Vol. 617 No. 5
38 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Education and Science her views on making the Stay Safe programme mandatory in schools in view of the strong support for this, including from the Catholic Bishops’ Commission for Education; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13500/06]
62 Mr. Bruton asked the Minister for Education and Science the number of schools here offering the Stay Safe programme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13339/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 38 and 62 together.
The issue of child protection and ensuring all children in every primary school are aware of child protection issues is a high priority area for the Department of Education and Science. The Stay Safe programme is a personal safety programme for children. It is designed to give children the knowledge and necessary skills to help them deal with potentially abusive or threatening situations.
It is also recognised that the programme must cover those individuals closely involved with children on a daily basis, namely their parents, guardians and teachers. To this end, Stay Safe involves professional in-service courses for teachers and seminars on parent awareness at individual school level. This is in addition to the teaching of a personal safety skills programme to pupils.
The training of teachers, parents and boards of management in the Stay Safe programme and the development of guidelines and procedures for a school policy on child protection is provided by a network of 31 regionally-based teachers available to the programme on a part-time basis. The support supplements the assistance provided by the Department of Health and Children which maintains an administrative office for the programme.
An initial one-day in-service training seminar on the Stay Safe programme has been provided for all primary schools. Since the programme was introduced, 99.7% of primary schools have participated in the training. The Department does not have an accurate survey of each school implementing the Stay Safe programme. However, to ensure the most accurate up-to-date information about the implementation of the programme, a survey will shortly be sent to all primary schools. I will provide the results to the Deputies in due course.
It should be noted, however, that while the Stay Safe programme is not mandatory, the teaching of a personal safety programme to ensure child protection is now an integral element of the curricular subject of social, personal and health education, SPHE. This is one of the 11 subject areas of the revised primary curriculum, mandatory for all primary schools.
The introduction of SPHE as a subject on the revised primary school curriculum, combined with the implementation of the national child protection guidelines, Children First, gave an additional impetus to the Stay Safe programme. The combined impact of these developments has ensured child protection issues remain central to teaching and learning in our schools. It also ensures a high level of awareness and the necessary skills to address child protection issues is maintained in all schools.
Once the results of the Stay Safe programme's survey have been received and processed, the position on the implementation of the programme will be clearer and the question of whether it should become mandatory can then be addressed.
As the SPHE is mandatory, will the Minister also consider making the Stay Safe programme mandatory? The Joint Committee on Education and Science had hearings on the issue. All the education partners, including patron and parent bodies, are in favour of ensuring all children are protected. Does the Minister not have a responsibility to ensure all children are fully protected? The Stay Safe programme is the best way to achieve this.
The Stay Safe programme is one method of achieving that. Vetting of staff, proper procedures and policies in schools also add to child protection. There is an obligation on everyone involved in the education system to ensure that is the case. The reason I am waiting for the survey to be completed is that parents have the right for their children to opt out of the programme.
That is the right of individual parents; they cannot make a whole class opt out.
I agree. I want every child to have access to the programme. Having considered the programme for each of the different age groups, I cannot understand why parents would not want their child to be involved with the programme. I also cannot understand why teachers would not want to teach it. It is a well-focussed and targeted programme for children about themselves, their feelings and protecting themselves. It is very age specific and appropriate. All the major bodies have now said they want it to be implemented. Obviously, however, there are some schools or areas around the country where some groups — I think it is largely parents — are not happy with it. I would like to see a situation where everybody would feel comfortable enough with the programme so that where it is introduced in a school every child would benefit from it. I will have a clear view of that as soon as I get the survey. If I can determine what the problems are, I will address them to ensure the programme is rolled out properly. If not, then I am open to making it mandatory.
As both the Minister and Deputy O'Sullivan have said, child protection is the most important thing. The Stay Safe programme is only one way of achieving such protection but it is a vital part. The Minister also referred to staff vetting procedures as another method but we still do not have such vetting. It will be some time before it is made retrospective but new staff will be vetted from September. We must deal, however, with staff who are already in the education system, including volunteers, by introducing proper procedures and policies. We are starting the vetting system now but surely making the Stay Safe programme mandatory is a step that needs to be taken without delay. The Minister said she was open to the idea of making the programme mandatory but, prior to the survey, did she receive any responses from those schools as to the reasons why they are not implementing it? The Minister said it was mostly parents who were unhappy with the programme and that is the response I have received also. It is not acceptable, however, for one or two parents or a group of parents in any particular area to stop all the children in that area from getting a programme that is necessary.
