Vol. 626 No. 1
97 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Education and Science if she will abolish the inclusion of SSIA interest in assessing income for qualification of third level grants in accordance with the spirit of the scheme when it was first announced; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34128/06]
Income from SSIAs is being treated exactly the same as income from similar savings and investment products for the purposes of assessing eligibility for a maintenance grant. This has been the case since SSIAs were introduced.
The amount of income to be included in SSIAs is the Government grant earned on the savings in the relevant tax year — in the case of savings accounts, the gross interest earned in the relevant tax year, and, in the case of investment accounts, the investment profit earned in the relevant tax year. Investment losses are deductible. The same position has long applied to interest earned on other savings products, including deposit accounts, post office savings certificates, life assurance bonds and so forth. The treatment of SSIAs is therefore consistent with the traditional treatment of other similar investments over many years. In applying for a grant for the 2006-07 academic year, only the relevant income earned, as outlined above, on the SSIA in 2005 had to be declared.
With regard to how much impact income from an SSIA could have in determining whether a person would qualify for a grant, the reckonable income limits for student grants have been increased considerably in recent years. In the 2003-04 academic year, the income limit for a family with four children was increased from €23,770 to €35,165, an increase of nearly 48%. However, the maximum amount a SSIA saver could have received by way of Government contribution to their SSIA in any one year is €762. Only the amount of the Government contribution, and any savings interest or investment profit earned in one year, is taken into account in assessments of eligibility for a maintenance grant. The income limits have continued to rise each year, to the point where the limit for a family with four children this year is €41,055.
We have also introduced two new income thresholds to allow for 25% and 75% grants as well as the 50% and 100% rates, as well as the new top-up grant to target extra funding at those who need it most. The maximum level of ordinary maintenance grant available this year is €3,110 compared to €2,390 in 2002. The maximum level of the top-up grant is €5,970 compared to €3,000 in 2001-02.
This year, over €228 million has been allocated for the third level student support schemes. Further improvements to the system are being developed at present to ensure that not only is it a well resourced one but that it is also customer friendly.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
To return to the issue of how SSIA income is treated for maintenance grant purposes, the Deputy can be assured that SSIA income is being treated the same as income from similar savings products and that the income limits have been increased substantially in recent years. The SSIAs are being treated the same way this year as they have each year since they were introduced.
I return to the points raised by Deputy Enright which were not fully addressed by the Minister. For example, the Deputy stated that the Minister for Social and Family Affairs is in a position to make allowances in respect of his Department. When this scheme was announced, people were informed about its importance and about the fact that they would receive additional money from the Government. They were never told that it would affect their grants. Is it not somewhat mean to deal with them in this way? Would the Minister not open her heart, ignore the income people earned from their SSIAs and go with the spirit of the scheme and ensure that higher education grants will not be affected? It is fine to say that people will not be affected because the limits have been increased this year. That is similar, however, to saying that if one obtains an increase in one's pension in the budget, local authorities should be allowed to claw it back in rents. This is about the spirit of the scheme and a degree of generosity.
The important point is that the limits increased in each year by far more than what any saver would have accrued via his or her SSIA and the interest attaching thereto. Last year, the limit was €33,890 for the 100% maintenance grant. This year, it is €35,485. If one is only receiving €785 plus some interest, the limit increase far outweighs what one would have received from one's SSIA.
For social welfare purposes, there are no special means testing provisions relating to SSIAs. The latter are treated in the same way as other savings and investments, such as money deposited in An Post savings accounts or shares. It would have been very unfair to penalise those saving with An Post or a credit union or putting money away each month under another system——
The Government encouraged them to invest in SSIAs in addition to their other savings.
——and not take into account the money people earned from SSIAs. It is not the money saved that is being taken into account; it is only the grants and interest received. Income limits were increased generously over last year — they have been increased in every year, particularly the first, since the SSIA scheme was put in place — and students should not feel in any way penalised in respect of the money they have gained.
I understand what the Minister is saying but the point I am making is that when the scheme was introduced, the spirit of it appeared to be that one would gain the full benefit of the proportion of the money the Government was to provide. In my view, it is mean to claw it back in this way. The Minister is generally a generous woman.
Approximately 18 months ago, before the media began to take an interest in this matter, I highlighted the fact that, for example, lone parents' SSIA earnings were being calculated in advance of when their interest accrued and certainly prior to the end of the scheme. The levels relating to when they would qualify for grants were applied before these people actually received or could access their money. That was cruel and unjust. Does the Minister plan to reverse what happened in this regard?
There is no difference in the reckonable income this year compared to that which applied last year or the year before.
We raised the matter at that stage.
The only money that has been taken into account is the interest raised in that previous year.
These people have not yet earned the money; they cannot access it.
However, it is income and it is there to be taken into account.
98 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Education and Science the way she proposes to respond to the 200,000 plus parents demanding that the Government implement the promised reduction in class sizes in primary schools contained in the programme for Government in 2002. [34145/06]
120 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Education and Science the steps she is taking to reduce class sizes; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [33720/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 98 and 120 together.
