Vol. 597 No. 1
1 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science if she will report on the responsibilities of and work undertaken to date by the National Council for Special Education; if she has discussed with the council the system of weighted allocation of resources for children with special educational needs; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [3283/05]
The National Council for Special Education was established in December 2003 as an independent statutory body with responsibilities as set out in the National Council for Special Education (Establishment) Order 2003. The council has 12 members, all with a special interest in or knowledge of the area of education of children with disabilities. There have been 71 special educational needs organisers employed by the council since September 2004. They are deployed on a nationwide basis, with at least one special educational needs organiser deployed in each county.
Each special educational needs organiser is responsible for the primary and second level schools in their area and have made contact with each of their schools and informed them of their role. A recruitment process for a further nine special educational needs organisers has been commenced by the council to bring its total up to 80 persons nationwide. In addition to the organisers, there are 17 staff employed at the head offices of the council in Trim, County Meath.
With effect from 1 January 2005, the National Council for Special Education has taken over responsibility for processing resource applications for children with disabilities who have special educational needs. Under the new arrangements, the council, through the local special educational needs organiser, will process the relevant application for resources and inform the school of the outcome.
The establishment of the council will greatly enhance the provision of services for children with special educational needs, resulting in a timely response to schools which have made application for special educational needs supports. The local service delivery aspect of the council's operation, through the special educational needs organisers, will provide a focal point of contact for parents, guardians and schools and will result in a much improved service for all.
My Department is reviewing the proposed new system of teacher allocation to primary schools to cater for pupils with high incidence special educational needs. In carrying out the review, my Department is consulting representative interests. A letter was recently issued to the council inviting it to submit its views on the general allocation model.
The weighted system that the Minister claims she is reviewing was not to come into operation until September 2005. However, I have the impression that it is already partly in operation. Teachers, principals and parents inform me that children with special needs are being refused services on the grounds that the school is, for example, an all-girls' one with fewer resources. There appears to be much confusion in this area.
If a child is refused resources under either the weighted system or the existing one, what recourse does the child or his or her parents have to the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act and the National Council for Special Education? While the proposed weighted system will deal with mild disabilities, the Act has no specifications on mild or more severe educational disabilities. Children with milder disabilities are being refused resources under the so-called weighted system.
The circular was issued last summer and will come into effect in September 2005. It was never the intention that the weighted system per se would be implemented prior to that date. In the interim, any applications received have been decided on the basis of needs. The idea behind the weighted system is that the staff member will be already assigned to a school or schools to pick up these needs without the need for individual applications. However, it is still not being implemented. In October, I announced a review of it on the basis that small, rural and disadvantaged schools would most likely lose out through the system.
The idea behind the system is to ensure the needs of the children with more serious learning difficulties continue to be met. They of course will still be able to go through their individual applications and their needs will be met for whatever number of hours on an individual basis. The new system will ensure that the needs of children with mild learning difficulties will be picked up in the school. These can be identified by the school, the parents and now the added expertise of the special educational needs organisers.
Many children whose needs have not changed and who previously had a service have been refused resources in recent months. The assumption made is that the schools were operating on a different policy. I have come across a number of cases where it was the principal rather than the psychologist or the Department who informed the parents that their child did not come under the system. This confusion needs to be cleared up.
Services are provided on the basis of the psychological report and the identified needs of the child. If it has been identified that the child does not need the service then he or she will not receive it. The main idea is to have someone in place for all students with high incidence of special educational needs, approximately 10% of the school population. Having heard the views of the council and other partners, I intend to have a system in place in September.
2 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Education and Science if her attention has been drawn to the fact that hundreds of schools throughout the country will lose resources which were allocated to their students as a result of psychological assessments if the proposed weighted system as outlined by circular SP ED 09/04 is implemented; if no child will lose resource support already granted; the way in which she proposes to amend the proposed weighted system; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [3188/05]
The proposal involves a general allocation to all primary schools to cater for pupils with higher-incidence special educational needs, that is, pupils with borderline mild and mild general learning disability and specific learning disability. The allocation is also intended to support those with learning support needs, that is, those functioning at or below the tenth percentile on a standardised test of reading or mathematics. This approach to allocating resources for special educational needs is in line with thinking in many European states. An additional 350 teacher posts will be provided to facilitate the introduction of the new system. Individual applications may continue to be made for specific resource teacher allocations in respect of pupils with lower-incidence special educational needs.
Difficulties may have arisen with the allocation under the proposed model for children in small and rural schools if it were implemented as proposed. Accordingly, last October I announced a review of the proposed model to ensure that it provides an automatic response for pupils with common mild learning disabilities, without the need for cumbersome individual applications, while ensuring that pupils currently in receipt of services continue to receive the level of service appropriate to their needs. The review involves consultation with representative interests and the National Council for Special Education. It is intended to implement it in the next school year.
I protest that I cannot get information on the number of children waiting for special needs resource teachers and assistants. The answer I have received is that the National Council for Special Education was put into effect on 1 January so figures are not available.
Will the Deputy stick to the question?
Will the Minister agree that while the new system is administratively easy, it is unfair, as proved in a series of reports? These reports include the study carried out by the national educational psychological service in the Dundalk and Leitrim areas that showed the wide divergence of needs varying from a school that might not need resource teachers to one that might need over 50%. However, all schools will operate under a quota system. Will the Minister do a much more thorough review of rural and small schools? Disadvantaged schools will particularly suffer under the new system.
In a reply to a parliamentary question on 26 January 2005, the Minister stated that students would continue to receive the level of service appropriate to their needs. Will they continue to receive a service equivalent to a 11:1 pupil-teacher ratio in a special school, which is 2.5 hours individual resource teaching in a mainstream school? Is the Minister aware that over 1,000 schools will lose resources which, by way of psychological assessments of pupils, it has been proven they need, while other schools will gain?
I ordered the review because I was conscious that many schools would lose out, particularly disadvantaged, small and rural schools, which I would not like to see happen. The basic principle is that it is a good idea to have the teaching staff in place in the school rather than children having to wait to have their psychological assessment review carried out or to have an application responded to. It is a good idea to operate in this way, while ensuring that children receive the service appropriate to their needs. It is hoped that by providing extra resources, children who go through the school system and who might have received special attention in senior infants or first class may not need it in second or third class.
