Vol. 612 No. 4
6 Dr. Cowley asked the Minister for Education and Science if, in view of the fact that a site has been assigned to a school (details supplied) in County Mayo, the school will be included on this year’s schools building list; when this school can expect to open the doors of it’s new building; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39360/05]
The Deputy appears to have gone to Mayo. He will be aware, however, from responses to previous parliamentary questions that my Department has been actively pursuing the acquisition of a suitable site for the school referred to and I am pleased to inform the House that the property management section of the Office of Public Works, which acts on behalf of my Department regarding site purchase, has agreed the purchase of a suitable site and is awaiting receipt of contracts from the vendor's solicitor.
In the budget last week the Minister for Finance provided €3.908 billion in capital funding for the education sector over the next five years, either through direct funding or for delivery using public-private partnerships. This time last year I set out in overall terms my plans for the year ahead and since then, on a rolling basis, I have provided details of individual schools which would benefit under the various strands of the programme. I am adopting a similar approach this year and I will shortly outline my plans for the year ahead under each element of the schools building and modernisation programme. The Deputy will appreciate that within the overall building programme, the timing of an announcement in procuring the new building for this school will depend on the legal finalisation of the site acquisition.
I address the Minister on behalf of Deputy Cowley. Is she aware that a particular difficulty arises with regard to the school in question in that the current site must be vacated by 30 June 2006? The school, which has 183 pupils and nine teachers, was given temporary recognition in 1996. In the absence of receipt of confirmation that a permanent site will be available, the school has nowhere to go. If we wait until the schools building programme is announced, the school will not meet the deadline imposed on it.
Obviously we must wait until the site is legally tied down. The first priority for Deputy Cowley was to ensure we secured a site, a process which has been under way for some time. I am pleased to note a site has been identified and the only remaining issue is the exchange of contracts. Once this has been finalised, it will be possible to consider moving the school.
7 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Education and Science if she will respond to the sense of betrayal felt by the TUI and its members who work in the further education sector at the failure to allocate funding in the Estimates and budget 2006 to implement the McIver report; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39651/05]
8 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Education and Science when it is planned to implement the recommendations of the McIver report, in view of the serious concerns expressed by the TUI and others. [39580/05]
26 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Education and Science the number of recommendations from the McIver report which have been implemented to date in 2005; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39549/05]
60 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Education and Science when the implementation of the recommendations in the McIver report will commence; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39168/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 8, 26 and 60 together.
The Government believes strongly in the value of this sector and will continue to prioritise it for resources and supports in the years ahead. Improving participation and achievement at every level of education is a key priority. We have put the resources and supports in place to ensure a wide range of course options is available in the further and higher education sectors for young people who wish to continue their studies after second level and people returning to education later in life.
The principal objectives of the measures and programmes funded by my Department in adult and further education are to meet the needs of young early school leavers and provide second chance education for adults and vocational education and training for labour market entrants and re-entrants. To ensure these objectives become a reality, a range of provisions is available in further education. This includes such full-time programmes as Youthreach, senior Traveller training centres, the vocational training opportunities scheme, post-leaving certificate courses and part-time initiatives such as the back to education initiative and the adult literacy and community education schemes. These programmes are funded by my Department and operated and managed primarily by the vocational education committees.
Further education is expanding. For example, in the literacy sector the adult literacy client numbers have increased from 5,000 in 1997 to almost 34,000 in 2005. Post-leaving certificate courses represent another option available within the further education suite. Government support for this important sector is clear from the fact that we have increased the number of PLC places by 60% since 1996-97. The number of PLC places approved for 2005-06 has increased 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 and the PLC maintenance grant scheme operates on the same basis as in higher education.
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. 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.
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.
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 with regard to such issues as the prioritisation of recommendations, structural changes envisaged in the report, 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 improve supports for other aspects of further and adult education.
I listened carefully to the Minister of State's reply and her response to two earlier priority questions. While I heard a great deal of detail about her areas of responsibility, the questions posed were not answered. What is the exact status of the McIver report? All the education partners who gave time and commitment to contribute to the compilation of the report and signed up to it want an answer. What is the estimated cost of the full implementation of all 21 recommendations?