The parental representations to which Deputy Crowe's question refers were given to me in the form of a petition by the INTO. In response to that petition, I wrote to all schools pointing out the huge progress that has been made in providing extra staff to our primary schools in recent years.
As the Deputies will be aware, there are now, compared to 2002, no less than 4,000 extra teachers in our primary schools. Furthermore, there are almost 7,000 more primary teachers than there were in 1997. This represents the largest increase in teacher numbers since the expansion of free education. The average class size in our primary schools is 24 and there is now one teacher for 17 pupils at primary level, including resource teachers.
The number of children in large classes has been significantly reduced. When the Government entered office, there were more than 52,000 children in classes of 35 and over — five times the number that there were in the last school year. There were also more than 1,900 children in classes of 40 and over, compared to just over 200 in the last school year.
While I appreciate the need to make further progress in reducing class size, it should be acknowledged just how much has been achieved. In recent years, priority has rightly been given to providing extra support for children with special needs, those from disadvantaged areas and those that need help with English. Special education provision in particular has undergone a level of expansion the extent of which nobody could have predicted a few years ago, and this was only right. If we had put all 4,000 of the teachers hired since 2002 into classroom teaching, our average class size would be a lot smaller than it is now. However, we would have done a great disservice to those children who need extra help the most. I am sure the Deputies will accept that we have taken the correct approach.
Now that children with special needs are finally getting the support they deserve, we are providing extra teachers this year and next specifically to reduce class sizes, through a reduction in the mainstream staffing schedule. This has meant that, whereas all primary schools were staffed on a general rule of at least one classroom teacher for every 29 children in the 2005-06 school year, in the current year the number is 28. Schools with only one or two teachers have much lower staffing ratios than that, with two teachers for just 12 pupils in some cases. The general rule, however, is that there should be at least one classroom teacher for every 28 children in the school. Next year, we are committed to hiring even more extra teachers in order to reduce this to a general rule of at least one teacher for every 27 children.
We also acted this year to specifically address the needs of growing schools by making it easier to qualify for developing school posts. Over 280 such posts were sanctioned for the 2006-07 school year, compared to 170 in 2005-06. This change specifically addressed the needs of schools that are seeing large increases in their enrolments year on year.
Significant progress has, therefore, been made by the Government in reducing class size, in providing extra support for children with special needs and those from disadvantaged areas and in addressing the specific needs of schools in developing areas. Nonetheless, I assure the Deputies that we will continue to prioritise further improvements in school staffing going forward. I also assure them that we will also continue our focus on measures to improve the quality of education in our primary schools to ensure that increased resources lead to better outcomes for our children.
Everyone accepts that progress has been made but the Minister must accept that there is overcrowding in many classrooms. The figures in my possession indicate that 111,000 primary school pupils are in classes of 30 or more. This means that more than one in four of the State's 442,000 primary school students are in such classes. Does the Minister agree that this is unfair on students and on their teachers? In many cases, this is not conducive to learning, it contributes to indiscipline and it hampers the ability of teachers to teach and students to learn. Does the Minister agree that it is imperative that small class sizes must be maintained from early years right through children's education because this would prove beneficial? When does she propose to reduce class sizes to the 20:1 ratio promised by the Government?
As already stated in respect of a previous question, there is no correlation between small classes and higher standards. Reports indicate that this is the case in respect of literacy and maths. Notwithstanding that and in light of the integration of children with special needs and the greater needs that exist in disadvantaged areas, I recognise the importance of reducing class sizes. Approximately 500 teachers were appointed this year with the aim of reducing the class size schedule and there is a commitment to reduce it further next year.
If classes are very large in particular schools, it is because such schools have made local agreements to divide classes in a certain way. I have studied the figures and monitored schools which chose to put in place small classes at one level and those with over 30 students at another level. There seems to be some objection, particularly in urban areas, to teaching split classes. More than half of our schools have mixed grade classes. This system has worked extraordinarily well for generations but schools in urban areas refuse to put it in place and opt for larger classes in some years and smaller classes in others.
On the general allocation, there is a teacher for every 28 pupils. I refer here only to mainstream classroom teachers and am not referring to resource teachers, etc, of which there is one for every 17 students. Next year, the general allocation will be reduced to one for every 27 pupils.
The Minister indicated that there are just over 200 children in classes of 40 or more. The figure for the past year was 287. A total of 1,792 pupils — the highest in the country — in Cork county are in classes of between 35 and 39. I do not believe that the argument that schools opt to have lower numbers in particular years is always fair. It is not the case in every instance.
Over a year ago, the Minister spoke about the number of teachers provided to schools with non-national students and she said she hoped to make some progress. Has any progress been made? This is a key difficulty for some schools in which there is a significant number of non-national children. There have also been problems with children changing schools during term time as their families have moved, with schools in Newbridge being the most recent example. Has the Minister any ideas to address that problem?
The figure of 287 referred to two schools that shared one number, so the real figure is 206. However, there should not be any child in a class of that size. When we checked with those schools, in most cases the school was awaiting accommodation under the building programme.
