Olwyn Enright
Question:1 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science the reason she has not progressed any of the recommendations of the McIver report on further education; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40016/05]
Priority Questions.
Adult Education.
Jan O'Sullivan
Question:2 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Education and Science if a clear commitment will be given to the implementation of the McIver report; if so, when she intends to fund its implementation; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39913/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
This Government is strongly committed to improving participation and achievement at every level of education. We have put the resources and supports in place to ensure there is a wide range of course options available in the further and higher education sectors for young people who wish to continue their studies after second level and for people returning to education later in life.
Post-leaving certificate, or PLC, courses represent one such option. The Government's support for this hugely important sector is clear from the increase in the number of PLC places by 60% since 1996-97. The number of PLC places approved for 2005-06 is up by more than 1,600 on the 2004-05 level. The number of approved places in the sector now stands at 30,188.
Government support for the sector is evident not only in the expansion of approved places and teachers, but also in the introduction of maintenance grants for students with effect from September 1998. Tuition fees for PLC courses are waived. The PLC maintenance grant scheme operates on the same basis as in higher education. There are nearly 8,000 PLC grant holders in 2005 and they will receive some €23 million in direct support. Other developments funded by my Department of direct benefit to the PLC sector include the provision of national certification under the Further Education and Training Awards Council and the development of progression links with higher education in the institutes of technology. Government commitment to the sector, by reference to the resources applied in teachers' pay, non-pay running costs, student support and certification costs, is very significant.
The McIver report contains 21 over-arching recommendations, incorporating 91 sub-recommendations. Having regard to the number and scope of the recommendations in the report, extensive consultations have been held with management and staff interests on issues such as the prioritisation of recommendations, the structural changes envisaged in the report and their implications and associated costs in the context of the overall provision of resources for further and adult education. Active consideration is being given to all the issues involved. While this work is ongoing, extra investment has been provided in the 2006 Estimates to develop the PLC sector further and to improve supports for other aspects of further and adult education.
PLC students are included in the calculation of non-pay budgets issued to schools in respect of running costs. A supplemental non-pay grant towards running costs specifically for PLC schools is also payable. This will amount to €5.5 million in 2005. The 2006 Estimates include provision for the cost of the extra 100 teaching posts being provided for the post-leaving certificate courses in the current academic year. They also provide for an increase of 19% in the VTOS non-pay grant in 2006.
This Government has shown a sustained determination to expand and improve further and adult education over recent years. We believe strongly in the value of this sector and will continue to prioritise it for resources and supports in the years ahead.
I am surprised to hear the Minister of State saying she will continue to prioritise this issue, as it has not been prioritised to date. Is the Government committed to establishing further education colleges as a distinct sector of education? These are caught in a no-man's land at the moment, as they are neither second level nor third level, but in between. Will the implementation of the McIver report be negotiated at this time? I do not accept that negotiations are in place regarding the report. What is the timeframe for the implementation of the McIver report?
I remind the Minister of State that the report was commissioned by her Department. In effect, therefore, the recommendations in it were sought by the Department. Does the Minister agree the sector cannot go forward without the proper implementation of this report? We will probably get to the issue of funding later, and the Minister of State has mentioned extra numbers. My concern is with the structure of the further education sector. It is not just about numbers but about providing a proper, dedicated and distinct sector.
In terms of the PLCs, one of the principal recommendations in the McIver report is that the name PLC perhaps should not be used. Many students have not done their leaving certificate, so they are not post-leaving certificate students.
My concerns relate to the timeframe, implementation and whether the Department is committed to the further education colleges as a distinct sector.
The Deputy has asked if the Government is really interested in the question of adult and further education, and the statistics I have already provided prove we have a distinct responsibility which we recognise. We are supportive of the area of adult and further education.
