Olwyn Enright
Question:67 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science if, during 2006, any of the recommendations of the McIver report will be progressed; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5874/06]
Priority Questions.
Adult Education.
The 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 courses 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 courses represent one such option. The Government's support for this very important sector is clear from the fact that it has increased the number of PLC places by 60% since 1996 and 1997. Indeed, 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 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 were nearly 8,000 PLC grant holders in 2005 and they received €23 million in direct support.
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 amounted 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.
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.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The McIver report contains 21 overarching recommendations, incorporating 91 sub-recommendations. It has been estimated, in consultation with management and staff interests, that the recommendations for staffing would involve at a minimum the creation of at least 800 new posts at a cost of over €48 million. This level of additional provision cannot be considered in isolation from other areas of education.
In their consideration of the needs of the PLC sector in future, my officials have been examining, inter alia, the non-teaching educational tasks particular to PLC teachers, the demands on the management side and the challenges presented by the variation in size of PLC providers, which number more than 200. When these deliberations are completed further discussion with the management and union side will be necessary.
The Minister of State may have been getting to the portion of her reply which dealt with the question relating to the McIver report when her time ran out. With regard to the key recommendations of the report, although the Minister of State mentioned figures for 1998, the McIver report was published in 2003. Will she support and give timetables for the following recommendations: new managements structures; new administrative structures; specialist appointments; recognition of the sector as a distinct sector of education; the prioritisation of child care; and achieving all-year teaching, taking into account day, night and weekends? Do timescales exist for any of these six recommendations?
Does the Minister of State accept that her Department is failing to recognise the potential of the further education sector by not implementing the McIver report? We are almost unique in the EU in not having a separate further education sector. Will the Minister of State deal with this? Will she deal with the fact that PLC colleges are being forced, through the indecision of the Department on the McIver report, to operate within the constraints of the second level structures and resources?
Is the Minister of State aware of the annual school leavers survey, which shows the unemployment rate for school leavers going directly into the workforce doubling to 21% in 2004? The McIver report and the PLC sector could deal with this matter in a real way. Will the Minister of State provide a timescale for the report's implementation?
I thank the Deputy for her questions. As she noted, I did not have an opportunity in my initial reply to outline that the McIver report contains 21 overarching recommendations-——
I am aware of that.
There are 91 sub-recommendations, with the cost of implementation amounting to €48 million.
Will the Minister answer the questions asked? That information has been given and is on record.
I wish to state it again. Extensive consultations are continuing, with a view to prioritisation. The Deputy has pointed out some of the issues that must be considered, including management structure and child care. There are other principal recommendations, including the reduction of timetable class teaching hours, for example, and appropriate increases in staff, one of the major concerns of the McIver report. The enhancement of senior and middle management structures is also an important concern, with the increase in technical and administrative staff and improvements in IT and capital infrastructure. Considering that the Department does not have €48 million at its disposal, we must continue the extensive talks and consultations with those involved in the sector to lay down priorities. Once these are set, we will know the timescales involved.
The potential for the area of further education continues to be recognised by my Department and the Government. It is important to point out that although the PLC sector is important — I have indicated the large increases in the sector under the Government — it is only one option in the area of further education. There is also Youthreach, VTOS, senior Traveller training centres, the BTEI, adult education, child care for Youthreach and the issue of literacy. It is important to put all these in context. The Deputy may ask about the particular areas she refers to in terms of the McIver report. I have explained that I look forward to further consultations to set a timescale on prioritisation.
It is important to put things in perspective. I have stated my priority and that of the Government, without making any excuses——
The question concerned the implementation of the McIver report. I asked about a timescale.
The McIver report deals with further education. This area has many component factors that are particularly important, and the McIver report is only one element.
The question concerns the McIver report.
The PLC courses are a particular element. I have prioritised those who are most disadvantaged. My idea of prioritisation of those who are most disadvantaged applied particularly to literacy, BTEI, Travellers and Youthreach.
We must move to the next question.
Youthreach is still on a pilot footing. What kind of prioritisation is that, 19 years later?
Youthreach has been allocated €21.5 million.
It still does not have a proper structure 19 years later.
The PLC allocation for non-pay concerns is €5.5 million and the VTOS non-pay allocation is €41.3 million. The senior Traveller training centres non-pay allocation is €8.6 million, Youthreach guidance has been allocated €1.5 million and BTEI has been allocated €13.6 million.