The low ratio to which the Deputy referred was worked out on the basis that approximately 3% of children would require a more intensive programme for two and a half hours. These children can still apply individually, based on the psychological report, for that level of resources.
The Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act suggests that children will be entitled to an individual assessment and statement of needs, yet this quota system is taking away that right before the legislation is even implemented. Will the Minister comment on that aspect?
I do not accept this is the case. It targets the 10% of children who are expected to have learning difficulties in the field of literacy and numeracy. We will continue to make special provision for children with extra special needs and those with more severe difficulties who fall into the 3% category. Their needs will continue to be met. However, the idea is that support will be in place for children who may need a little help with their literacy. I do not accept that the legislation removes children's rights. In fact, it will ensure their needs are met more quickly rather than having to endure the cost involved and engaging in the cumbersome task of making an individual application.
3 Dr. Cowley asked the Minister for Education and Science the stance which her Department is taking in connection with the allocation of a permanent building or building site to a school (details supplied) in County Mayo; if the case of this school will be prioritised to ensure the continuation of it; if the long-term continuation of this school is guaranteed; if the continuation of this school is a priority within her Department; when this school will have a permanent location; the plans for this school; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [3187/05]
The school referred to by the Deputy opened in September 1996 with provisional recognition and was granted permanent recognition in 2000. My Department provides grant aid towards the rental of temporary accommodation for the school at a rate of 95% of the rental costs.
The property management section of the Office of Public Works, which acts on behalf of my Department in regard to site acquisitions generally, is exploring the possibility of acquiring a site for the school referred to by the Deputy. Due to commercial sensitivities, I am unable to comment further on specific site acquisitions. The permanent accommodation needs of this school are being addressed as expeditiously as possible and the provision of a permanent building for the school will be progressed when a site has been acquired.
Does the Minister agree that the current situation is desperate for the 198 pupils and nine teachers involved, a number which continues to grow? Does she agree that the school, which already has 12 children on the waiting list for the 2005-06 school year, has already been forced to move three times? It already consists of five second-hand pre-fab buildings. The school has received notice to quit these buildings by 2006 and the lease is non-renewable. Does the Minister agree that 200 pupils will be on the street in 15 months' time unless alternative accommodation is provided?
I received a reply to a question last December that the OPW was examining the site. Does the Minister agree that the OPW was asked in 2001 to examine the site and it decided in 2004 that it was not successful? Does she agree that this is a problematic situation for the school which is in a highly populated area and which received permanent recognition from the Department? A report on the health and safety aspects, which the board of management commissioned, is shocking. The five pre-fab buildings were bought second-hand six years ago and suffer dry rot and wet rot. Given all this and the eviction notice to the school, the Minister will need to be more specific in her reply to the good people of Westport. Is she saying that this is not a priority situation and, if not, why not?
Tá Gaelscoil na Cruaiche tar éis fás from 30 pupils initially to 183 as and from September 2004. Gan aon amhras, in áit mar sin, nuair a bhíonn gá le foirgneamh, tógaimid é. However, we cannot erect the building until the site is available. The Department is actively pursuing a site to ensure the needs of the school are met. I announced in a recent building programme 122 different projects. This did not include schools for which we did not have a site, because obviously these could not be listed. When sites become available, these schools will be included in the programme.
There must be a solution to the problem within the next 15 months. Will the problem definitely be sorted out in 2005?
I am conscious of the fact that the lease is due to expire on 30 May 2006. As a result, we are anxious to ensure that the site difficulties can be addressed.
4 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science the progress being made on the implementation of the recommendations of the task force on the physical sciences; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [3284/05]
There were 39 recommendations in the report of the task force on the physical sciences, four of which do not apply to the education sector. Their costed proposals total €244 million, of which €66.3 million would be a recurring annual cost. Progress has been made on 25 of the recommendations. In particular, important progress is being made in regard to curricular reform and in-service support, with new syllabi already implemented in leaving certificate biology, physics and chemistry, revised syllabi in primary science and junior certificate science beginning in schools in 2003-04, and work under way on a new leaving certificate physical sciences syllabus to replace the physics and chemistry combined syllabus. All these developments are being or have been supported by national in-service programmes for teachers.
Another development is resourcing, with substantial grants issued to schools at primary level in 1999, 2001 and 2002, an additional per capita grant for physics and chemistry at leaving certificate, a capital grants programme for senior cycle science, information and communications technology and science equipment, the implementation of a once-off grant scheme to support the implementation of the new junior certificate science syllabus, and ICT integration projects in teaching and learning under the schools IT initiative and the new TV Scope programme in partnership with RTE, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment and the National Centre for Technology in Education.
Other developments include the provision of materials and publications to schools to promote the attractiveness and relevance of science for students as a subject option and career path, reviews on mathematics, grading of subjects in the leaving certificate, gender equity issues in science and initial reports on teacher training undertaken. Awareness measures supported by industry and third level colleges and which link with schools have been introduced, and the new discover science and engineering programme was launched in October 2003 which brings together all the existing awareness activities in a unified strategy. Investment in the programme for research in third level institutes continues apace to enhance and promote world class standards in research, innovation and development.
That reply is practically identical to one I received from the previous Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, on 30 June 2004. I would not have submitted the question if I thought I would receive the same reply, because it is already on the record. I submitted the question again because I wanted to know what progress has been made since June 2004. I presume the answer is none, because if there had been progress, I may have received a different response to my question today.
As the OECD report has since been published, my question does not relate to that. That report pointed out a number of aspects, including the fact that we are engaged in a catching-up process that will require sustained investment over a long period. The task force on physical sciences should have been the beginning in this regard. If progress has not been made in the last six months in implementing the recommendations, rather than quoting what has happened following the report, how does the Minister intend to progress the remaining recommendations? Some progress has been made on 25 of the recommendations but there has been no progress on 14 of the recommendations, ten of which are the responsibility of her Department. How does the Minister intend to go forward with the implementation of the task force?
I am committed to ensuring that we increase the standards of science and the facilities available to its teaching in our schools. Before Christmas I allocated capital funding for schools for science and science teaching. Equally, some of the proposals involve extraordinary expense though they would no doubt be very valuable, such as the employment of school laboratory assistants, which would cost an extra €18.8 million annually. This would raise questions for other practical subject teachers such as woodwork, metalwork and home economics teachers, who would not have assistance. Such assistance in those areas is not found throughout Europe.