There are 21 over-arching recommendations in the McIver report and no less than 91 sub-recommendations. The cost of these recommendations would amount to €48 million. That is not a figure I have picked from my head, but was agreed not only by the Department of Education and Science but the IVEA and the TUI. This figure excludes any capital costs. When we seek that amount of money, we must consider what are the priorities in the recommendations. We have been in extensive consultation with the management and staff interests regarding the proposed structural changes. The proposals in the McIver report will bring about distinctive changes within adult and further education. We must consider the implementations and costings of these. The best way forward on this issue is through consultation on the prioritisation of these recommendations.
With regard to the implementation of the McIver report, there will be significant industrial relations and pay implications, and these are to the fore in the report. There will also be a potential impact of the reduction in teaching hours on other levels of the education system. We recognise that further and adult education is an important part of education as a whole, and the Government recognises the White Paper on lifelong learning. We are constantly pushing the importance of implementing lifelong learning with regard to policies within education. At the same time we must study the implications of the McIver report across the educational system.
What is the timeframe?
When referring to the timeframe we must first refer to prioritisation which can be achieved only through consultation. I do not have €48 million to hand. We would love to be in a position to say we would implement it straight away but we are being realistic and honest in saying that we need to prioritise to ensure——
The Minister of State has not even started to do that.
Extensive consultation has been taking place. This will involve radical changes in respect of management and staff interests. These decisions cannot be taken by the Department of Education and Science alone. There are significant industrial relations issues to be discussed in the context of further and adult education.
We must consider the cost implications of the development of separate capital specifications for the PLC sector. The opportunity for further capital investment arises when we discuss further and adult education. The €48 million, however, excludes that capital investment which puts the issue in context. As resources become available we must prioritise the issues that can be achieved only through significant consultation with the sector involved.
I did not hear the Minister of State give a commitment to implement the McIver report so I will repeat Deputy Enright's question. Is the Government committed to implementing the McIver report?
I am concerned at the sweep of the Minister of State's answer which draws in other aspects of adult education. We want to see a distinctive, separate further education sector, that would be properly funded, as indicated in the McIver report, and properly structured.
Is the Minister of State aware, for example, that these colleges do not have adequate funding for technical support, librarians, canteens and the facilities regularly available to other post leaving certificate third level students? St. John's Central College in Cork, which has more than 1,000 students, has no librarian. Instead, it has a part-time information officer. An equivalent institute of technology has 11 librarians and library technicians. In my city, Limerick, the PLC college has 300 computers and no technician. Does the Minister of State understand the pressure in the PLC and further education colleges?
Compared with investment in the higher education sector in this year's budget, €48 million is a small sum. The people to whom we have spoken in the past week or two are willing to consult but they want a commitment to implementation. There will be no bother in the consultation with regard to implementation but can the Minister of State give us the commitment that there will be a timeframe and the McIver report will be implemented over a specific period?
While I am aware the Minister of State does not have a funding net for this year, under the student support services fund she would have some facility to begin to implement the report by providing extra funding for the services I have mentioned.
We would like to be in a position to implement the recommendations of the report. We must prioritise them because I do not have the €48 million to hand. When discussing further and adult education it is important to consider the scope of education in that sector. I do not accept the Deputy's comment that I gave a sweeping answer on this matter. In addition to considering the PLC sector which is a very important element but is only one aspect of adult and further education——
I am not asking about the other elements.
I am responsible for the whole issue of further and adult education. I am concerned with the PLCs where there have been significant increases, even in the creation of 100 posts for that sector. I am also responsible however for the adult literacy group, VTOS, youthreach, senior Traveller training, the back to education initiative. To take one figure alone, more than 33,873 people avail of adult literacy courses. The PLC is the next largest group comprising 30,188 students. I must attend not only to those large groupings but to VTOS, Youthreach and senior Traveller groups which have specific needs in respect of disadvantage.
The McIver report was prompted by the pressures on the PLC sector especially where the numbers attending the centres exceed 150. I understand those issues, particularly because that area is growing significantly as we try to encourage further training and education. It is amazing to see the scale of that growth. That is why in my initial reply I detailed the major improvements made in the PLC sector. It is not sufficient, however to consider it in isolation from other elements of adult and further education. I am responsible for other elements too.