It is still on a pilot footing.
Adult education has been allocated over €5 million.
We must move on.
The figure for child care concerns, which the Deputy referred to specifically, for Youthreach, the VTOS and the senior Traveller training centres, is €5.6 million.
We must proceed to the next question.
The funding for the McIver report is nil.
The Deputy should indicate which programme she will cut to implement the €48 million worth of recommendations in the report.
I call Question No. 68.
We will implement the recommendations of the McIver report as the resources become available.
The Department is not giving the resources.
What resources?
School Management.
Jan O'Sullivan
Question:68 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Education and Science her response to the proposal by the Irish Primary Principals Network that the management of national schools in the future might more appropriately be through a VEC-type model of joint control; her views on whether there is a need to consider changing the traditional model of patronage in view of changing demographics and religious allegiance; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5761/06]
The basis for recognising new primary schools derives from the provisions of the Education Act 1998 which allows a prospective patron to seek approval for a school that reflects the characteristic spirit of the sponsor. More recently, through the establishment of the new school advisory committee my Department has put in place a structured, open, transparent and consultative process under which all applications for new schools are processed. The membership of the committee reflects the current diversity of interests at primary level. This approach to new school recognition has enabled schools reflecting diverse interests to be established over recent years. These include single faith schools, including two Muslim schools, and a growing number of schools under the patronage of Educate Together and Foras Pátrúnachta na Scoileanna LánGhaeilge. In the past year a new school was established under the joint patronage of the local Church of Ireland and Roman Catholic bishops.
I am fully conscious that as our population becomes increasingly culturally diverse and secular there will be a need to keep our approach to new primary school formation under review. The challenge is to ensure that diversity can be accommodated and that primary school provision is sufficiently inclusive. This does not mean that the position of established providers both of long-standing and more recent origin should be supplanted to make way for an entirely new model. The test will be how we accommodate difference and ensure tolerance rather than pursuing a one size fits all approach.
I thank the Minister for her reply. I welcome the fact that she said the proposal will stay under review but does she agree that huge changes are taking place in our schools and communities? As Minister should she not manage that change, rather than just watch it happen? There is a growing demand for Educate Together schools, Gaelscoileanna and schools for various denominations. The population of towns like Ballydehob or Ballymote is not large enough for such a variety of schools. What is the Minister's view of the situation where some children in a class have the right to be prepared for Holy Communion while others in the same class have a constitutional right not to be? How should this work? The Irish Primary Principals Network has raised this and is in a position to understand the issues. Does the Minister intend to respond to its concerns in this regard?
The obligation of the State is to provide education. Where applications are made for a school by various groups around the country they are subjected to public consultation and the commission on schools analyses the need in a particular area. That does not necessarily mean that complete freedom of choice is available in every area. The historical reality is that schools were provided by the church and religious orders to educate the poor when nobody else would do it. That element should not be written out of the equation.
History can be interpreted in different ways.
I have visited a few hundred schools in the past year and every school welcomes every child of every denomination and their families. It would be very wrong to give the impression that these children are not welcomed or included, irrespective of where the school is based. Children have rights under the Education Act 1998. Section 30 of that Act provides that no student is required to attend instruction in any subject contrary to the conscience of his or her parent. No child is forced to sit in the first communion class if he or she does not want to and management must take that on board. The curriculum must also take account of the characteristic spirit of the school. Equally, the Department has decreed that a certain amount of time must be spent on various subjects and approximately half an hour a day is allocated to religious instruction or some other instruction related to the ethos of the school. For example, Educate Together has an ethical programme called "Learn together". The board of management must uphold and be accountable for the whole ethos of a school. Rights are specifically laid down in legislation irrespective of where the child is in school, giving the child and the parents the rights the Deputy has asked about.
The revised curriculum also refers to tolerance and respect. At second level the issue is not so stark because vocational schools can be deemed non-denominational, not having any religious representation on the board. As a result, such issues have not arisen to the same degree as at primary level. The churches are looking at new models, including the views of parents and taking into account local factors.
As Minister for Education and Science my job is to ensure education is available which is inclusive, tolerant and respectful of the rights of all. The process and systems we have for recognising schools and the rights clearly laid down in the Education Act 1998 achieve that goal.