We invested substantially in the development of school science laboratories last year and this year to upgrade them so that the syllabus can be introduced as needed. We are moving forward in every way we can but some developments, such as employing laboratory assistants, are not currently feasible. Other major developments such as in-teacher training can, however, have a huge impact on schools and teaching if new approaches are introduced. The use of technology and its application will also help the development of the sciences.
Regarding the implementation of the task force recommendations, will the Minister tell us which of them cannot be implemented so that people can discuss the merits or otherwise of what is there rather than indulging in a vain hope that it will all happen eventually, because it will not?
My aim is to progress as many of the recommendations as possible. A day may come when we can employ laboratory assistants in schools but it has not yet arrived. it would not be appropriate to say we will not employ them when I hope some day we will.
Is there a timescale?
It depends on the budgetary facilities each year. Currently there are more pressing needs but as those needs are met we might be able to divert funding elsewhere.
"Never" is the answer.
5 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Education and Science the reason for the change to the format in which the schools building programme has been changed; when the remainder of the information in this regard will be published; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [3189/05]
The allocation to the schools building and modernisation programme for 2005 amounts to €493 million of which €270 million is being allocated to schools at primary level and €223 million to post-primary level. This represents an increase of 14% on last year's allocation. The programme is underpinned not only by a significant increase in overall funding but also by major improvements in the administration and management of the funding.
My Department is moving toward a model of devolving funding, responsibility and authority as appropriate for building projects directly to school management authorities. The devolving of funding to local level will allow schools to have ownership of their projects and assist in moving projects in a specific timeframe to tender and construction and will also deliver better value for money. I have indicated that I plan to increase the level of funding available to schools under the small and rural schools initiative and I will make further announcements in this regard shortly.
The introduction of multi-annual capital envelopes requires a revised approach to how building projects are scheduled through the design process and on to tender and construction. Projects must be in the pipeline so that there is a smooth flow of projects through all stages.
The experience in 2004, whereby a record number of projects were selected for proceeding to tender and construction at a single time, while ideal in the context of announcing the entire building programme in one annual announcement, makes it less easy to take account of emerging trends generally and specific issues arising on individual projects such as delays in getting planning permission. I decided, therefore, to announce details last month of 122 major projects which will prepare tenders and move to construction in the next 12 to 15 months. While some of the projects will be ready to go on site earlier in the year than others, all the projects should be capable of being put on site in that timescale.
I will follow this recent announcement with a series of announcements relating to the school building and modernisation programme that will include details of schools identified as suitable for construction under public private partnerships, an expansion of the number of schools that will be invited to deliver their building projects on the basis of devolved funding, details of schools with projects approved under the 2005 summer works scheme which is being allocated €60 million, almost twice that spent in 2004, schools whose projects will further progress through the design process and schools that will be authorised to commence architectural planning.
I assure the Deputy that the changes to the format of the school building programme will in no way detract from the level of openness and transparency which is an ongoing feature of the programme.
I thank the Minister for her answer. I take her point about transparency but there remains much confusion abroad. The document that people could download to see exactly where their school stood provided a great deal of transparency that does not appear to be there this year.
Regarding last year's funding, the Minister told us in the House on 25 November that primary and post-primary schools would not be at a loss as a result of underspending last year and that the €50 million was all she expected to have to carry forward. Media reports suggest that there may by tens of millions of euro lost to the schools building fund. Will the Minister clarify that point and say whether money was lost to that fund or whether it was only the €50 million which was to be carried over?
The Minister seemed to suggest there would be more schools on the devolved list this year. Will she say if that is the case? There is a concern in growing areas, particularly around Dublin in counties Meath, Kildare and Wicklow, about the urgent need for school places. They are not getting much information from the Department, particularly where site acquisition is involved. Will the Minister clarify matters for those people in desperate situations who feel they will not have school places for their children in the near future?
The document referred to will be available for all to see, as it was before. It is being done in stages. The only information currently available relates to the 122 projects at the top of the list, ready to go to tender, to go on site and proceed towards construction. The next list will be of the small and rural schools projects and the permanent accommodation projects which I hope to organise soon, with the other projects which I have set out. We will also announce and place on the website the stage reached by every school in the country and what stage each is moving to. Rather than doing this with one big-bang approach we will be able to keep a better eye on the flow of work. All the information will be available, open and transparent, on the website, as it was before, with links for further information.
I intend to increase the number of schools under the devolved scheme. It worked very well, particularly in rural areas where we were able to get good value for money with local builders, people who perhaps might have had an interest in the local school or were parents of children at the school. They were able to do the work well locally. Given the success of that and that half the schools in the country have four or fewer teachers, that is an appropriate way to proceed, to give schools devolved funding. I have also doubled the amount under the summer works scheme because over the summer months many schools will be able to sort out, under that funding, any real problems they have.
Last year's underspend happened for various reasons, including planning permission and so on. An appeal in one case meant that there was an underspend of €2 million on a single school. There were difficulties in getting tenders, site purchasing, delays from design teams and so on, but the good news is that there was no money lost to the system and we were allowed to carry forward the €50 million. Nothing was lost in the end.
Was more than €50 million carried forward?
No. We carried forward the exact amount we were allowed. No capital funding was lost. We were allowed to carry forward €50 million and we did so. Quite a number of bills arrived towards the end of the year, as they tend to, but nothing was lost. The lessons learned from the delays last year are helping me to feed into the process this year for the building programme to ensure we have enough in the system to move it along.
6 Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Education and Science the extent to which the PPP model will be used in the schools building programme for 2005; if she will address the concerns outlined by many commentators regarding the usefulness and cost effectiveness of this model; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [2995/05]
My colleague, the Minister for Finance, provided a capital envelope of €555 million in respect of education PPPs for the period 2005-08. My officials are examining how this may be best utilised. A number of issues will have to be determined before I make a decision on the allocation of these funds.
Those include the type of PPP model to be used, the level of operation and service to be included in any new programme, how the projects should be bundled so as to provide the most cost-effective procurement and the size and geographical spread of the bundles. Only new building projects on green-field sites that have been prioritised using the criteria agreed with the education partners and published by my Department are eligible for consideration under my Department's PPP programme. I will be announcing the programme in the near future.