My third question is for the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin. It is not satisfactory for the Minister of State, Deputy de Valera, to talk about all the different things she has to do within her area of responsibility. A special allocation is required to honour the commitments the Minister and her predecessor gave to implement the McIver report. Is it not time for the Minister, Deputy Hanafin, to take charge of that to ensure funding is provided?
I refute what the Deputy has said about me not answering questions on the McIver report. With respect, the Deputy may not like the answers, but I certainly have directly addressed the issues put to me. I have said this more than once this afternoon, but for the Deputy's sake I will repeat it. I explained that the cost of the McIver report is €48 million. That figure has not been plucked out of the air, but has been agreed with the Department of Education and Science, the IVEA and the TUI. The figure does not incorporate any capital costs, it is just for non-capital costs.
As regards the implementation of the McIver report, there are financial costs involved and it is a complex area requiring consultation, which is already under way. A number of other issues also impact on the whole education system. I look forward to co-operating with that sector on the priorities involved. It has been said that I referred to other issues outside the McIver report. I have other responsibilities in the area of adult and further education. Post-leaving certificate courses constitute an important issue which was the basis for the McIver report. There were concerns about the growth in PLC numbers, with some colleges having numbers in excess of 150. The number of approved places this year is 30,188. To deal with the PLC issue, we have introduced maintenance grants, and tuition fees for PLCs have been waived. This year, some 8,000 PLC grant holders will receive €23 million in direct support. National certification under FETAC has been successfully worked out. The national framework for qualifications is important for the adult and further education sector. The latter area has seen a growth in numbers with an extra 100 posts being put in place for PLCs. In addition, we have examined the area of community education facilitators. I have ensured that 35 community education facilitators are in place across the country and they are doing great work within the VEC system. We have also made grants available.
I asked about the status of the McIver report.
Other issues will come to the fore as we progress further, including the national office for access to higher education. Under the recently announced strategic innovation fund, institutes of higher education will be invited to submit proposals to promote access and progression. That is an important issue in discussing further education.
What is the status of the McIver report?
I will say it yet again for the Deputy. The McIver report's recommendations will cost €48 million, but we do not have that. Therefore we are working on its implementation through consultation, as funds become available.
Does the Minister of State have a timescale?
It will happen as soon as the funds become available. I cannot give the Deputy a timescale today.
It does not sound as if the Minister of State has any kind of commitment to it.
Exactly.
There certainly is a commitment. We would not have gone——
It has been around for several years now.
The Deputy should let me answer. I do not believe in wasting my time or anybody else's in the sector. There would be no point in having discussions and extensive consultations unless we meant to put those recommendations into action. We must remember that the report has a knock-on effect for the entire education system. There are industrial relations issues that will need a great deal of discussion and consultation with my Department. When we are talking about the PLC provisions——
I must remind the Minister of State that there is a one-minute time limit on supplementary questions and replies.
I am trying to give the fullest answer I can, with your permission, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. It is erroneous to say that there is just one issue for adult and further education.
The Minister of State should provide an answer.
McIver is a very important issue and is recognised as such within the Department. I am continuing to work in consultation with the sector as funds become available.
That is meaningless.
On the monitor, I listened with interest to the Minister's previous responses to priority questions. Any suggestion that this Government is committed to implementing the McIver report is balderdash. The Minister should kill it now and say that, just as the Programme for Government promised to reduce class sizes, it will not be done during this Government's term in office. She should get it over with and stop giving false hope to thousands of students and the staff involved in further education. It is a political decision and priority is not being given to advance further education and take it out of second level to create its own tier. Its valuable contribution is not being recognised. Will the Minister say that McIver is dead and quit playing political games? The Opposition parties promised that they will implement all the McIver report's recommendations after the next election.
The Minister referred to the 100 new teaching posts provided for further education colleges. I have tabled a written question about this. Why are these concessionary posts? Why are posts not being filled in the Minister, Deputy Hanafin's, own constituency? That is a serious indictment for the Minister at local level.