Does the Minister not think the second level model to which she referred, involving vocational and community schools, may be a more appropriate model for the times in which we live? Would she at least consider it as a model alongside the one we have at the moment? Given the huge demographic changes taking place are there not teachers in denominational schools who may not subscribe to that denomination?
I have no intention of changing the management of schools throughout the country. I am not the manager or owner of schools. I do not own the sites and I am not a patron, so it is not possible to do so, nor do I want to ignore the contribution made by the present boards of management. The Deputy will have heard me refer to her party leader as being akin to Henry VIII trying to force the churches to surrender their land. There is no other way of getting them to do that.
That is not what he suggested. We are trying to open a debate.
It is interesting to look at the new schools advisory committee and what has developed in recent years. Of the 25 new primary schools 12 are multi-denominational, six are Gaelscoileanna and just seven are denominational. Change is happening and it is being facilitated. We are open to the needs of an ever-changing Ireland but it does not mean we should have a one size fits all approach throughout the country or change 3,000 school managements overnight.
That is not what I am suggesting.
Schools Building Projects.
Trevor Sargent
Question:69 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Education and Science her views on the need for new residential areas to have locally-based school capacity in tandem with new housing; and if she will work with local authorities such as Fingal County Council to arrange for the simultaneous provision of housing and educational facilities in a way which allows for maximum community use of such facilities to the benefit of schools involved and the wider communities they serve. [5845/06]
As I have told the House before, the potential implications for school provision arising from new residential developments should be taken into account when such developments are being planned and approved. This places responsibilities on local authorities and on my Department to work together and I am happy to report that there are a number of very positive developments in that regard.
My Department must be apprised by local authorities of all development planning processes at county and sub-county level. This ensures that the Department is alerted to new and expanding residential areas and affords an opportunity to ensure appropriate zoning provision for educational purposes.
As the Deputy will be aware, a new school planning model involving published area development plans has also been developed by my Department, and is being piloted in five areas over the current school year. The purpose of this new approach to school planning is to ensure that, in future, the provision of school infrastructure will be decided only after a transparent consultation process and that the blueprint for school planning in an area reflects the current and projected future level of housing there. This process will ensure a more proactive approach to school planning than had been the case in the past.
Aside from improved contacts and communication protocols with local authorities and the implementation of the new model of area development plans, there is another initiative to which I draw Members' attention.
Under the strategic development zone, SDZ, process at Adamstown my Department is working closely with South Dublin County Council and the developers to produce an integrated solution to education and community facilities that matches the delivery of new housing. The SDZ for Adamstown requires that housing and supporting infrastructure, including schools, be provided in a phased manner. It is a condition of the SDZ that at completion of phase 2, which is approximately 1,800 housing units, a primary school of eight classrooms or a post-primary school of 12 classrooms be in place. Each additional housing phase requires the provision of further school accommodation. This approach ensures that schools are in position ahead of or in line with demand, and is one that should be adopted by other planning authorities for major new housing schemes. My Department is eager to find innovative ways of working with local authorities to ensure that school provision matches demand in their areas. In Fingal, the Deputy will be pleased to know that we are in discussions on a new arrangement whereby the council will provide lower cost sites in return for community facilities being provided in tandem with the schools. Discussions are at an advanced stage and I expect that agreement will be reached shortly.
Tááthas orm go bhfuil na cainteanna fós ar siúl agus go mbeidh deireadh fóntach leo le cúnamh Dé. Is the Minister aware of the huge burden on many families in new areas? I can give many examples from personal experience. For example, I know a family who, having moved to Balbriggan, put their child on a train from Balbriggan to Malahide to continue at their old school. A family in Blanchardstown cannot move to Balbriggan because of a lack of school capacity, even though the local authority made a house available there. Another family in Drogheda has to drive to Malahide every morning to find a school place. When the Minister says that the need for provision should be taken into account, can I take it that priority will not only be given when local authorities make the initiative but that the matter will also be prioritised by her Department?
Is she aware that, in the absence of action by the Department, developers and builders, who are obviously in the business of making profits, move in to offer school sites as carrots or to exert pressure on local authorities to undertake rezoning beyond what might be considered prudent in the development plan? Is she happy that schools are used in such scenarios as bargaining chips or a modern day and perhaps more ethical equivalent of the brown envelope? That in itself should give the Department cause to consider seriously the need for simultaneous provision.