One of the most striking aspects of my Department's PPP programme to date is the high quality of design and materials. By investing up front in design and construction, the cost of ongoing maintenance over the 25 year contract is significantly reduced.
Speed of delivery is one of the very attractive aspects of PPPs. The total time required to procure the five schools using the PPP approach was around three and a half years. Under the traditional approach to the procurement of new schools, the comparable elapsed time typically averages four to five years. The pilot project has provided the State with five exceptional schools, fully serviced and maintained over the next 25 years.
Ultimately, the full value for money represented by PPPs, including my Department's grouped schools project, will be determined over the 25-year life cycle of the project. It is too early in the life of the contract to carry out such an assessment. That point was acknowledged by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his report on the grouped schools' pilot project.
My Department is an active participant in the interdepartmental group on PPPs headed by the Department of Finance's central PPP unit, whose remit is to provide guidance and support to the PPP process in the public sector. The lessons and experience gained during the schools' pilot project have significantly assisted the formulation of that guidance. In addition, the National Development Finance Agency was established as a result of the pilot PPP programme to provide expert financial advice and assistance to the public sector for major capital projects.
Perhaps the Minister might comment on the Comptroller and Auditor General's point regarding the fact that the schools so far constructed cost more than they would have if built under the normal system. Secondly, concerns have been documented about PPPs in Britain. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the long-term implications. Has she had any complaints about access to the schools for other community purposes in the evening, or are the PPP schools available to the community for night classes?
The cost of the schools can really only be ascertained over the long term. The chances are that the schools now built under PPP would not yet have been built otherwise, meaning the costs would have gone up in the meantime. There is no doubt that they are state-of-the-art schools with superb facilities, but were we to start building them now, which is probably about right, they would cost us a great deal more. As I said, the benefits can be seen over the longer term. Learning from the PPP process happening in the UK was behind these pilot projects. They were a learning experience, and we learned from building those schools, using that experience in building the National Maritime College in Cork, which has now become the benchmark for PPP procurement. We have already gained from the expertise of building the schools, and that experience will now feed into our ongoing PPP programme.
Access to the schools is very good. I believe that they were offered 320 hours outside the normal school day for community use, adult education, sports facilities that could be rented out to local groups and for parent-teacher meetings and other activities that would go on in the school. I have not heard anyone say that it was not sufficient for them. Part of the contract for the maintenance is that lighting and heating must be available every day. I understand that quite good use is being made of them, in particular, Ballincollig has a superb adult education centre run through the school using all the facilities of the school after normal hours.
Who sets the costs for community use and is it viable and affordable for all communities? There have been some teething problems. It has been said to me in one of the schools that I visited that basic repairs can be difficult since, instead of simply going to the Department, one must now go to the company and then to the Department. That can be for quite small matters. For larger concerns, it is not a problem and is probably better than the regular building programme, but I believe that it can be difficult for small things.
Some of the schools that I visited have very visible machines vending Coke and similar products, as well as a fast-food element in their canteens rather than healthier food options. That seems to be outside the control of the school principal and the board of management, and perhaps the Minister might comment on it. I know some schools are hopeful of being included in the PPP process when it is announced in the coming weeks but are anxious to retain control over such issues within the school.
Regarding community use, the idea is that the school becomes a community asset. Under the terms of the project agreement, it is the operator who can market the school premises to generate income. The agreement provides that schools each have access to the premises for 350 hours outside the normal school day, which is quite substantial. Initially, the schools thought that 150 hours would be enough. I have already mentioned the school in Ballincollig, and Jarvis entered into an agreement on use of the fitness facilities in the community school in Shannon, generating income for the school. Jarvis appears to be the people who can market that.
Perhaps I might also answer the question relating to fast food. We are considering that regarding any future PPPs. They all have canteen facilities and serve hot food, so we want to ensure it is healthy. It is a strange irony that people who have spent years giving out about the Department now find it more difficult dealing with a private company.
Can they market anything they wish, or are there guidelines?
They are marketing the facility.
I mean the Coke machines and so on.
That is among the matters that we want to examine in the next bundle, but it is currently outside the control of school management.
In theory they could market anything, even something at total variance with education policy.
Play Stations.
7 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Education and Science if the full statutory remit of the national educational psychological service is being implemented; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [2971/05]
In February 1999, the Government decided to establish the national educational psychological service with delegated authority to develop and provide an educational psychological service to all students who need it in primary and post-primary schools and in other relevant centres supported by my Department. The Government also agreed that NEPS should be established in the first instance on an administrative basis as a dedicated executive agency of my Department and with an initial development period of five years.
NEPS was established accordingly with effect from 1 September 1999. It has not been established on a statutory basis and remains part of my Department. Following the recruitment of additional psychologists, there are now 128 psychologists in NEPS, compared with just 43 in 1999. Taking account of psychologists elsewhere in the educational system, it is estimated that there is now a total of approximately 145 in the sector.
The last Civil Service Commission panel of 69 entry-level psychologists has recently been exhausted and my Department is currently in contact with the Department of Finance with a view to securing sanction for the recruitment of additional psychologists to NEPS before the end of 2005. Further recruitment will depend on the availability of resources and must also take account of Government policy on public sector numbers.
At the end of 2004, NEPS was providing a full psychological service to approximately 60% of schools and 75% of pupils. To provide an assessment service to those schools that do not yet have access to the full NEPS service, my Department also funds NEPS to operate the scheme for commissioning psychological assessments.
Currently, NEPS has 28 administrative staff. As well as staff based in head office, NEPS staff are based in eight regional offices and in 11 local offices, the latter figure including several temporary offices.
The Minister said regarding the weighted system that the rationale is that children will not have to wait for as long as previously. However, I conducted a survey last year that showed that one in four had been waiting for more than nine months to be assessed by NEPS despite, I imagine, the extra resources outside NEPS assessments, or the scheme of commissioning as the Minister terms it. Does the Minister know the current figure or how long the waiting list is? Does she agree that many of the delays were within NEPS or her Department and that it was not the fault of the children, their parents or, in many instances, the schools? The Minister says the delay is necessary for the weighted system, but that was within the control of her Department. Perhaps we should examine that before we consider other systems to resolve the matter.