I do not give preference to my own constituency.
She will have questions to answer about that. How can the Ministers present expect the PLC sector to be treated seriously if it does not have proper equipment or technical know-how? Can they seriously expect it to progress?
I am somewhat confused by the Deputy's question, which leaves me wondering exactly where the Green Party stands on the McIver report. Does the Deputy want to throw it out?
We stand full square behind implementing it.
Rather than making such wild statements, we are interested in trying to work with the sector to ensure that there is implementation.
It is as good as dead, given the way the Minister of State is going on.
Perhaps the Deputy should listen. There are 91 sub-recommendations in the McIver report, including recommendations with a significant potential impact. For example, the potential impact of a reduction in teaching hours on other levels of education must be considered, in addition to the cost implications of the development of separated capital specifications for the PLC sector. The potential overlap in provision between institutes of technology and further education must also be examined. We need to be able to work out strategically, through extensive consultation, the further delivery of what is in the McIver report. PLC courses have been growing and we recognise that more people are taking up such places at a later age. As I said in my initial reply, we have been able to ensure 1,600 extra approved places compared to last year. We would demonstrate a great lack of interest and concern if we were not able to ensure the allocation of those extra places. The number of such places has risen 60% since 1997. In addition, we have ensured maintenance grants, and tuition fees have been waived. Grants are also available to no less than 8,000 PLC students. Other issues, including certification and career guidance, have been dealt with. I have a particular interest in such guidance for the adult education sector because I trained as a career guidance counsellor. Pathways of progression are important with regard to PLC courses and other areas, including adult and further education for which I have responsibility. We have done that through the national policy framework——
The time is up.
——as well as through the guidance, which I have been happy to roll out across the country.
On a point of order, why is the Minister of State alone in not being time-limited?
I have pointed out a while ago to the Minister of State the one-minute time limit.
The Minister of State has spoken of the growth of the further education sector as if she had driven it herself. Effectively, it developed on the cheap. It was driven by those working in it and it has not received any real help from the Government. The Minister of State seems to think it can stay that way. She spoke of consultation, but practically everyone involved sat on the group that produced the McIver report — the IVEA, the joint managerial bodies, the TUI, the STI, the Department itself, and the ACCS. The Minister of State has said that she will have to prioritise. Where is she at, and what kinds of negotiations are ongoing?
Those working in the sector who were outside the gates of Leinster House on budget day were not there for the good of their health but because they do not believe that it is being discussed with them or that any real negotiations are happening. Has the Minister of State made any decisions regarding what will be prioritised? She said to Deputy Shortall that it would depend on when the money became available. Will these negotiations go on until she eventually decides to fund it? No one is necessarily saying that the Minister must release the €48 million immediately, but people want to see a start to the process. If the sum is €48 million now, it will increase the longer she leaves it. People want to see the beginning of an implementation process. Will the Minister of State tell the House when that process will begin, with resources backing it rather than simply talk?
It is not a question of what I prioritise.
There is collective responsibility.
I have said time and again that I recognise that a tremendous amount of effort has gone into the report. I thank all those stakeholders involved in the discussions. We will have further discussions along the line until every recommendation in the report has been addressed.
When?
I cannot give a timescale for that, nor will I pretend to do so. However, the Government, through the Department of Education and Science, has ensured that it recognises the importance of education for the further and adult sector. The facts that I have highlighted today regarding the PLC sector show very significant improvements this year, and not only in numbers.
I agree with the Deputy when she says that the Department did not drive the numbers. Of course that is not the case. Needs have been addressed by those delivering the service. In recognition of that, we have ensured a tremendous improvement in the posts available and the number of teachers in the system.
What will be prioritised?
The question of prioritisation will not be decided by me unilaterally. It will be a question of further discussions and consultations with the sector. Based on that, we will go forward.
They do not know either.