Does the Minister have any idea of the timescale for completion of the programme, with what I hope is a view to making it mandatory?
The child protection guidelines are issued to all schools, and all boards of management are obliged to implement them. We have introduced training for school boards of management and teachers, so all the parties involved in schools are well aware of their duties and obligations in this regard. From information previously received, it would appear that there are some geographical areas where groups of parents have gone against the Stay Safe programme. Perhaps those parents have moved on and their children may now be in secondary school. I want to identify the issues involved and whether there is a major issue that needs to be addressed in the programme. I do not believe there is but people may be identifying one. The absence of real information is such that it makes the matter difficult for us to deal with.
We had a figure based on some sort of quantitative survey to which there was less than a 50% response. On that basis, it is hard to work out how many schools are implementing the programme. The CPS reckons that approximately 95% of schools are running the programme. It is intended that the survey will be carried out quickly and that responses will come back through the education centres so they can be followed up locally to obtain real information. Unless there is a very good reason why the programme should not be implemented in full, as soon as I receive the survey results I will be quite prepared to make the programme mandatory. Due to the nature of the programme and because there is an opt out clause, I would like to see a situation where it is offered in schools and where every child has the protection and benefit of that programme with the support of their parents and teachers.
I have a question concerning the survey findings. The Minister said there was a response rate of approximately 50% to the forms.
That was the last survey.
In this particular survey, therefore, are people being contacted locally? I welcome the Minister's comments on the mandatory nature of the Stay Safe programme. Given that concerns were expressed in the past, when the results of the survey come back, will there be any possibility of modifying the programme should there still be opposition to it? Could it be modified in such as way as to get 95% support for it?
If a particular issue concerning the programme needs to be addressed then well and good. To be honest, however, having examined the programme, I cannot see one. At the time it was introduced, scare-mongering comments were made by individuals, which worried parents to such an extent they felt they should pull out of it, without having realised what the programme was about to do. In recent years, everybody has become more enlightened about child protection. Perhaps these are unnecessary but deep-seated views, which started a number of years ago but might still exist. For one reason or another they have not been addressed but I wish to address them. I want every child to benefit from the Stay Safe programme and I wish to reassure people that there is nothing to be worried about.
Since it is a full-scale survey, as opposed to a sample one, it is my intention that the results will come back to us so they can be followed up locally.
I agree with the Minister that the Stay Safe programme is excellent. Parents, teachers and the back-up team directly involved in it must be leading on the issue. I urge the Minister to maintain regular contact with parents' groups. If a minority of people have not been brought on board they should be because the bottom line is that the programme is sensible, safe and in the interests of child safety.
One issue that has not been touched on in today's debate is the safety of teachers when dealing with sensitive cases involving dysfunctional and often violent families. Does the Minister understand the serious risks some teachers face when dealing with child abuse cases? Threats have been made against teachers in such cases. Does the Minister have any practical proposals to make to boards of management and unions to protect teachers in their classrooms? A violent or dysfunctional parent may turn up at a school at 9.30 a.m. when a teacher is directly involved in assisting the social services. I had direct experience of such situations in my previous teaching career as violent, dysfunctional parents turned up when a child abuse case was being dealt with. Teachers were threatened and there were serious implications for them.
Does the Minister have any research details, statistics or other information on the number of children who have been helped and saved since the introduction of the Stay Safe programme and SPHE, including the excellent work that is done in this respect with teachers and parents?
In dealing with parents' groups, I urge the Minister to use her clout and leadership to get a minority of parents on board who still have reservations about the Stay Safe programme. Even in the last year or two, the number of such parents has fallen dramatically. I would say it is approximately 1% at this stage.
The Deputy ran over time on that question.