One difficulty that could be identified is that not all psychologists are willing to work in all areas, and it is becoming difficult to recruit psychologists to work in particular areas throughout the country. They are now working to try to target their recruitment and let people know in advance where they will be working to meet the needs in those areas. That is the reason the scheme has been successful in terms of commissioning psychological assessments outside that. As well as providing the service, the national psychological education service also works closely with the schools to find ways to support the school and the teacher in the classroom. It does tremendous work also with the family. It is important to acknowledge the various tragedies that have affected our schools over the past few years, and even in the past few weeks. NEPS provides a tremendous support service to all children in the school and to schools in dealing with crises. That is added work it does in addition to its own work.
I take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister on the work she is doing in the Department. I had intended asking her about the regional spread, and I welcome the fact that the next round will target areas. Will the Minister confirm that the panel is exhausted, with the 69 personnel now employed? A person who was on the panel had been interested in a position in Inishowen but there was an outstanding issue with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. If the Minister cannot answer that question I can give her the details of the case later.
On cross-Border co-operation for areas along the Border that could have a service provided on a cross-Border basis, is there a facility within NEPS to accommodate the availability of resources outside our own jurisdiction?
My understanding is that the panel has been exhausted. I do not know about the individual case regarding Inishowen but I would be happy to check that for the Deputy, as I will do in respect of the cross-Border facility. The island is too small for us to ignore the services and expertise that might be available one to the other.
Special Ed. 01/05 is a circular on the special education council. Special educational needs organisers, SENOs, appear to have responsibilities for assessment of children's needs. How will they work with NEPS? What will be the interaction in terms of the duties of the two sets of personnel?
NEPS personnel will continue to be responsible for the psychological assessment because that is their professional background. SENOs will work closely with the school in determining whether NEPS or the health board is needed, whether other services and facilities should be brought on board, and examining in particular the allocation of resource hours for the higher incidence people.
8 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Education and Science if she will fund the recent plan advanced by the Conference of Heads of Irish Universities which would guarantee university places for students who are exempt from paying fees to sit the leaving certificate (details supplied); and her views on this proposal. [3012/05]
During 2004, the Conference of Heads of Irish Universities, CHIU, indicated to my Department and the Higher Education Authority that the seven universities were considering the introduction of an alternative entry process whereby leaving certificate students whose family hold a medical card could apply for a higher education place through a separate process from the general points system. Applicants would not be required to achieve the same leaving certificate points as their peers, but would be eligible for selection on achievement of 300 points or more. Some 5% or approximately 750 places for new entrants would be available in all faculties in the seven universities.
Currently, approximately 590 places in the university sector are filled by socio-economically disadvantaged students through an existing direct entry scheme, which is principally funded through the HEA's strategic initiative scheme. Criteria to select students includes a range of social as well as economic indicators, including family income, parental occupation and parental education levels.
I am particularly interested in and supportive of the approach being taken by the HEA in favour of the concept of core funding structures incentivising increased participation of students from all backgrounds. It is in this context that the National Office for Equity of Access to Higher Education was asked for its advice on the CHIU proposal, estimated to cost an additional €25 million per annum, as well as a recently received similar proposal from the Council of Directors of the Institutes of Technology which proposes an estimated additional expenditure of €15 million per annum for the technological sector.
I have asked the national office in the HEA to undertake a review of the effectiveness of the existing range of initiatives to promote and support access to higher education from the non-traditional or socio-economically disadvantaged target groups. In its recently published national plan, the national office identified a range of goals and actions to bring about increased participation from the groups who have, to date, been under-represented in higher education. These include learners with a disability, mature students, disadvantaged school leavers and members of the Traveller community and ethnic minorities.
The national office has just begun implementation of a 2005-07 national plan to achieve equity of access to higher education. An action point prioritised in the plan is to ensure that socio-economically disadvantaged students, schools and communities are linked to an access programme in at least one higher education institution. The CHIU proposal is being considered in this context. A key issue in relation to the proposals from the CHIU and Council of Directors of the Institutes of Technology will be the level of additionality which these proposals will involve in respect of the key target groups and the extent to which progress will be made by the institutions in supporting retention of students after admission as well as facilitating transfer and progression within and between the further and higher education sectors.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Given the substantial additional costs envisaged for plans from the CHIU and the Council of Directors of the Institutes of Technology, it is essential that the proposals are fully examined by the national office in the HEA and I await the views of that office. When I receive these views I will consider the proposals from the sector in the context of ensuring that available funds are properly targeted.
In this regard, spending on third level access measures funded directly by my Department has increased from €0.5 million in 1997 to €34 million in 2005. The maximum rate of maintenance grant, including the "top-up" grant, is €4,855, compared to €2,032 in 1997. In addition, the HEA through its strategic targeted initiatives provided approximately €7.3 million in 2004 to support access. This represents a quantum leap in the commitment of resources. Moreover, in the academic year 2003-04, about 9,000 third level students were awarded "top-up" grants. This represents almost 7% of the total third level enrolment.
I thank the Minister for her reply. I congratulate both the universities and the institutes of technology on taking an interest in this area. I accept that the Minister has asked the equity office to examine the proposals but will she be in a position to make a decision on this matter for the forthcoming academic year? On a point of clarification, the Minister referred to 590 places. I presume this proposal is in addition to those places. Are we talking about extra places?
Deputy O'Sullivan has hit the nail on the head. We have asked them to indicate whether these will be additional places because it is not quite clear. To be honest, I doubt that they are additional because I am sure those already included in the 590 are people who would have medical cards. The medical card alone is too narrow a criterion because the way it works is that other indicators are considered, including family income, parental occupation and parental education levels, which are equally valuable in determining whether somebody is at an educational disadvantage as opposed to a medical disadvantage, which is the position in the case of the medical card. That is the reason all those elements must be examined. We must ensure we can increase the number of people from those backgrounds getting into third level education and not have universities or the institutes, which I know are working from a good motivation, come up with a scheme that would only allow us the same number of students in the system.
Is the Minister aware that Mary Immaculate College has produced a model to bring in students from disadvantaged backgrounds, which takes into account much broader issues than just the medical card? Perhaps the Minister will examine that model.
Perhaps I am being presumptuous in suggesting that Deputy O'Sullivan almost agrees that medical card might be too narrow a criterion. We must examine all the other areas. I attended the national access conference in Kilkenny where I met one of the students who was from a very disadvantaged background in Cork. He was trying to work his way through the system based on grants but he told me that he aspired to being in the top tax bracket, which I thought was a great aspiration for a young man.