With regard to the Minister's claim that a transparent process is in place, will she put a time limit on that process? A long process becomes meaningless and forces families to ask developers for help in providing sites for schools. Does she accept that education facilities should not be thus provided because it is bad for development in general? Will the Department be proactive rather than await proposals from South Dublin or Fingal County Council?
I take issue with councils which do not take seriously their responsibilities for the provision of extra facilities or schools, granting instead planning permission for large numbers of houses without regard for the knock-on effects on education provision.
From my Department's point of view, the area development plan enables us to look ten to 15 years into the future, while a number of the previously published plans have been very successful. For example, the adopted plan for Mountmellick and Mountrath proposed a new post-primary amalgamation which, as I have already announced, will be part of the next package and further plans have been published for the N4-M4 corridor and for Westport and Newport. Some of the areas mentioned by the Deputy are included in the plans being produced, such as north Dublin, south County Louth, east County Meath, north County Kerry and Limerick. These plans will reflect the needs of their respective areas.
I pay credit to Fingal County Council because it has been innovative in its approach to the intensive development taking place within its borders. Naturally, it is a hard bargainer but we are working closely with it and are about to agree to an arrangement of benefit to both of us for the provision of sites, the procurement and future use of sites and for the building of schools by the Department while also allowing for shared use of community facilities. Similar discussions are ongoing with local authorities in Kildare, Waterford, Meath and other areas.
Whereas the Department and I take full responsibility for educational planning, county and urban councils must have regard for the types of planning permissions they grant, the zoning they undertake and the obligations they put on developers. I do not understand why planning permission can be given for 50 houses without telling the builder to construct an additional classroom for the local school or, in the case of 150 houses, to require that a new school be built. If everybody shouldered their responsibilities, the problem of long-term education provision could be quickly solved.
I am glad to hear the Minister's acknowledgement that Fingal County Council has provided leadership. Will she put that learning experience into a new formula which could be repeated in other areas?
While issues at primary level obviously need to be addressed, she will be aware from the meetings she and her predecessor attended of the problems on the Donabate peninsula in terms of second level schools. People are left with serious school shortages because the process is taking too long.
Second level provision is also included in the area development plans. The Deputy will be aware that I met a deputation on the Donabate issue. Obviously certain matters need to be resolved, including the type and size of the school and who should be appointed patron. Once those issues are solved——
They are.
——it will be possible to progress the matter.
School Discipline.
Olwyn Enright
Question:70 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science the proposals, legislative or otherwise, that she will bring forward to tackle the problem of discipline in schools; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5875/06]
The Deputy will be aware that last year I established a task force on student behaviour in second level schools. This task force produced a mid-year interim report and has recently completed its final report as scheduled. I am very grateful to the task force and its chairperson, Ms Maeve Martin, for the detailed consideration they gave to this broad area in a relatively short time.
The task force held 19 plenary sessions in 2005. All partners in education, including parents, students and teachers, were invited to make oral submissions to the task force. A plenary session with all the partners was held on 12 October 2005 and ten consultative fora were held throughout the country at a number of second level schools as well as at centres of alternative provision, such as Youthreach centres and youth encounter programmes. The task force invited, by public advertisement, submissions from interested individuals and groups and more than 150 submissions were received.
I received a copy of the task force's final report last month. I am considering it at present and will arrange for its publication shortly. I have indicated my clear intention of acting on this issue in a measured and effective manner. To this end, €2 million has been provided in this years Estimates to enable the implementation of the task force report to commence this year. I expect to be in a position to make further announcements on the detail of this implementation at the point of publication of the report.
Given that the Minister had the report since last month, what is the reason for the delay in publication? Debate on the report by all the education partners should now be ongoing but that is not yet possible. We have forgiven the Minister in the past for not being in a position to provide much information because the report was not available but I want to ask some specific questions now that she has it.
What is the Minister's view on section 29 of the Education Act and does she accept that it can be used to undermine the authority of schools, especially in terms of dealing with seriously disruptive students? Does she anticipate changes to the Act?
Does the Minister intend to provide facilities to deal with students for whom standard classroom facilities are not working in terms of discipline? The sanctions available within the classroom or the confines of a school do not seem to work in respect of a minority of students. Will she put in place proper support units in schools?