I am sorry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
To get back to the timescale, is the Minister talking about three, six, nine or 12 months? Does she have a timescale in mind? I accept there is confusion and ignorance about the Stay Safe programme. However, I thought it was a positive step by the representatives of the bishops' commission who attended the Committee on Education and Science and supported the programme. As Deputy Finian McGrath said, there is a need for leadership on this matter. No one wants to compulsorily force parents to accept the programme but leadership is required in this respect. I think everyone accepts that this is the proper way forward for children.
Where do children go whose parents wish them to opt out of participation in the programme? Is the Department working on schemes to look after children at school who will not participate?
As regards the points raised by Deputy Finian McGrath and Deputy Crowe, parents are central to this matter. The programme recognises that parents are the most important people in a child's life. It also recognises that a child who is upset is most likely to turn to its parents in the first instance. That is why, before the programme is even introduced into a school, there are parents' meetings, including an introductory meeting explaining the whole programme. Even after that, parents have the right not to allow their children to participate in it. In the past, I suspect that because a large body of parents within a particular area or school were against the programme, rather than implementing the programme for a few children and not knowing what to do with the others, the school did not introduce the programme at all.
I am satisfied that when we get the final survey results we will find the programme is being introduced in the vast majority of cases. I accept what Deputy Crowe said — it is a welcome step that the bishops' commission has stated it would like to see the programme being implemented. Hopefully that will allay some of the fears people have about the programme. While such fears are genuinely unfounded, we must respect the rights of parents concerning a programme like this.
As Deputy Finian McGrath is aware, we never know how many children are saved or protected from situations by the Stay Safe programme. We only ever hear of the terrible stories of children who did not know how to protect themselves or where structures were not in place to protect them. I hope that as time goes on we will hear of fewer cases of children who are severely abused because they will know how to protect themselves and proper procedures will be in place. Equally, it is vitally important that every school has policies and procedures in place to protect their teachers as well as their children. That is a crucial issue for boards of management, who are responsible for recruiting, selecting and managing their schools on a day to day basis. They must ensure the principal and teachers in their schools are protected.
39 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Education and Science the number of new teaching posts which will be created in 2006. [13450/06]
It is anticipated that at least 500 additional teaching posts will be created in the coming school year, 2006-07. These extra posts will be as a result of both Government announcements of extra staff to reduce class size and to tackle disadvantage, and of our commitment to provide extra teachers as needed to support children with special needs and those for whom English is not their first language.
The Deputy will be aware that primary schools are staffed on the basis of a general rule that there is 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. At the time of the 2006 Estimates, I announced that for the coming school year this will be reduced to 28 children per classroom teacher and that for the 2007-08 school year it will be reduced to 27 children per classroom teacher.
The new and improved staffing schedule for the next school year issued to schools recently. The application of the new schedule, together with increases in enrolments at primary level, is expected to result in approximately 240 additional teaching posts for the coming school year. In addition, the terms of the current staffing arrangements for primary schools provide for extra posts, referred to as developing school posts, to be assigned to schools on the basis of projected enrolments for the following school year. These have also been allocated more generously this year. It is not possible to state with certainty the number of such posts which will be allocated for the coming school year. However, I estimate it will be approximately 150 posts.
Two other areas driven by need are teaching support for children with special needs and language support for students whose first language is not English at both primary and post-primary levels. The number of teachers in our schools working specifically with children with special needs has grown substantially in recent years. Approximately 5,000 teachers in our primary schools now work directly with children with special needs, including those requiring learning support, compared to 1,500 in 1998. The number of language support teachers at primary and post-primary level increased substantially to the tune of more than 100 extra posts annually in recent years. In the areas of support for children with special needs and those whose first language is not English it is difficult to estimate exactly how many extra teachers will be needed in the next school year.
Regarding support for children from disadvantaged areas, the Deputy is aware that last year I launched a new action plan for tackling disadvantage, DEIS, one aspect of which will be more staffing for the most disadvantaged schools. The plan provides for an extra 300 posts across the education system over the course of a five year period. Some of these are teaching posts and others are support staff. I expect that approximately 150 extra teaching posts will have been created in primary and post-primary schools by the end of the next school year under the DEIS plan. Taken together, next year will yet again see a considerable increase of approximately 500 extra teachers in the level of staffing in our schools.