One could earn €1 million and still not pay any tax in this country.
He wants to be one of the ones paying tax.
9 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Education and Science the analysis which has been carried out regarding the impact on the ethos and language integrity of a school (details supplied) of trebling the number of classrooms in the school; the consultation which has taken place with the school in this regard; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [3062/05]
The school to which the Deputy refers is an all-Irish primary school serving the west Dublin area. As the Deputy is aware, the area in question experienced rapid development in recent years requiring a significant number of interventions by my Department to ensure that emerging demands for extra school accommodation were met. These interventions comprised a combination of the expansion of existing capacity, where this was possible, and the provision of new greenfield site schools.
The position with regard to the specific school referred to by the Deputy is that last year an application for the recognition of a second Gaelscoil was received in my Department. In accordance with established procedures, the application was referred to the New Schools Advisory Committee, an independent body set up for the purpose of assessing and making recommendations in these matters.
In its report to my predecessor, the NSAC recommended that any extra all-Irish provision required in the area should be met, in the first instance, by extending the existing facility if this were possible. This is in line with my Department's policy and the recommendation of the NSAC was, therefore, accepted.
The patron body of the proposed new school appealed the recommendation before the new schools independent appeals board. The appeal was not upheld and the recommendation of the NSAC, therefore, remained unchanged. Plans then commenced to expand the existing school commensurate with the level of demand presenting. The agreement of the patron was secured for this course of action.
There is no evidence to suggest that the ethos of a school is impaired by size. In this instance, the school will remain an all-Irish facility and teaching resources will be provided to correspond with growth in pupil numbers.
With regard to appropriate accommodation, I recently announced the first phase of the 2005 school building programme which provided details of 122 major school building projects countrywide which will prepare tenders and move to construction during 2005. The school in question is one of those earmarked to progress in this manner. Pending delivery of permanent accommodation, temporary accommodation will be provided to meet the school's immediate needs for September 2005.
I stress to the Deputy the importance of optimising the use of existing provision as a means of meeting demand in areas of rapid population growth. Site costs place a huge strain on my Department's ability to deliver new school buildings and all schools must be prepared to expand to meet demand where site conditions make this possible.
The Minister is undoubtedly aware that the board of management of Gaelscoil Naomh Phádraig has expressed serious reservations about the proposals to expand from eight to 24 classrooms. The new influx will mean that many pupils will not have any grounding in Irish at naonraí level and they may affect the ethos of the school in terms of there being a uniform level of ability with Irish language among junior infants. Some of these children will have attended naonraí and will be fluent for their age in Irish. However, this will not be the case with the others. There are concerns that if two thirds of the new students do not possess the necessary grounding, the Irish language capabilities of the school may be affected.
Another issue of concern is that the school is extremely overcrowded, has only one astro turf pitch and is using its small PE area as a classroom at present. While it welcomes moves in respect of additional buildings, the school suggests that, particularly when the recreational needs of the children are considered, 16 classrooms would be more than sufficient for the site. It is also felt that putting in place 24 classrooms would be an overuse of the site, particularly under the Department's regulations. Is the Minister aware that the minimum number of pupils appear to have been signed up in respect of the proposal for an additional Gaelscoil in the Lucan-Palmerstown area?
I am aware that the board of management, contrary to the wishes of its patron, is opposed to growing the facility. However, all other schools would be asked to expand to meet such a need and it is in that context that the Gaelscoil is being asked to do so. In this instance the Department owns the site which means that we are not obliged to search for another site on which to build a second Gaelscoil, particularly as the need can be met on the current site.
I do not accept go mbeadh daoine ag cur isteach ar chaighdeán na Gaeilge. The standard of Irish in Gaelscoileanna is tremendous. Throughout the country, children who do not come from all-Irish speaking households are entering junior infants in Gaelscoileanna. They are, therefore, entering these schools to learn Irish for the first time. I have no doubt that the quality of the teaching at this Gaelscoil will, as it has at other Gaelscoileanna, remain high.
10 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Education and Science if it is planned to have additional classrooms open at a school (details supplied) for December 2005; if not, the reason for the delay; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [3061/05]
My Department recently approved the provision of temporary accommodation for the school in question in respect of its additional accommodation requirements for September 2005. Officials from my Department visited this school on 26 January and agreed a proposed location on the site for the temporary accommodation. My Department's technical staff, who will manage the delivery of this temporary accommodation, will now commence work on the necessary documentation to secure planning permission and fire certificate clearance.
The position in respect of the additional permanent needs of this school is that this project is one of 122 projects recently announced that are listed to go to tender and construction over the next 12 to 15 months. My Department's building unit arranged general information meetings for these schools to guide them through the process involved in moving projects to tender and construction. These meetings took place on 1 February in Tullamore and representatives from the school in question attended.
Notwithstanding concerns that it would be preferable to have 16 rather than 24 classrooms on the site, Lucan is facing a schools crisis which, thankfully, was addressed to some degree by the fast-tracking of the Griffeen Valley Educate Together school. However, difficulties remain as regards the non-use of Adamstown. Parents are concerned that school should be open to as many pupils as possible by September 2005. The patron body does not have access to the information on the ground. If the Minister is not willing to listen to the concerns expressed by the board and is determined to put in place 24 classrooms, I hope that a minimum of three junior streams will be able to commence at the school at the beginning of September.
As a result of uncertainty, until this year the Gaelscoil had no option but to limit its numbers. However, it also adopted the position that, as regards the 2005-06 year, it would not take on any more children. The Department wrote to the board of management stating that arrangements should be made for a three-stream intake in September 2005 and that accommodation would be provided to cater for this enrolment. Assuming that the board of management does as it has been asked, with the guarantee that the temporary accommodation will be in place, parents will be able to obtain enrolment places for their children.
In her initial reply the Minister referred to the meetings held in Tullamore in respect of 122 schools. If schools included in that number have a short lifetime left to them and approval of planning permission is six or eight months away, this would mean that the projects could not start and finish within the envisaged 15-month timeframe. Will such schools be able to remain within the programme or will they be removed and dealt with differently? What will be the position?