Does the Minister accept that her Department has been remiss in formulating guidelines for schools on codes of behaviour? The last guidelines were issued in 1991 when I was still in school, and a sea-change in behaviour has taken place since then. A gap has been created in terms of behaviour, although I am sure that the issue will be considered in the task force's report. I accept that only a minority of students misbehave but the disruption of a minority can have significant consequences on the majority.
I will not be drawn into a discussion of the content of the report but will try to reply in a more general sense. Section 29 of the Education Act has been discussed in the House and it has been proven that where proper procedures are in place, the section favours schools. This can be demonstrated by the results of appeals over recent years. For example, of the 87 appeals made in 2003 and 2004 against expulsion in the post-primary school sector, schools won twice as many cases as they lost. That represents a significant increase on initial years when schools did not have proper procedures in place. I will be happy to facilitate any changes recommended by the report.
One of the first matters raised with me by the ASTI and TUI after my appointment was that they wanted an immediate answer to the question of whether to publish. The speed in which the task force produced its report reveals a commitment in this area. I am unaware of any other situation where money would be provided to implement recommendations of a report before it is even published. However, a coherent response from a number of different groups is needed because schools cannot solve this problem on their own and need the co-operation of boards of management, parents and my Department. The counselling issues raised by the Deputy will require a co-ordinated response from agencies including the National Educational Psychological Service and the National Educational Welfare Board.
The Deputy asked about other units and in that context, we have Youthreach, Youth Encounter and we may need to examine what other provisions should be put in place. I have always said that I am open to examining what is needed. Equally, curricular change can make an enormous difference to students in a school, that is, making sure that the type of curriculum that suits their needs is available in their schools, be that the junior certificate support programme, the leaving certificate applied programme or the leaving certificate vocational programme. There are a number of ways in which this can be changed and adopted. I am studying the report carefully at the moment because its publication will not start a debate. When I publish it, I will be asked what I intend to do about it. At the time of publication I want to be able to set out, immediately, how I intend to start spending the €2 million allocation and not to delay matters with discussing whatever recommendations I accept.
Is the Minister in negotiations with the education partners at present on the implementation of the report's recommendations? Does she envisage changing the guidelines issued by the Department to schools, in light of the report? In terms of teacher training, is the Minister satisfied that the training within the education colleges, which would be the most up-to-date, and the training for existing teachers is sufficient? Has there been enough in-service training for all teachers to assist them in dealing with the changing dynamics of the school environment?
I am not in discussions because the report has now been presented to me, as Minister, and it is up to me to make a decision on its contents. The debate has taken place and the education partners have all been given an opportunity to contribute. They want to see what my input will be and that is the next step.
I made a very wide-ranging speech last year where I questioned a number of issues relating to teacher training. Much more time should be spent preparing student teachers to deal with disadvantage, special needs, behavioural issues, multicultural issues and parental demands. In that context, there are issues which I have already raised that need to be examined. Student teachers, for example, are spending a considerable amount of time doing degree programme subjects, for instance, French, which may not need to take up so much time, particularly in light of the other issues that must be dealt with by the training colleges. The higher diploma in education, being a shorter course, needs to be more focused, but there is an enormous number of issues that need to be dealt with in a training context. There was a third question from the Deputy——
I asked whether the Minister intends to change the departmental guidelines for schools.
The guidelines are composite and cover the management of schools and other areas. The type of discipline problems and bullying may have changed but the basic issue of how to deal with them has not. The best way to deal with these issues is to make sure there are agreed policies at school level between the management, the principal, staff, students and parents. Therefore, it is not so much a question of what is happening in the school, but how it is being dealt with and that has not changed. However, if the guidelines need to be updated in light of new information, I am open to doing that.
Special Educational Needs.
Jan O'Sullivan
Question:71 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Education and Science if home tuition grants will be restored to the 100 autistic children who have had this support cut due to a decision of her Department to no longer allow home tuition grants to children who attend school; if her attention has been drawn to the negative effect this decision is having on the children concerned; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5762/06]
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. In this context, 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. I stress that children who meet these criteria will continue to qualify for home tuition.
The 100 cases to which Deputy refers, however, concern children attending school on a full-time basis. While my Department sanctions home tuition in cases where children are awaiting a suitable school placement, it is considered that school-based education provision is the most appropriate intervention for all children. In recent years there has been a major expansion in school-based provision for children with autism. A total of 159 special classes for children with autism attached to special schools and mainstream schools have been created, 15 pre-school classes for children with autism have been set up and my Department is currently funding 12 autism-specific facilities, operating on a pilot basis.