Notwithstanding the huge developments that have taken place in additional teaching staff in our schools, will the Minister acknowledge it is still too little and too late? I spoke to the Minister exactly a year ago this month on the programme for Government commitment to reduce class sizes for pupils under nine years of age to less than 20. That will not be implemented during the lifetime of this Government. I am sure the Minister acknowledges that.
Will the Minister concede that the OECD report on attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers called for an additional 1,600 primary teachers? How many of that 1,600 are included in the figure of 500 the Minister gave today? If we consider issues such as problems with school discipline, the report of the taskforce on student behaviour recommended that the five year old McGuinness report on the allocation of teachers in second-level schools be implemented. The second recommendation of that report is for an additional 1,200 teachers at second-level. Those figures amount to a total of 2,800 additional teachers. What proportion of the figure in terms of extra teachers this year, last year and the previous year comes from that 2,800? How much more must the Minister do and will she get it done within the remaining year of the Government's term?
The system would not have the capacity to introduce more than 500 teachers next year. That is generally accepted by the education partners. Those 500 teachers will be placed across all of the Government's priorities, namely, disadvantage, special needs and the reduction of class size.
During the past number of years, 4,000 extra teachers entered the system through enrolments, population and, particularly, in the reduction of class sizes and special needs. I and my predecessors identified special needs and disadvantage as the major priorities for this Government. That is why we targeted it in the way we did and through measures such as the general allocation on special needs, which allowed for 660 extra teachers last year alone, ensured we had more teachers in classrooms and schools.
Regarding second-level, the Deputy referred to the taskforce on behaviour. It is clear one could have no behavioural problem in a class of 30 and have a serious behavioural problem in a class of ten. The number of students in a class does not reflect discipline, control, respect or the relationship between the teacher and the students. Extra posts have been created at second-level, particularly in special needs and guidance, which I targeted at junior levels and those making the transition from primary to second-level.
The teacher allocation at second-level is extremely generous and the pupil-teacher ratio has reduced in ten years to 13.4. There is a teacher for approximately every 13 second-level students. The reason it is that low is because it must cater for the wide curriculum. An Irish class might have 25 students but a Spanish class might only have five. In ensuring different levels, such as foundation, pass and higher level, and a broad curriculum are on offer, class sizes are different at second-level. However, the pupil-teacher ratio of 13.4 is extremely generous.
In her response, the Minister mentioned having sufficient capacity for an extra 500 teachers. By capacity does the Minister mean space in which those teachers can operate?
Training places.
Perhaps I am incorrect on that. What co-ordination is done between the section of her Department which deals with posts and that which deals with school buildings to ensure these teachers have classrooms?
The Minister will recall that in February we discussed non-national children in schools. Once a school has 28 such children they receive two teaching posts. However, even if more than 100 or 200 non-national children attend the school an extra post is not allocated unless at the Minister's discretion. Has any progress been made in dealing with that issue, which relates to teacher numbers?
I was not discussing buildings, I was discussing the availability of teachers. Retirements, secondments and extra needs in the classrooms mean the issue is the availability of the number of teachers. An allocation of 500 extra teachers in one school year is extremely generous and will make a great difference to our schools. It is due to the reduction in class size and special needs, and is a more generous allocation because of the development of schools.
Regarding international children, a new issue which arose during the past few years is that 800 teachers in primary and secondary schools, with a breakdown of 600 to 200, do nothing else except teach English as a foreign language. That could not have been anticipated five years ago. I accept certain schools have a particular concentration of such children who make up a high percentage of the entire school population. Department officials have visited a number of these schools. We had meetings with the education partners and are in the process of working out a policy. The allocation of two, or even three, teachers is not sufficient in some schools.
The allocation of language support for two years is not sufficient for all children. We recognise wider cultural issues exist and that the idea of having supports for their families is equally important. These children receive language lessons in school and go home where English is not spoken, which does not help them to progress. I am actively working on this issue. That all adds to the number of teachers we need. It might have been much easier to assign these teachers to the under-nines if I had not had to deal with the special needs children, for whom 5,000 teachers provide learning support. I also target disadvantaged students, and assigned 800 teachers to deal specifically with language.