I ask the Minister of State once again the status of the McIver report. She has spoken of prioritising. In fairness to everyone involved, they deserve to be told what kind of timescale the Department is working to. Perhaps she might share with us her expected timescale for the full implementation of the report. Behind all the talk from the Minister of State the problem seems to be that implementation of the McIver report has become lost among the other areas of responsibility. Does the Minister, Deputy Hanafin, accept that it is time to seek a specific funding allocation for the McIver report? Those involved in the process deserve that. If she accepts that, can she also tell the House what specific funding is available for the report this year?
Does the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, understand the sense of betrayal and anger among members of the TUI and in the wider sectoral community regarding the lack of implementation of the McIver report in the 2006 budget? Does she value the major contribution to Irish education made by members of the TUI, who have massively supported the development of the economy, the country and society? I have heard the figure of €48 million raised here today. When one sees that the Dublin Port tunnel has run €300 million over budget or that we have wasted €52 million on electronic voting, how can €48 million be an issue given the great importance of education?
We accept that education is one of the most important issues for Government. That is why I am happy to say that the Department has done extremely well in the Estimates and in the announcements made by the Minister. However, we must ensure that we do not only look at the McIver report, which I consider a very important part of work in adult and further education. When asked about the status of the report, there is a question of prioritisation depending on the Estimates each year. Every Deputy knows that it is so for every issue in every Department. That is how business is run.
Over what period?
As the Estimates progress.
To what timescale does the Minister of State expect to work? It is not enough to give a vague answer that it may or may not be implemented.
The Minister should be allowed to give her reply.
If it is not dead, it is on life support.
We will advance the McIver report as money becomes available on the basis of priorities. Do the Deputies expect me to underfund such issues as adult literacy, VTOS, Youthreach, senior Traveller training, PLC and BTEI?
We expect her to fund this.
We must proceed to Question No. 9.
She should speak to her senior Minister.
I have an envelope of money, and I want to ensure that we advance not only the McIver report but all the other issues for which I have responsibility, including areas of particular disadvantage. We want to ensure that it happens, and I have every confidence that the Government will continue to ensure that moneys are available, not only for the McIver report but for all further and adult education.
We have gone far over the time limit. We must proceed to Question No. 9.
9 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Education and Science the percentage of second level students offered a place or enrolling in a third level institution in 2004 and to date in 2005 from schools (details supplied). [39590/05]
96 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Education and Science her views on the disparity in terms of students attending third level from schools in north and south-west Clondalkin compared with those in the Clondalkin village and Lucan areas. [39588/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 96 together.
The information sought by the Deputy regarding participation for the identified areas is not collected by my Department. Since the introduction of free second level education, the average national participation in third level education among second level school leavers has grown from 11% to a current average of approximately 54%. The gap between those who do not progress to higher education and those who do so is diminishing with each generation.
Early surveys of third level participation showed that some socioeconomic groups and areas in Dublin had low rates of entry to higher education. Recent surveys indicate significant improvements in participation rates from among young people in those groups and areas. That progress has not occurred by chance. It has been due to several key targeted programmes and interventions. The goal of tackling first, second, third level educational disadvantage through community education programmes funded by my Department over the last decade and more has been to achieve tangible improvements in progression and participation among both younger and older cohorts from disadvantaged groups and areas.
Third level access programmes in particular have seen the development of close links between higher education institutions, area partnerships and teachers, parents and students in primary and secondary schools, particularly those located in areas of concentrated socioeconomic disadvantage, through a range of activities and initiatives. Those programmes have encouraged and will continue to encourage more young people to access and participate in higher education. It is envisaged that additional financial support will be available to support strategic and effective access initiatives on the part of higher education institutions through the HEA core funding mechanism for institutions, as well as the strategic innovation fund signalled in last week's budget, the details of which I announced on 11 December 2005.
The action plan for 2005 to 2007, published last year by the National Office for Equity of Access to Higher Education, identifies some priority areas for action if we are to achieve further progress. Those include the development and implementation of a national framework of access policies and initiatives to ensure that all disadvantaged schools, areas and communities are linked to the access programmes and routes of entry of at least one higher education institution in their region.