Special Educational Needs.
Seán Crowe
Question:3 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Education and Science the reason a person (details supplied) in Dublin 22 on being admitted to a dedicated autism unit (details supplied) in County Kildare ended up with less individual tuition and a complete cut in home tuition; her views on whether this is a poor outcome when the unit is a dedicated autism treatment centre. [39917/05]
The home tuition scheme is primarily intended to provide compensatory instruction for pupils who have a medical ailment that is likely to cause major disruption to their attendance at school. My Department provides home tuition grants in respect of pupils who cannot attend school at all, or who are absent for a significant proportion of the school year. The Department also sanctions home tuition in cases where children await a suitable school placement.
The child to whom the Deputy refers was previously placed in a special school and availed of a number of hours home tuition grant each week to facilitate her access to the applied behavioural analysis, ABA, method of intervention.
At this stage the child has enrolled in the autism centre to which the Deputy refers. This centre provides tuition to children with autism predominantly through the ABA method. In the circumstances there is no longer any reason a home tuition grant would also be necessary.
The Department provides funding to the autism centre in question on the basis of one tutor for every child enrolled. In the circumstances I am satisfied this centre is sufficiently well resourced to provide whatever level of one to one support is required for this child.
At this stage, I advise the parents of this child to raise the issue of the centre providing their child with an appropriate level of one to one support directly with the centre. It is important that parents engage directly with the people responsible for the education of their children on an ongoing basis, whether in respect of children placed in mainstream primary schools, or in the type of autism centre to which the Deputy refers.
I raised the issue of this child because it seemed odd that, on the one hand, the child went to an unsuitable school in Palmerston where she received five hours tuition a day whereas at the suitable school she receives only three hours tuition a day. This will be gradual. The child also received home tuition on the basis that she was in an unsuitable school. She now receives fewer hours' tuition.
It seems arbitrary that since the child has been placed in a new school she is no longer entitled to home tuition. Is the Minister aware of the importance of a routine for a child, particularly one with autism? Would the Minister consider this area again and whether the activity is called home tuition or home support the tuition time for children in similar situations could be reduced gradually. In this case, however the child seems to lose out by going to a suitable school.
This school in Kildare was not listed on the Department's website. The parents found it. Maybe that has changed since and the details are on the site. The system seems to be very arbitrary. The home tuition should be provided when the child is in an unsuitable school but in this situation the child moved to a suitable school yet receives fewer hours' tuition. It does not add up.
Deputy Crowe has raised several issues. Irrespective of whether the child moved from one school to another the tuition grant would have been stopped for the first school because we hold the view that school-based education provision is the most appropriate intervention for all children, including those with special educational needs. Where a child is attending full-time education, there is no need for the home tuition grant to be awarded. In the case in question, it is not because the child moved but because the child is in full-time education.
The Deputy said the parents have a particular concern about the number of hours of one-to-one tuition the child is receiving in the school. I find this curious because the particular facility the child is attending has funding for 33 adults at €1.18 million per year. Our records, however, show only 27 children are attending. With 33 adults and 27 children, there is no reason the child would not be able to get the one-to-one attention normally given in these centres. There is a whole applied behaviour analysis method in providing one-to-one tuition. I suggest the parents talk to the centre to see, with that number of staffing and children, why the child is not getting the one-to-one attention they feel the child deserves.
Multi-Denominational Schools.
Olwyn Enright
Question:4 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science the steps she will take to ensure multi-denominational education is available as a choice for children throughout the country; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40018/05]
There is an open and transparent process in place for the recognition of new primary schools. A central element of this process is that patron bodies wishing to establish new schools must identify the level of demand for the provision of education under the ethos proposed and that potential enrolment will meet certain minimum targets. Under this process all patron bodies are treated on an equal footing regardless of whether they are denominational, inter-denominational or multi-denominational.