It is not possible to deal with everything at the same time and we must decide on the priorities. Special needs and disadvantage are the top priorities on which we will continue to focus. At the same time we have made real progress on reduction of the class size in this year's schedule and next year's schedule.
I congratulate the Minister on being named Magill Politician of the Year last night. She must be somewhat smarter than her colleagues. Were they fooling the people when they said in the agreed programme for Government that they would bring the class sizes down to European norms and the under-nines would be in classes with a ratio lower than 20:1? As soon as the Minister took office she said she could not do this and she has just told us that the capacity is for only 500 teachers in the year. The Minister is obviously the brightest and the best but what about her colleagues and their promise?
Is the Cabinet holding the Minister back?
I too congratulate the Minister on the major award she received last night. I was nominated for heckler of the year but did not perform very well. However, I slept well last night.
We all welcome the 500 extra teachers into the system because they are urgently needed. How many will leave the system at the same time as those 500 are being introduced?
Will the order of the Minister's priorities this year again be disadvantage, disability and class size? Does the Minister know what percentage of the new graduate teachers coming into the classrooms next year will be male? It is important to retain the balance in Irish education and have male role models for the pupils.
Many schools, teachers and parents at clinics and advice centres complain that there is a major crisis for children with disabilities in second level education because the resources do not follow them into that level.
Does the Minister have any plans or constructive proposals on how to stop the drift from some schools which are losing many of their bright pupils? Some schools have become "ghettoised" as the most disadvantaged and poor children seem to end up in one school. We have lost the positive mix we had 20 or 30 years ago. It is dangerous for the future of society to have some elitist schools while others are "ghettoised".
I nominate Deputy Finian McGrath for the brevity award.
I thank Deputy O'Sullivan for her kind comments on my prestigious award.
I intended them sincerely.
Any award winner is only as good as those marking her. We are enjoying a shared, reflected glory in the Chamber today.
If we did not make a priority of special needs and disadvantage we would have much smaller class sizes at junior level. Is anybody in this Chamber or elsewhere going to tell me that special needs and disadvantage should not be a major priority?
They need additional funding.
I know the thoughts of each person here on that issue. I invested in those two areas first because they are top priorities for me and the Government. I have made a commitment this year and for next year on class size and look forward, when I am re-elected, le cúnamh Dé, to being able to do even more about this problem. I am nothing if not up front and honest about it. Schools will recognise exactly what the priorities are and why.
A new priority emerged with international students because it is not possible to have thousands of pupils in our schools who do not speak English. We had to assign teachers to them as well. The 500 teachers are extra, there will be others over and above that number to replace those who will retire etc.
It is a serious problem for the profession that sufficient men are not attracted to teaching because children need role models of both genders. It would be a negative development for the teaching profession and schools to be completely feminised. All male teachers in medicine or engineering would not be acceptable. That is why we are actively running the men as teachers and educators, MATE, campaign to attract men into teaching. It appears that although there is a drop in the numbers applying for teacher training this year there is an increase in the number of men applying.
I hope we can all take a positive approach to teaching and that career guidance teachers and parents will recommend it as a profession. At present parents and career guidance counsellors tell the good female students that teaching would be a lovely job for them but suggest that the good male students do something else. Teaching is not portrayed as having the same status for men as for women. As a society we must deal with that problem.
In response to Deputy Finian McGrath's question about people moving between areas to change school, some schools cherrypick their students on the basis of special needs and background. They do this within the confines of their own enrolment policies by saying, particularly to the special needs pupils, that the school down the road can deal better with them. This is a sly, underhand way of dealing with the inclusive school society we should have. I have addressed this at each of the conferences I have attended and will do so again at the conferences held over the Easter holidays.
40 Mr. English asked the Minister for Education and Science the failure rate in science at junior certificate level; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13317/06]
Since 1975 each candidate who takes the junior certificate examination, the intermediate certificate prior to 1992, has been awarded a certificate showing the grades obtained in each subject in the range A through to NG, with no reference to failure, pass or honours. In this way no student is labelled a failure but is given due recognition for his or her achievements in each examination taken.
