Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 7 Feb 1995

Vol. 448 No. 6

Written Answers. - School Grant.

Liam Lawlor

Question:

135 Mr. Lawlor asked the Minister for Education the reason a disadvantaged community college (details supplied) in Dublin 22 has had its school books grant reduced for 1994-95; her views on whether Circular M 34/94 was misleading with regard to these grants; if her attention has been drawn to the fact that the college submitted details to her Department confirming that all the students come from social welfare or low income families; if she will immediately restore the school book grant to at least 1993-94 levels; the basis for the policy decision to reduce the school book grant; and if the money saved is earmarked for other areas; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [2507/95]

The free book grant for schools in the vocational education sector is paid on a block grant basis to the vocational education committee and not directly to the schools. The vocational education committee decides on the amount of grant to be paid to each school in its scheme.

Revised arrangements were put in place by my Department for the allocation of grants for school books for needy pupils in respect of the school year 1994-95. The purpose of these revised arrangements is to ensure that resources are targeted at the most needy pupils and that there is greater equity in the distribution of available resources within the sectors and among the schools within the sectors. Accordingly, as a result of my Department's efforts to place this scheme on a more equitable footing, some vocational education committees incurred a reduction in the free book grant relative to the amount received in 1993-94.
The school in question is situated in the County Dublin vocational education committee area whose allocation was among those which suffered a reduction in 1994-95. In previous years, allocations made to vocational education committees were calculated on the basis of total enrolments within each vocational education committee area whereas, under the revised scheme, the calculation is based on the numbers of students who are classed as needy. Therefore, com-parisons between the allocations can be misleading.
Circular M34/94 stated that an advance payment of approximately 75 per cent of the expected grant was being issued. This was based on the number of needy pupils returned by the vocational education committees for the year 1993-94. The actual grant would be determined when a similar return was received for 1994-95. This return was due in September 1994. If the number of needy students returned for 1994-95 showed a reduction on the 1993-94 figure, as happened in respect of the vocational education committee in question, then the actual grant payable would be less than originally envisaged. The basis of the calculation of the grant was outlined in the circular and I do not accept that the circular was misleading.
In 1994 financial support for the setting up of book rental schemes by schools which have been classified as disadvantaged was introduced and the school in question received a grant for this purpose from a grant to the vocational education committee. When account is taken of this grant, the school's total allocation for school books shows an increase on the previous year. The total amount provided in the published Estimates for the public services for the provision of free books was fully expended on the scheme and no savings were achieved.
Top
Share