The national office is developing that framework through an evaluation of third level access programmes and initiatives in tandem with a process of mapping the extent of current links. I will ask the national office to examine the issues pertaining to third level access in so far as the wider Clondalkin and west Dublin area is concerned. Increasing numbers of students are also being encouraged and supported in making the choice to participate in higher education by improvements in the higher education grant scheme, with priority for funding being given to students eligible for the top-up grants. It is estimated that more than €35 million will be spent in 2005 on student access measures through the third level access fund. Those measures include the awarding since 2000 of a higher or top-up level of grant to students from families on low incomes. There is also the student assistance fund which is allocated to students in need through their higher education institution, and the millennium partnership fund which supports the needs of students identified through area partnership and community groups.
I asked this question to use the example of the northern part of my constituency, which is a type of microcosm of what is happening in the country. I had access to some of the information which showed that in the Clondalkin village or Lucan areas, there were relatively high levels of access to third level institutions from second level schools but in north Clondalkin, which is a RAPID area, and south west Clondalkin, which is particularly affected because it is not in a RAPID area — I hope the DEIS programme will sort that out — it is clear that within 800 metres there are huge disparities in terms of the numbers of students going to third level. That presents serious difficulties in terms of the future costs, economically as well as social, to the people and families concerned.
Does the Minister believe the narrowing of the gap is taking place too slowly? Whatever about access programmes to third level in second level institutions, will she acknowledge that in trying to tackle both the social and financial difficulties that lead to children losing interest in or aptitude for third level by the time they enter second level, much more needs to be done at the start of the education system? By that I mean rolling out the Early Start programme in all disadvantaged areas, providing more funding for the National Educational Welfare Board, the statutory body enabled to target families and identify the problems to ensure that the children who stay in school in the crucial early years benefit from the education system and are in a position to continue on to third level.
The problem is that students leave school at the time of the junior certificate or even before that, and by that time the battle has been lost. Will the Minster acknowledge that a serious disparity still exists and that increased investment at primary level, parallel to the announcement on the so-called fourth PhD level, is also needed?
I accept that when there are huge disparities in participation rates they must be addressed. We have some of the figures for Clondalkin that the Deputy referred to because of the distinct postal district and we were able to identify the Clondalkin-Neilstown area. I realise the numbers are lower but at least the trend is encouraging because the admissions rate went from 11% to 19%, which is a huge jump in a very short period. That was from 1998 to 2003, and it is something that must be built on.
The Deputy is right that starting at the primary school level is the right way to proceed. There are a number of access programmes directly between the colleges and the primary schools but more significant are initiatives like the school completion programme, which links primary schools with secondary schools. In the Clondalkin area alone, €911,000 was spent last year just on the school completion programme in making those links and encouraging young people to stay in school. With the roll-out of the disadvantaged plan and DEIS, we will be focusing on pre-school education and smaller class sizes for all classes. We must recognise in particular that it has as much to do with what happens outside as inside the school and the family literacy and family support programmes, and the out of school, after school and summer activities can be just as important in keeping young people interested and involved in education.
There is one aspect which was particularly significant last year and this year, that is, to have a separate route for people from disadvantaged areas into teacher training colleges. In September 2004, St. Patrick's College in Drumcondra operated an alternative entry for up to 20 students, 5% of its first year, from 30 designated disadvantaged schools. Mary Immaculate College in Limerick operated an alternative entry route from this year. If we can get teachers from the area to teach in those schools, they will probably be the greatest role model for those young people. Those are the types of initiatives that can be very encouraging. I accept what the Deputy is saying. The earlier we start the more likely we are to increase the levels. While the figures may be low, at least the trend is in the right direction and that is encouraging.
10 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Education and Science if the YES consultation process has been evaluated within her Department; the measures which will be implemented or changes made as a result of the consultation process; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39655/05]
The YES consultation process was launched in January 2004, when the discussion document, Your Education System, was published. The process has included a range of meetings, including 17 public meetings, at which people were invited to put forward their views on education. Written submissions were also invited by post and by e-mail. There has been a very considerable level of public participation in the process. For instance, in the region of 5,000 people have attended meetings and 300 contributions were e-mailed to the website for the process. A public attitudinal survey was conducted in June-July 2004.
