Written Answers. - Second Level Funding.
John V. Farrelly
Question:
179
Mr. Farrelly
asked the
Minister for Education and Science
the reason Catholic schools must raise funds to pay for insurance costs; if he will make funding available for this; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[4088/01]
John V. Farrelly
Question:
180
Mr. Farrelly
asked the
Minister for Education and Science
his views on whether every child in education should be treated equally; the reason Catholic run schools are being underfunded to the tune of £100 per head in comparison to other schools funded through the vocational educational colleges; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[4089/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 179 and 180 together.
I am aware of the demand by voluntary secondary schools for increased funding, including for the reasons referred to by the Deputy. The funding arrangements for the different school types at second level have evolved in a manner that reflect the different traditions and structures of the voluntary secondary, comprehensive and community and VEC sectors. This evolution has, by its very nature, generated funding anomalies and structures that lack uniformity and cohesion.
In the case of secondary schools, it is a matter for the managerial authorities of the individual schools to arrange insurance cover on school property and against public liability. Grant aid towards voluntary secondary school funding costs provided by my Department by way of per capita grants may be used for this purpose. In the case of vocational schools and colleges, insurance cover is arranged by the relevant vocational education committee. With regard to community and comprehensive schools, the State provides a general indemnity to the authorities of these schools in lieu of their taking out insurance cover against liabilities which may arise.
In this regard, I consider that the report of the steering group on the funding of second level schools represents a comprehensive review of the funding arrangements, including the matter of equity of funding between the different sectors at second level. While further work is required to bring greater uniformity and cohesion to this aspect of the funding of schools, my priority is to focus on the issue of adequacy of funding.
In this connection I have already shown my commitment through the establishment of the school services support fund, which is a significant initiative in the funding of our schools. A school with 500 pupils will now receive additional annual funding of £20 per pupil or £10,000, with a minimum payment for smaller schools of £4,000 per school. This fund will channel an additional £4 million to voluntary secondary schools each year. In addition, the standard per capita grant was increased to £184 from £177 in 1999. It was further increased by £8 from September last to £192 and will be significantly increased by £10 for the next school year. For a school with 500 pupils, this amounts to an extra £12,500 per annum, and a total capitation grant of £101,000 towards general expenses. An additional per capita grant of £30 per pupil is paid to disadvantaged schools, thereby bringing the total grant in the case of such a school with 500 pupils to £116,000.
My approach to date has clearly shown my commitment and determination to improve funding at second level and I intend to build further on progress to date.