Our intention is to progress each of the 122 projects as quickly as possible. Those encountering constraints as regards planning permissions will have to get their skates on. It is the responsibility of the schools to ready their documents for tender, employ architects etc. The Department will support them in that regard. It is our intention to have all under construction within the 12 to 15-month timeframe.
11 Mr. Hayes asked the Minister for Education and Science if she will report on the physical education syllabus in secondary schools; her plans to make physical education an examinable subject at second level; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [2981/05]
40 Dr. Twomey asked the Minister for Education and Science if she will report on the physical education syllabus in primary schools; her plans to provide adequate equipment for physical education at primary level; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [2974/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 and 40 together.
At primary level, physical education is one of the seven curriculum areas within the primary school curriculum which was revised in 1999. A minimum of one hour of physical education per week is recommended for all primary school pupils. In regard to equipment, the position is that this is a cost which falls to be met from the capitation grant paid towards the running costs of schools. In respect of facilities, many primary schools have a general purposes room and practically all schools have outdoor play areas which are used for teaching different aspects of the physical education programme. In addition, many schools use adjacent facilities such as public parks, playing fields and swimming pools. Going forward, the provision of multi-purpose space for primary schools will continue to be considered within the design brief for new schools and renovation and extension projects. This will be done in the context of available resources and the published criteria for prioritising school building projects.
At second level, while physical education is not a mandatory subject, it should form part of the curriculum. The programme that each school plans and delivers should be based on the Department's approved syllabi and the teaching hours should be registered on the school timetable. The time recommended for physical education is two hours per week.
The phasing in of a revised syllabus at junior cycle level for physical education — non-examination — commenced in September 2003. PE halls are integrated into overall plans in the case of new second level school building projects and extensions. In addition, generic templates are being developed to standardise the construction of PE halls in second level schools which do not have PE halls or a major capital project.
The syllabi at primary and second level have been developed on the understanding that facilities available in schools vary. Consequently, they offer flexibility regarding the physical activities undertaken so that each school can design a programme that can be delivered using the resources and supports available to it. No timescale for implementation has been decided upon for introduction of physical education as an examination subject.
I thank the Minister for her reply. Does the Minister intend to make physical education a mandatory subject at second level? I am not too concerned in this regard because I believe the majority of students at second level engage in PE.
Is the Minister of the opinion that the one hour of PE per week at primary level is sufficient? It may be appropriate in the early stages of primary education but what about when children go into fifth and sixth class? There are many schools which, in light of the type of weather we get in Ireland, are not in a position to offer one hour of PE per week. A large number of schools use their GP rooms as classrooms, while others do not have GP rooms. Does the Minister envisage a situation where applications by these schools for GP rooms to allow them to provide physical education will be considered? If the desire to engage in PE is not developed in children at primary level, they are hardly likely to take it up at second level. Is the Minister of the opinion that this may be a greater issue for female students at primary level who may not be in a position to participate in sports outside school hours at the same level as boys or that many of the team sports etc., available are slightly more geared towards boys, although I accept that the position is changing? Does she believe girls are not necessarily able to avail of the same opportunities and that these should be provided in school?
I am not so sure the weather is so bad in Ireland that people cannot get out that much. We have just had the mildest winter in years. However, notwithstanding that, I have no immediate plans to make PE an exam subject. It is important that the degree of flexibility currently in place should be availed of, using the talents of the staff as well, while recognising that very many schools are involved in sport, quite apart from PE, whether it is Gaelic games, hockey, basketball or whatever. People give much of their time to such activities.
As regards PE halls, they are now being included as part and parcel of major extensions and in new schools. This is very important. We have had a programme for last year carrying on into 2005 of some PE halls being developed. These will be used as a model to determine how we can progress further. There is much demand from schools around the country. Primary schools that are simply looking for general purpose space would neither fit into band 1 or band 2 at present. We obviously have to meet the need for basic classroom accommodation and ancillary work that is required. However, under the devolved scheme we find that a number of schools have been imaginative in the manner in which they use the money, topped up perhaps with local fund-raising, so that these types of facility are being improved. Did the Deputy have another question?
The Minister has covered it. It was about access to sports for girls and boys.
I know this will be a source of debate within the Department's building unit, but as regards the PE halls that have been developed, the Deputy may be aware a number of them have a balcony, which is enormously expensive in the context of a building programme. I understand from girls, however, that it is very successful because that is where the fitness suites are located. The girls are starting to use that area and of course it is cut off from the rest of the school and from people down below who might be using the sports facilities. That is something I shall have to keep in mind for the future, even though it adds substantially to building costs. I have always been conscious of the fact that teenage girls do not like to do PE. It obviously has to do with age, self-esteem and all of those other matters and perhaps the shower facilities in schools. We should work on anything that encourages them to be fitter.
The Minister is aware, however, that to engage in physical activity not only can help to set one up for the rest of one's life but can assist with increased academic performance, given the enhanced cardiovascular element. Will she acknowledge that there is an urgent need in second level for PE to be made mandatory to some degree, possibly as a subject in the first three years, which would, at least get students involved? Once they get involved they will stay involved.
As regards primary level, she has already mentioned that progress is being made on PE halls in new buildings. What are her plans for smaller schools in rural areas which are in danger of closure? As I have previously flagged as regards integrated partnerships between community and sports bodies etc., there is scope for the available space in some school buildings to be used as a multi-purpose facility. The cost could be shared among the local authority, community bodies, the sports councils and the Department of Education and Science in a way that would not affect the safety of the children concerned, but which could be cost-effective in providing facilities not provided by a school.
As regards PE as a subject for the junior certificate, it is expected that it will be integrated into the curriculum. I am conscious of not overloading the curriculum even further with another exam subject. It might have to be looked at in the overall reform context. I confess I am increasingly conscious of schools that are looking for PE halls on the basis that other schools in a town have them. That has happened at least twice recently. I wonder whether we will ever arrive at a situation where school management will actually share facilities and talk to each other. This is what Deputy Gogarty has asked me about in respect of primary schools. It is working to some degree in primary schools because the local community has greater ownership, particularly in the case of the rural schools, as referred to by the Deputy. However, it is not happening to the degree I would like at second level, particularly when we are providing state-of-the-art PE facilities.
