Vol. 574 No. 2
92 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science his plans for the implementation of the Education (Welfare) Act 2000; the projected date for its full implementation; his future plans regarding the level of resources to be allocated to the National Educational Welfare Board; if he has satisfied himself that the National Educational Welfare Board has the resources necessary to fulfil its statutory remit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26682/03]
94 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Education and Science if he proposes to increase substantially the budget for the National Educational Welfare Board for 2004. [26764/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 92 and 94 together.
The Education (Welfare) Act 2000 fully commenced on 5 July 2002. It established the National Educational Welfare Board, NEWB, on a statutory basis as the single national body with responsibility for school attendance.
The Act provides a comprehensive framework promoting regular school attendance and tackling the problems of absenteeism and early school leaving. To discharge its responsibilities, the board is developing a nationwide service to provide welfare-focused services to children, families and schools. It has appointed a chief executive officer, directors of corporate services and educational welfare services, together with a further eight head office staff. A total of 37 former school attendance officers who were employed under the previous legislation were transferred to the board in July 2002, in accordance with section 40 of the Act. To date, 27 of these have accepted in full the terms and conditions of the new grade of educational welfare officer. The remaining school attendance officers continue to carry out the duties which they performed under the previous legislation.
An additional cohort of 36 service delivery staff was also sanctioned for the board in May of this year. A total of 31 new staff have now been appointed and the remaining positions will be filled by the end of November. This additional cohort will bring the total number of staff in the board to 84 by the end of 2003.
The new services are being phased in and my Department has allocated a budget of €5.4 million to the board for 2003 for this purpose. Five regional teams are being established in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford and staff are being deployed in areas of greatest disadvantage and in areas designated under the Government's RAPID programme. A service will also be provided in all cases where children have been permanently excluded from education.
As provided for under section 10 of the Education (Welfare) Act 2000, I have instructed officials of my Department to work with the board to ensure that any opportunities for integrated working between educational welfare officers and staff on other educational disadvantage programmes whose work involves a school attendance element are exploited to the maximum. I consider the implementation of protocols for such integrated working on attendance matters between the NEWB and, in particular, the home-school-community liaison scheme, the school completion programme and the visiting teacher service for Travellers, to be most important. When in place, these will assist the NEWB in carrying out its remit and ensure that all available existing resources are utilised to the optimum.
The provision for the NEWB in 2004 will be made known tomorrow when the Abridged Estimates volume is published. The provision has been determined in light of developments to date, the overall resources available and the need to ensure a collaborative and co-operative approach by all involved in addressing issues of disadvantage.
I agree with the Minister that the Act is comprehensive. While it is technically correct to say that it commenced in July 2002, does the Minister agree that progress to date is disappointing? The Educational Welfare Board has a statutory responsibility to respond in a wide variety of situations. Does the Minister agree that the board is not in a position to respond and carry out its statutory duty because of a lack of resources?
The board has a role in carrying out reviews of training and guidance given to teachers. Is the Minister satisfied that the board is in a position to implement this function? The board also has a role in advising the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment about aspects of curriculum that, in its opinion, are likely to affect attendance levels. Does the Minister know whether any advice has, as yet, been issued to the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment? From speaking to the chief executive of the board, it appears that it is currently reacting and because of a lack of resources it is unable to respond in the way in which it would like.
The Minister referred to the board dealing with areas designated under the RAPID programme, and certain other areas but there are areas in which there are individual problems of non-attendance. Does the Minister believe the board is able to satisfactorily respond to all of these issues as they arise with the necessary degree of urgency?
I do not agree with the Deputy that progress has been disappointing. In setting up a new board it is always difficult to get it operational. People need to find their feet. It would be a big mistake to try and roll everything out at the one time. The board's approach to prioritising particular areas, first of all geographic areas, and second, children that are severely disadvantaged, is the right approach.