The system was streamlined following recommendations made by the commission on school accommodation. As part of the process, the new schools advisory committee, an independent body, assesses all applications for recognition against published criteria. It conducts an open and transparent public consultation process as part of this assessment. The committee's annual programme of work culminates in a report to the Minister with recommendations on the granting of recognition to applicants. I am happy to support all new schools where it has been demonstrated to be in accordance with the criteria that a demand exists.
This process has resulted in the establishment of a significant number of new multi-denominational primary schools in recent years. For example, of the 24 new schools granted provisional recognition in the past three years alone, 12 are multi-denominational.
At post-primary level, a long established network of non-denominational schools exists within the VEC system. Earlier this week, I announced a range of increased supports for primary school management bodies and for newly established primary schools. Included in the package of measures is a threefold increase in the grant paid to Educate Together from just over €40,000 to €120,000 per annum.
I have also recognised specific issues that arise in school start-ups. This has particular significance for the management of multi-denominational schools given the number of such schools that have been established in recent years or any future schools that Educate Together may open.
I have decided to provide a training grant of €10,000 for the boards of management and staff of new primary schools established from this year onwards. I have also provided a training grant of €5,000 for boards of management and staff where the school is in the second year of operation. The principal teacher is to be appointed in advance of the school opening so that he or she can assist in the preparation for the first year of its operation. These measures are a strong indication of my commitment to supporting an educational diversity agenda, including multi-denominational education provision.
I welcome the recently announced funding for multi-denominational schools. The Minister will accept that choice by its nature means cost but there is a growing number of people who want the option of choosing multi-denominational or non-denominational schools for their children. In some areas, there are existing schools with empty classrooms as parents are choosing for one reason or other to send their children to other schools. With growing choices, this trend will increase. While I appreciate it is a difficult area, has the Minister had negotiations with church bodies in using classrooms in existing schools for multi-denominational schools?
The sector in question is the fastest growing category in the primary school area. In 1997, there were only 18 multi-denominational schools, while now the figure has more than doubled to 39. When one sees the census returns and the growing multiculturalism of our society, this demand will continue to grow. The first priority for the Department of Education and Science is to ensure a sufficient number of places exist to meet demand. While diversity is desirable, it can only come after ensuring sufficient places to meet demand.
As Deputy Enright pointed out, where new schools have developed, it has often been at the expense of an existing school. In some areas, those schools have amalgamated to free up a building to be made available to a Gaelscoil or an Educate Together school. However, this initiative must come from the patrons as the Department cannot tell schools to do so. There has been some good co-operation in various areas. It must be borne in mind, however, that the existing schools probably objected to the new schools opening in the first place on the basis that they would lose numbers, which is precisely what has happened. Obviously, there could be tensions on the ground.
We want to see the best use of school accommodation, particularly in city areas where sites are extraordinarily expensive. Some co-operation has been achieved in this sensitive area. Enormous strides have been made in supporting the new schools that have been built. The Department has worked in new development areas. Local authorities, such as Fingal County Council, have been proactive with the Department in securing sites and not leaving it to the new patron bodies of schools. For example, the Educate Together school in Griffeen Valley, west Dublin, was built in ten months.
Special Educational Needs.
Tony Gregory
Question:5 Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for Education and Science if the allocation system for resource teachers for children with special needs is weighed against small disadvantaged schools for example inner city schools; the steps she is taking to rectify same; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39687/05]
The general allocation of learning support-resource teachers to schools is intended to cater for children with learning support and high incidence special educational needs. Learning support-resource teacher allocations are based on pupil numbers, taking into account the differing needs of the most disadvantaged schools and the evidence that boys have greater difficulties than girls in this regard.
Disadvantaged schools eligible for additional staffing under the Giving Children an Even Break scheme have a preferential pupil-teacher allocation ratio of 80:1. Small schools have also been given preferential pupil-teacher ratios under the general allocation compared to larger schools.