Seven people have acted as trustees for the process in order to protect its integrity. Key elements of the process, including all reporting, the conduct of the public attitudinal survey and the management of the website, have been managed within the Educational Research Centre, rather than by my Department.
A report on the overall process has been drafted. I expect that the final report will be presented to me early in 2006, after which it will be published. The report will reflect the various views expressed throughout the consultation, both anecdotally at the meetings and in written submissions and also the statistical information gathered through the public attitudinal survey.
The intention behind this process was to provide an opportunity to as wide as possible a segment of Irish society to have an input into planning for the medium and long-term development of education in Ireland. The rationale is that the education system impinges on the lives of all people in Ireland and, therefore, it is appropriate to seek their views on it from time to time.
It was never intended that the report reflecting what transacted during the consultation process would be followed by a rigid, formal process of implementation. The report will be the product of the consultation process and it will be available to inform those of us engaged in making medium and long-term policy in the area of education. This will allow the values and attitudes of the public to play a role in the formation of education policy. The need for this is recognised in a number of countries where surveys concerning educational issues are carried out from time to time. The best known of these are probably the annual surveys which have been carried out in the United States by the Gallup organisation since 1969. As far as I can ascertain, the last survey conducted in this country to elicit the views on educational issues of a national sample was in the 1970s so the survey carried out as part of the YES process is a useful update.
I note what the Minister said about the report being available early in the new year. Are there any preliminary findings other than talking about the process? Will the Minister outline any of the headline issues that have come out and an idea of the overall cost of the project initiated by her predecessor? Where does the Minister see this feeding into her policy and the course she is taking this year or does she see it influencing it?
I was very conscious that when a process like this has been undertaken, which involved so many members of the public, it would be important for it to feed into policy making. The final report is not available and we do not even have preliminary findings from the process but what we have is the valuable views of the Irish public on education, which is the survey that has been published. That provides us with useful information on a range of subjects which I have often dipped into, even recently. Deputies will be aware that at the time the process took place one of the major issues for schools was the area of special needs, and that tended to dominate some of the meetings at the time. Much of that has since been addressed.
The overall cost arising from the public consultation process is €760,142, which covers printing, launching, advice, the setting up meetings etc., the Educational Research Centre for its secretariat and the cost of the survey. Because the report came from an eminent group of independent trustees, including people such as Mary Davis, Dr. Garret FitzGerald etc., and working through the Educational Research Centre, it was out of our hands, but now that that process is almost complete, I look forward to publishing the report in the new year.
Will the report be available to the wider public? The Minister was not the Minister responsible at the time but I attended some of the meetings and, naturally, the people tended to be those with vested interests — teachers or parents of special needs children. Will the report reflect not just the views of the public but those of parents and teachers or a particular organisation so that we will be clear on the thinking?
The honest answer is that I do not know, but with the calibre of the trustees responsible for it, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, Dr. Pádraig Hogan, Dr. Barry McGaw from the OECD, Dame Geraldine Keegan, Ned Sullivan, Dr. Catherine Sweeney and Mary Davis, they will ensure that the process has integrity and that the report reflects what happened. Some the findings and views in the report, such as those dealing with special educational needs, may already be out of date. This will allow us to objectively examine the other issues that were raised and we can also use the survey, which is quite useful on a range of issues, with a view to feeding it in to policy, rather than it being the policy itself.
The Minister could dip into and extract best practices from this report, which is distinct from the McIver report. Has the Department set out a timeframe within the lifetime of the current Government for the implementation of a number of key proposals in the report once it is published?
I do not believe there will be any proposals and I will not accept any presented to me. There are no recommendations in the report, which simply reports on a consultation process which took place. The report ascertained the views of people who attended public meetings and the views of the public. There will be no proposals or recommendations to be accepted.