In regard to the question about guidance to teachers, the board is undertaking consultations with schools, teachers, parents and others with regard to the services. It recently established a school implementation group to try and advise on the working arrangements with schools. That is the kind of co-operation and consultation that is taking place. Last February the board also issued a letter giving general information on the service. It has been agreed that further details will be sent to schools in the near future.
I am not aware that any submission has been made to the NCCA. Frankly, I would not have expected the board to have made one so quickly. It will take some time for the board to discover the causes of absenteeism from school and to determine what parts of the curriculum, if any, are contributory factors.
While I do not expect the Minister to tell the House how much money the board will be given tomorrow, can he tell Members how long it will take to fully employ the 300 staff?
I never expected the board to have 300 staff members. That number was mentioned in a report which was commissioned by the board itself. For that reason, I have asked the board to discuss the matter with the various other providers addressing absenteeism in schools. In its pre-budget submission, the board recommended ending a number of schemes which are currently in operation for disadvantaged persons and the transfer to it of the moneys involved. I do not agree with that approach nor do I agree with the report the board received which said it needed 300 staff on the ground. I have therefore asked the board to talk to people who are working on the ground at the moment.
We have a home-school-community liaison scheme which has 503 co-ordinators in designated disadvantaged schools. Of these, 309 operate in the primary sector and 194 at post-primary level. There are 82 clusters of schools in the school completion programme and 40 visiting teachers. It is one aspect of the work of all of the above to deal with the problem of absenteeism and children who drop out of school. The priority for the board in the coming year should be to work out protocols whereby it will deal with the children who fall through the system. That would be a much better use of resources than adopting the attitude that the board has 700,000 pupils to consider and that it must do everything alone.
On the timeframe—
I have to call Deputy Crowe. I will come back to the Deputy if there is time. In fairness to other Deputies, I point out that she has had two questions on this.
The question has not been answered.
I welcome the establishment of the board and the move from sanctions to a welfare-based approach. Unfortunately, this approach will cost money. I note from the Minister's reply the number of staff to be employed by the board. Is the Minister aware that with this staff, the level of resources provided by the Department will allow the NEWB to provide an officer to only 26% of schools entitled to one? Is the Minister also aware that the board is legally obliged to provide this service? I am told that litigation has already begun. The theme at the press conference at which the NEWB launched its pre-budget submission was "save now, pay later". Unfortunately, if it continues to be the case that enough staff are not provided, we may be faced in 20 years time with litigation from young people who were not given the opportunity to take advantage of the system.
Does the Minister have any proposals to increase the staff numbers? What is the timetable for the implementation of the Government's plan? The numbers are clearly inadequate. It was hoped that we would move away from the ad hoc approach when the board was set up. Instead of it always being a case of plugging holes, it was hoped that there would be adequate staff numbers to meet needs. We all accept the importance of employing welfare officers to find out what is happening to children who are not attending school. However, if the necessary resources are not provided, the consequences will be felt in the future. People are already talking about litigation, which worries me.
Everybody welcomed the welfare approach to be adopted by the National Educational Welfare Board. I hope this approach continues to be adopted. For that reason, the NEWB should not consider itself in isolation as the only guardian of pupils who are in danger of dropping out of school or who are likely to be absentees. While it should consider itself to be the agency with responsibility for this problem, it should work in close co-operation with the various other parties to which I have referred. There are almost 700 people around the country who are specifically charged with the job of looking after children who are in danger of dropping out of school or who are involved in absenteeism. The mindset whereby the board considers itself to be the only body which can address the problem at this time is not helpful. I hope I can get that message across to the board when I meet with its members soon.
The board should use the existing resources and it should not view itself in isolation. The function of the board should be to put protocols in place to ensure that the maximum number of children are covered. The service will be rolled out though not perhaps on the grand scale originally planned. It will be rolled out as resources permit. The board should focus on ways in which it can deliver the service with the personnel it has at the moment and with the help of the other people involved in this area.