The new system has several benefits associated with it, among which are that it facilitates early intervention as the resource is in place when the child enrols. It puts resources in place on a more systematic basis, thereby giving schools more certainty about their resource levels. It is also reduces the need for individual applications and supporting psychological assessments and allows flexibility to school management in the deployment of resources.
It is intended that a review of the general allocation model will be undertaken within three years of operation. While I am satisfied the general allocation system has been welcomed by the majority of schools, officials from the Department of Education and Science have recently discussed the concerns of a small number of north inner city Dublin schools with the Irish National Teachers Organisation. The school authorities are advised that they may send material that they feel supports a case for the allocation of additional special needs supports in respect of pupils with high and low-incidence special educational needs and learning support requirements to the Department. Departmental officials will consider each case on an individual basis and convey the outcome of this consideration to the relevant school authority as soon as possible thereafter.
Significant supports are made available to certain schools under disadvantaged programmes, including more favourable pupil-teacher ratios. These 15 schools enjoy exceptionally favourable pupil-teacher ratios, ranging from 6.9:1 to 14.7:1 with the average pupil-teacher ratio being 10:1.
A key element of the new action plan for educational inclusion, delivering equality of opportunity in schools, is the putting in place of a standardised system for identifying levels of disadvantage in our primary and second level schools. This is for the purposes of qualifying for resources, both human and financial, according to the degree of disadvantaged experienced. This standardised system will replace all existing arrangements for targeting schools for participation in initiatives to address disadvantage. The new action plan aims to ensure the educational needs of children and young people from disadvantaged communities are prioritised and effectively addressed and will involve an additional annual investment of €40 million on full implementation.
Will the Minister answer the specific question? Does she accept that small disadvantaged inner city schools have a real and genuine difficulty with the current allocation of special needs teachers? I am disappointed that in recent written replies to my parliamentary questions, the Minister failed to answer which nine schools had lost special needs teachers. The INTO was able to answer the question for me in one hour. Is the Minister aware that schools serving Sheriff Street, Summerhill, Ballybough, O'Devaney Gardens and Dorset Street, areas located in the heart of drug task force areas which are by-words for disadvantage and in which school teachers, parents and children experience major difficulties, have lost special needs teachers in the past year, despite the fact the children for whom the teachers in question catered were immediately replaced by other children who are not now being catered for?
Will the Minister please consider meeting, as a group, the nine principals of the schools concerned? I am confident that if she was fully informed on this issue——
The Deputy should ask a question. We are running out of time.
——and listened to people working on the front line, she would rectify the problem without waiting for any review.
I have already met some of the principals, boards of management and other relevant individuals from some of the schools in the north inner city to which the Deputy referred.
That is not what I asked. Will she meet the nine principals as a group?
The Deputy stated the schools in question are losing numbers. I note these schools have pupil-teacher ratios of 10.5:1, 10:1, 8:1——
That is irrelevant to the question.
Allow the Minister to continue without interruption.
It is not irrelevant because the Deputy asked whether I accept the areas he mentioned are disadvantaged.
The Minister is not replying to my question. She is diverting attention from it.
The Department accepts they are disadvantaged which is the reason they have secured such high teacher-pupil ratios. Our objective is to encourage participation in the education system. The pupil-teacher ratio in one of the schools referred to is 6.9 to one. In light of the requests received, the Department asked the schools to submit details of individual cases. These have not yet been received but as soon as information is supplied by the individual schools on the children Deputy Gregory stated have joined the schools and need assistance, the schools will receive additional allocations if it is found they have children with low incidence, as is the case with other schools all over the country.
Why did the schools in question lose teachers last year?
Please allow the Minister to continue without interruption.
The Department is awaiting details from the schools and as soon as these are received——
The Minister is over-burdening schools with bureaucracy and removing teachers.
All the Department is asking for is details from the schools regarding who the children are and what they need. That information has not been received and as soon as it comes——
All I am asking is that the Minister meet the principals.
I have met some of the relevant principals already.