The newly established National Council for Special Education and its team of 71 special educational needs organisers is also working across the country to ensure that new services are put in place where needed so that autistic children have access to appropriate school-based provision. With this substantial improvement in school-based services for autistic children, it is no longer considered necessary to give home tuition grants to children who are in full-time education.
There are approximately 100 children with autism who are in full-time educational placements and have continued to receive home tuition grants. These children are enrolled in special school or special class placements or are attending mainstream schools with additional supports, as appropriate. My Department has written to these pupils' parents confirming its intention to discontinue the practice of sanctioning home tuition grants for pupils who are in full-time education. This has also been communicated to the pupils' schools. These cases have been referred to the local special educational needs organisers with a view to them ensuring that each child is getting the appropriate support at school. My Department sanctioned the continuance of the home tuition grant for these pupils until 10 February to allow the special educational needs organisers time to ensure that this is the case. Each pupil's individual circumstances is being considered by the organisers and future provision will reflect individual needs.
Does the Minister accept that it is very mean to cut this service for 100 autistic children who benefited from it until now? I accept there may be a need to examine how the money was being spent or to reform the system to ensure the money was being well spent but we are talking here about autistic children who are in mainstream schools and who have additional needs over and above those of their classmates. I ask the Minister to examine this issue herself. There are now 100 families who have lost a support for their very needy children that they enjoyed until now. I urge her to re-examine these cases.
The special educational needs organisers cannot do anything about this because, according to individual parents I have spoken to, the organisers are implementing a policy decision of the Department that these children will not have home tuition grants. The organisers, therefore, cannot give them anything extra outside of school hours. The issue lies with the Department and I ask the Minister to respond to my concerns.
Rather than seeing this as a cut, I would see it as a development in that full-time schooling has been provided for these children.
They had that already.
The home tuition grant is designed for children who are not in school. What is really important is that these children get the type of education they deserve and need in whatever school setting they are in, be that a special class, special school or a mainstream school. Where a child is in a mainstream school, I understand that he or she also has five hours of resource teaching, which is over and above what the other children in the class would receive, as well as access to special needs assistant support. Each case is being supported.
What parents want for their autistic children, in a general sense, is that they would receive an education appropriate to their needs. I accept — notwithstanding what has already been done — that there is still an enormous amount that needs to be done for autistic children throughout the country. However, I want to do that work in the context of a school setting, whatever that setting might be, that is most appropriate for the children. That does not include paying a home tuition grant as well as giving them school provision.
Where school provision is not available and a child is awaiting a placement, the home tuition grant will still be paid. The home tuition grant is available for children with autism from the age of two and a half, for early intervention. Real work can be done with those children before they enter a school setting. I know the home tuition grant has been valuable to these children but now they have been provided with a place in a special class, a special school or a mainstream school and it is generally accepted that these are the best places for the education of children.
These people had full-time tuition in school as well as the home tuition grants, so it is a cut, in that sense, for the individual families. Many parents of autistic children are demanding an ABA system of education. If the Department had to pay for such a system, as opposed to the mainstream system, where in the case of one of these children, the class size is 29, it would be much more expensive than providing a home tuition grant. Providing extra support for these very needy children who place very heavy demands on their parents in the evenings, as well as when they are at school, is money well spent. The amount of money in question is very small and I urge the Minster to re-examine this issue.
The purpose of the home tuition grant is to assist children whose education needs are not being met by virtue of having a place in a school or a special class.
The Minister could be more flexible.
It is provided for children who are out of school for medical reasons, missing school for protracted periods or who do not have a school place. There are children who do not have a place in school and the home tuition grant will continue to be paid in respect of those children. However, I am very anxious, through the National Council for Special Education, the special needs organisers and the schools which these children are attending, that their individual needs will be met there. Reports have been received on each child and have either gone, or are going, to the National Council for Special Education and each case will be examined to ensure the children's needs will be met in the school setting.
The special needs organisers feel that the Minister has made a policy decision which they cannot change.
The policy decision on not paying the home tuition grant to children in full-time education whose needs are being met in the schools has been taken, but it is to ensure that their needs will be met in the school setting, and that is the requirement now.