In the 2005 examination the proportion of school-based candidates obtaining grade E or less was 6.9%. The corresponding figure for candidates taking the ordinary level paper was 4.9%. While variations in these figures are to be expected from year to year, the 2005 results are broadly in line with the corresponding figures for previous years.
I am aware of the important role played by the sciences in a modern education system. Significant progress is being made in regard to curricular reform and in-service support for science at primary and post-primary levels. Science was introduced as a key component in the revised primary school curriculum in 1999 and it has been implemented in all schools since September 2003.
A revised junior certificate syllabus was introduced in September 2003, for first examination in 2006. This syllabus, with its hands-on investigative approach and new emphasis on scientific processes, will be particularly instrumental in encouraging more pupils to continue science in senior cycle, especially as the completion of 30 mandatory experiments will be a requirement for all students. Revised syllabi have been implemented for leaving certificate biology, physics and chemistry.
The introduction of curricular change in the sciences has been supported by comprehensive in-career development programmes for teachers. Additional equipment grants have been provided to schools, and laboratories continue to be refurbished as part of the ongoing schools building programme. A total of €16 million was invested in resources and laboratories in 2004 to support the implementation of the revised junior certificate science syllabus.
My Department is fully committed to strengthening the quality of science teaching and learning, promoting increased scientific literacy and encouraging more students to choose science subjects. Progress in these areas is a vitally important part of our national strategy to support competitiveness and employment. My Department's work in supporting and promoting science will continue to be progressed and enhanced, as resources permit, in collaboration and consultation with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, with Forfás and with industry.
I share the Minister's view that nobody wants to see people labelled as failures but we must face the reality about the science subjects. The rate has been more or less consistent in recent years but the record is still bad. I am concerned also about the uptake in the subject when students progress to the leaving certificate programme.
The new junior certificate science syllabus is good and will, I hope, make the subject more interesting for students. We will be able to judge the success of the new syllabus following the junior certificate examinations in June 2006. I understand that the mistakes to which I referred are found in the guidebook given to teachers. The Department was informed of these mistakes some time ago but the mistakes have not been rectified, even though students will sit the examinations in June. These mistakes are becoming apparent in the teaching of practicals because they are present in the guidebook used by teachers. I do not know if this serious matter has been brought to the attention of the Minister.
While we are concerned about failure rates in any subject, the failure rates in science are no worse than those found in other subjects, particularly where students might be taking a subject at the wrong level. While the failure rate in higher level junior certificate science is 6.9%, the failure rate in higher level junior certificate history, a popular subject which is taken by virtually everyone, is 6.4%. The failure rate in ordinary level junior certificate science is 4.9%, but the failure rate in business studies is 6.5% and the failure rate in French is 11.7%. Obviously there will be failure rates in different subjects. The failure rate in science is no worse than those of other subjects but I hope that the new syllabus, with its practical element and experiments, will bring about better outcomes.
The failure rate in leaving certificate science is worse comparatively.
I am concerned about the take-up of science subjects at leaving certificate level. Despite the fact that we have invested quite heavily in resources, such as the summer work scheme, under which a number of schools will upgrade their science laboratories, there is a drop in the take-up of science subjects at leaving certificate from the healthy levels found at junior certificate level. The drop in the take-up of science subjects at third level is even more significant. Our economy urgently needs people to continue with science through to third level and postgraduate level.
There has been a slight improvement in participation rates in science subjects in the leaving certificate in recent years. In 2005, 14.7% of students studied physics, which represents an increase on the 2002 figure, 13.6% of students studied chemistry, which represents an increase on previous levels, and 46.9% of students studied biology, which represents an increase of over 3.5% on the previous year. We appear, therefore, to have halted the decline in the take-up of science subjects but it is important that we encourage more students to study them.
I have read about difficulties people were experiencing with the science syllabus, which support teams in the Department are trying to resolve.
Will the problems be addressed before the examinations in June? If there are any mistakes in the practicals, the students can only be judged on what they have been taught as opposed to what they should have been taught. This issue must be addressed before they sit the examinations.
I will ensure that whatever measures need to be taken within the Department to identify problems are taken.
