others, has not been increased since 1990. This was an increase that probably was overdue.
Would the Minister agree that, while there are many categories of grants available to schools, we have insufficient money for their payment? Does she realise that the most important committee within any school is that which raises funds for essential overheads, such as heating, telephone charges and office facilities? Would she not agree that, resulting from the lack of an adequate capitation grant, free secondary education is a myth, with her Department expecting schools to be run on a shoestring?
I share Deputy Ahearn's concerns, which is why I sought an increase in my departmental budget.
The Minister stated that more money would be made available for disadvantaged schools, which I welcome. Since the average will be 9 per cent, will she indicate the range of increases for schools, indicating the lowest and highest percentage increases? Since there are many disadvantaged pupils attending schools which would not be classified as disadvantaged, does she intend to make any provision to enhance the capitation grants to those schools that may have significant numbers of disadvantaged pupils but where the schools themselves may not qualify for disadvantaged status?
Because I am engaged in calculating the sums in respect of the range of increases I have not got the figure for the House at present. When I announced at budget time the increase in capitation grants, which affects not only secondary schools but also second-level students, I said we would be making specific arrangements to target some additional payment to schools deemed to be disadvantaged under the criteria used by my Department. That was something we put in place at primary level last year which was generally welcomed.
In reply to Deputy Gilmore's supplementary question about disadvantaged pupils in schools that are not classified as disadvantaged, all schools will qualify for an increase in capitation grant. There are schools where the number of disadvantaged pupils would be such that they would meet the criteria for a payment over and above that paid to other schools. We are monitoring the number of schools that qualify as disadvantaged under the relevant criteria. We are also examining the criteria used in deciding what is "disadvantaged". I promised the managerial bodies that I would inform them when we had decided on the amounts of money involved. The slowness arises from the fact that there are different kinds of schools at second level which must be taken into account. It will be seen that it is much easier to announce a figure in respect of primary schools on budget day. I want to be able to make an announcement covering the range of schools and be satisfied that the money targeted at schools qualifying for disadvantage will benefit whole communities, where schools have suffered because there has not been an increase in capitation grants since 1990.
When the new capitation rates have been struck, will the Minister guarantee that those rates will be index-linked, so that the yawning gap of £20 billion between the actual cost of running schools and the rate of capitation grants will never recur?
It would be foolish to give the House any such undertaking. However, I would hope there would be support right across the House not only for the index-linked improvements which will be effected but also for the assurance that more moneys will be made available. I am conscious of the needs of second level schools and I sought an increase in my Department budget. Without the support of the boards of management, parents and teachers, the task of funding second level education would be even more difficult. I hope I have the agreement of the House that there are communities who need more funds than others and that we will be in a position to announce the increases, specifying a special increase for schools that qualify for disadvantaged status.
On the question of examining the criteria for deciding on disadvantaged status the Minister is aware that there are a considerable number of anomalies. One school will be deemed disadvantaged, while a school across the road will not. When does the Minister expect to have a report available into these criteria? This is absolutely critical in some areas.
Deputy Keogh is correct in that in one case a boys' school qualified whereas the girls' school did not, generally the pupils coming from the same families. There are questions to be posed about the enthusiasm with which the boards of management reply to invitations from my Department to declare their needs in this area. The local inspectorate plays an important role. I am hoping to have preliminary recommendations on the usage of such criteria available by May next. I will make those recommendations known to Members of the House so that everybody, both within and without this House, will be informed of the ground rules to be applied when departmental funds become available.
There was a commitment in the Programme for Government, in the interests of access to and equality of educational opportunity, to target resources to communities not benefiting as much as others in that respect. I take on board Deputy Keogh's points. Members on both sides of the House have brought to my attention some interesting deviations, even within parishes, sometimes even within the same school complex where, say, at one end the boys' section qualifies whereas the girls do not, particularly in the case of brothers and sisters within the same families.
My final supplementary relates to the point Deputy Keogh made with regard to disadvantage about which there is much disquiet, particularly in relation to its assessment. Surely we should be examining educational disadvantage which applies in every small parish nationwide not merely in urban areas, although it may be easier to identify there. Many people in rural schools consider they are discriminated against merely because they happen to live in such areas.
Three criteria have been used to give an overall picture of any given community a particular school may serve, for example, the number of children of medical card holders, the number from local authority housing and those coming from homes without any employment. I take the point the Deputy made about rural deprivation. Probably the urban scene springs to mind glaringly because in such areas, not alone in Dublin but also in parts of Cork and Limerick, there might be whole communities in which 90 per cent of the parents of children attending school would qualify under the headings I have mentioned. However, I am having these criteria examined. I want to be satisfied that equity is ensured in this respect because we do not have sufficient moneys to target everybody. We must ensure that we target the most needy. While not committing myself in print or otherwise I hope that, by May next, the preliminary results of our examination of those criteria will be available to me.
And the Minister will publish them?
I will share them with Members of the House.