11 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Education and Science the way in which she proposed to deploy the 500 extra teachers announced recently; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39671/05]
16 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Education and Science the progress she expects to make in 2006 in reaching the commitment in An Agreed Programme for Government to reduce class sizes for under nines to 20:1 or less; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39680/05]
22 Ms C. Murphy asked the Minister for Education and Science the way in which she intends to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio in Kildare at primary level in view of the fact that it is the highest in the country; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39344/05]
100 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Education and Science her plans to bring pupil-teacher ratios into line with commitments entered into at the general election in 2002; when she expects to bring Irish standards in this regard up to best practice throughout Europe; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39597/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 16, 22 and 100 together.
Major improvements in school staffing have been made in recent years with the hiring of more than 5,000 additional primary teachers. This represents the largest increase in teacher numbers since the expansion of free education. The annual estimated value of the additional expenditure on these posts is over €200 million. In 1996-97, the average class size in our primary schools was 27; it is now 24. In 1996-97, there was one teacher for every 22 children in our primary schools, while today, there is one teacher for every 17 children, which the lowest pupil-teacher ratio in the history of the State.
Aside from decreasing average class size, the unprecedented increase in school staffing in recent years has also greatly improved the services provided for children with special needs and those from disadvantaged areas. Under the action plan for tackling disadvantage published earlier this year, there will be a reduction in class sizes of 24:1 at senior level and 20:1 at junior level in 150 primary schools serving communities with the highest concentrations of disadvantage. With more than 600 extra resource teachers allocated this term and 5,000 teachers assigned to children with special needs and learning difficulties — a figure that represents one in five teachers — children with special needs are getting more support than ever before. It should be acknowledged how much progress has been made in this area in recent years.
There is more to be done to reduce class sizes. I recently announced that I have secured sufficient funding to provide even smaller classes in our primary schools in the next school year and the Minister for Finance has committed to a further reduction in class size in the following year. Accordingly, over the next two years, my Department will put 500 extra teachers into our schools to reduce class size and to tackle disadvantage. This will be done by changing the staffing schedule. The mainstream staffing of a primary school is determined by applying the enrolment of the school on 30 September of the previous school year to a staffing schedule, which is issued annually to all primary schools.
The general rule is that the schedule provides at least one classroom teacher for every 29 pupils in the school. Of course, schools with only one or two teachers have much lower staffing ratios than that, with two teachers for just 12 pupils in some cases, but the general rule is that there is at least one classroom teacher for every 29 children in the school. Next year, this will be reduced to 28 children per classroom teacher and in 2007-08, it will be reduced to 27 children per classroom teacher. Officials of my Department are currently drawing up the revised staffing schedule necessary to achieve this. Schools will be asked to use the extra class teachers provided as a result of the revised schedule to provide for smaller classes in the junior grades.
In speaking about staffing in our schools, we have consistently said that priority would be given in the first instance to children in disadvantaged schools and those with special needs. We have done this and, in line with the Government commitment, mainstream class sizes are also being reduced.
I am slightly confused by the Minister's response. She stated the majority of teachers will be allocated to tackle educational disadvantage.
This would have been the case in the past.
Will the 500 teachers be deployed across the board to reduce pupil-teacher ratios?
The staffing schedule applies to mainstream schools throughout the country, with the most disadvantaged schools receiving more favourable treatment.
How many of the additional 500 teachers does the Minister expect to be deployed next year?
I expect at least 200 and possibly up to 300 teachers to be deployed next year.
Is there sufficient capacity in school buildings to accommodate these teachers? Will they have classrooms in which to work? This is a genuine concern.
If any school informs me that it does not have sufficient room for an extra teacher, I will advise it to wait until the next year if it does not wish to take on the new teacher.
I am being serious.
I suggest that schools would be happy enough to take on extra teachers even if they do not have the space for them. Of course, it will place capital demands on schools, which we have anticipated. We will be forced to build more classrooms as the schedule is reduced. This will take place in the context of the capital programme. However, if any school does not want its extra teacher and would prefer to wait for a classroom, it can do so but I do not think it is likely.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