As Chairman of the Joint Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, I see great opportunity for co-operation between the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism and the Department of Education and Science as regards the availability of facilities. Ultimately, they share the same goal, to get young people and the not so young moving in the same direction because of academic performance as well as physical and mental well-being.
Has the Minister thought about developing cooperation with the Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism on the idea of opening up the schools, perhaps on a commercial basis? She referred to the installation of fitness suites. There is no reason why after school activity should not yield a commercial return while at the same time helping with the upkeep of the school in terms of lighting and heating costs.
On the issue of forward planning, in a town such as mine, for example, there is a new community college that was in the top five of sporting schools without a PE hall. Perhaps in a few years time there will be an opportunity for the Gaelscoileanna to go forward. If there is a potential for them to develop on greenfield sites located close to existing schools, then perhaps facilities could be shared. Has the Department any plans along these lines? Such initiatives must come from the Department as well as the local communities if duplication is to be curtailed. I am in complete support of Deputy Gogarty on the grounds that PE and music are the first to be hit when education budgets are squeezed and yet they are as central to the cognitive and physical development of the child as any other subject and perhaps more so. However, people do not accept this because the emphasis is on the "three Rs".
Is any priority being given to children who otherwise might not have much access to open space? I am thinking in particular of children going to school in an inner city environment. There was a programme on the radio recently about inner city Dublin where there is little access to open space outside school hours. I wonder whether those types of schools will be given priority as regards PE activity.
My colleague, the Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue is very supportive of the provision of sports facilities for communities. Obviously, where that may be done in conjunction with education, it is the way forward. The difficulty is that the Department of Education and Science does not own most of the schools throughout the country. In general a board of management is in place and the schools are owned by a community or an order, so the Department is not in a position to stipulate that the space should be made available. That said, where PE halls are located in community and VEC colleges, in general they are made available to the wider community. However, the Department has no control over situations where it does not own the schools. We have been reviewing planning norms in respect of areas where primary and second-level developments are taking place to see whether it might be possible to build education campuses. This could perhaps accommodate primary and secondary school levels along with the sharing of facilities. We are examining that in our negotiations over particular sites, to see how space may be optimised. That is the way forward. The ideal, of course, would be to have a greenfield site everywhere when wonderful things could be done.
I am conscious of the needs of inner cities and heavily urbanised areas. Given that so much money is going into small and rural schemes, I am anxious that greater attention should be paid to people with particular needs in large urban areas. It is not always possible to meet those needs, however, because of space constraints.
12 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Education and Science the provisions of the new national testing system for primary schools; when it is likely to be introduced; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [3002/05]
I have made no decision as regards the systematisation of testing in primary schools. In response to a request from my predecessor, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment is currently preparing advice on issues relating to standardised testing for pupils during their compulsory schooling. It is my intention to defer decisions until I am fully informed regarding the potential and the limitations of standardised testing and until I have explored the range of options available. The advice of the NCCA, which I expect to receive before Easter, will help to shape my thinking. I understand the formulation of the NCCA advice is at an advanced stage.
My approach will be to weigh the benefits to pupils, parents, schools and the system against the costs in terms of the inputs required and the consequences that are likely to result. This will involve consultation as well as intensive listening and reflection on my part.
There is widespread acceptance of the value of standardised tests as one of a range of modes of assessment to help teachers make more informed decisions in relation to the instruction of pupils, to inform parents of pupils' progress and to provide information relevant to the identification of pupils that may require additional support. The fact that more than 95% of our primary schools use standardised tests is testimony to the value our teachers ascribe to them. In light of this, it seems desirable that all pupils and their parents should have the same entitlement to avail of standardised tests and to derive the benefit of the judicious use of their results.
The tests can provide valuable information for teachers, principals and boards of management when engaging in a self-evaluation process. There is also a need to develop systems that will provide my Department with more regular information regarding progress and standards. Notwithstanding the benefits of standardised testing just outlined, it is understandable that any move to systematise their use can give rise to fears and concerns. There will be no question of requiring all pupils in certain classes to take a standardised test on one day. It is not my intention to use the results of standardised tests as a stand-alone criterion to determine the allocation of resources to individual pupils and individual schools, to measure the effectiveness of individual teachers and schools or to compile school league tables. The intention is to develop a considered and balanced policy on standardised testing. It should contribute to the current information deficit on the quality of the education system and support parents, teachers and schools in their efforts to make pupils' learning experiences as fruitful and as beneficial to their needs as possible.
The Minister should have received a report recently on literacy problems in disadvantaged schools which was of great concern. If these standardised tests are introduced, will resources be allocated to address the needs that are identified through the testing? If any kind of testing is brought in, the automatic response should be that the child that falls behind gets the support required.
The test should never be the only criteria used for allocating resources. It would be unfair as it would put undue pressure on children and on schools to perform or even to underperform to gain the resources. It would obviously feed in to our knowledge. Much of the evidence from the report to which the Deputy refers pointed to poor results on the basis of having no books at home and parents not reading to their children. We can easily identify that there is more to literacy levels in disadvantaged schools than just the relationship between the teacher and the child. That is why I would be anxious not to use one criterion, just like the medical card is not used on its own for access to university.
The Minister said that 95% of schools use some kind of standardised testing. To what use does the Department put that information? Does it look at the special needs resources allocation, classification of disadvantage, or increased funding? If the information does not have a function, then what does the Department hope to achieve if testing were to be introduced?
As there is a variety of testing used, it is not possible to use them to any great advantage. I have spoken to teachers in disadvantaged areas who would recommend different tests and who would like tests to be applied to the Irish situation. These are things which the council is examining.
The Minister is no doubt aware that one in seven children leaving primary school have reading and writing difficulties. She stated that she is not looking at providing a new national testing system at present. Will she consider allocating the resources that may go to such a testing system to the provision of additional educational welfare officers or an expansion of the home-school-community liaison scheme? Many disadvantaged schools are very well resourced for special needs assistants but not so well resourced in the pupil-teacher ratio. However, they could have hands-on assistants which could be better than testing.
The Deputy is incorrect. The pupil-teacher ratio for disadvantaged schools is much lower. Some classes have only a 15:1 ratio.
That is only when resource teachers are included.
I hope to launch a disadvantage action plan shortly. It is not my intention to ensure that schools are designated as disadvantaged, based on medical card criteria. It will be much more expansive than that.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