We have made progress on the issue of non-national students, especially in the allocation of extra teachers as well as in providing training supports for teachers. There is a problem with children moving school during term time. I really wish that parents who are choosing to move house within term time would make arrangements for their children to be in a school at the beginning of the school term. It is entirely unacceptable, in the educational interests of their children, that they would have checked out the colour scheme in the bathroom of their new house but would not have found out if a place was available for their child within a school. The Department, local schools, patrons of schools and boards of management cannot predict what kind of family will move into a particular house in a particular estate. This is causing pressures and we will respond to those pressures as quickly as possible. However, I ask that local communities do not object to the temporary accommodation provided to facilitate these children. We need to provide the spaces for them. If parents are moving house during term time, they must make sure that they have made arrangements for their children's education.
Is the Minister aware of the widespread anger among parents and teachers about class sizes? Does she support the campaign by the INTO on this issue? The Minister can blame parents and the housing situation, but there is no excuse not to have proper class sizes in schools, with all the money in the State. Will the Minister continue to prioritise this issue? The programme for Government committed to a pupil teacher ratio of 20:1. Parents and teachers need answers to these questions because they are very important. The Cabinet is fast asleep on this issue. Will she put pressure on members of the Cabinet to do something in the budget about class sizes?
I accept the point the Minister made when she said that parents should make provision when they are moving. However, I saw the television clip involving two school principals in Newbridge. They said that they have been demanding more capacity for their pupils for years, so the issue is not just about parents failing to make provision for their child a month before they move. Has the Minister plans to improve the situation to enable the Department to intervene early enough to provide schools and classrooms for children so that they are there when the houses are built?
I remember when the development plan for Kildare was being carried out and the land was being rezoned. The point was made that the schools would not be in place at the appropriate time. That was predicted several years ago and that is exactly what has happened. Does the Minister accept that there is a different need in areas that are rapidly developing? Students showing up during term time is only a symptom of that. There is a lack of provision in the rapidly expanding areas.
The Department must surely have made provisions for situations like this. The Minister is now in her job for quite some time and she should have outlined by now what needs to be done in places like Newbridge.
The provision of schools in developing areas is a matter of concern for the Department. That is why we have carried out studies on developing areas. Long-term and short-term plans have prioritised schools in developing areas to try to ensure that places are made available. If the Deputies look at the schools that are currently being built in those areas, they will see that families that move from one school to another during term are causing a big problem to both schools.
If any Member of the House wishes to tell me that we should have reduced class size before we dealt with children with special needs, before we targeted disadvantaged or before we aimed for integration of children——
We have moved on.
——with language difficulties, then I am happy to defend the fact that more than 4,000 extra teachers went into our primary schools to deal with those priorities.
We do not disagree with that.
Government is about priority and our prioritisation is directed towards those who need it most. Those who needed it most were special needs children, disadvantaged children and children with language difficulties.
99 Ms B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Education and Science if a television literacy series (details supplied) is to be continued; if there are other mass media measures planned to widen access to second-chance education; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34117/06]
An information and tuition programme on adult literacy called "Read Write Now" was televised by RTE 1 in five series over the period 2000-05. In 2006, the National Adult Literacy Agency devised a new two-year multimedia literacy project, entitled "The Really Useful Guide to Words and Numbers". An element of this project is a TV series of that name, which is currently being shown once a week on RTE 1, at 1 p.m. on Sundays, with a repeat just after midnight on Tuesday. The series began in September 2006 and will run to April 2007. It is accompanied by a learner workbook, a free telephone helpline and a website. The website includes printable sheets from the workbook, additional on-line activities and the entire video clip of each programme 24 hours after broadcast.
When the transmission of the present series has been completed next April, its impact will be evaluated. The most appropriate next steps will be considered in light of the results of the evaluation. The series is being funded mainly by the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland, with contributions from my Department and RTE. The cost of the project in total is estimated at €2.6 million.
The Government has shown an unprecedented commitment to improving adult literacy provision. We have increased expenditure on adult literacy programmes from €1 million in 1997 to €23 million in 2006. As a result of this dramatic increase in funding, we have been able to expand the number of people receiving adult literacy training to the point where 35,000 people will receive a service in 2006. Referral networks have been developed by the VECs to ensure that the people who need them most are made aware of the adult literacy and basic education services available. The referral system involves collaboration with other agencies catering for potential literacy students, such as FÁS, employment offices, welfare and community groups and schools.
A number of joint literacy initiatives have been developed between FÁS, the VECs, the National Adult Literacy Agency and employers. A workplace literacy programme has been introduced in all local authority areas for outdoor workers. While the Department of Education and Science has the primary role in adult literacy and numeracy issues, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has a shared responsibility with regard to literacy and numeracy training in the workplace.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
My Department is committed to working with other partners to ensure that the needs of adults with low levels of literacy continue to receive the highest priority in the future. We are determined to use a variety of avenues to reach people who need an adult literacy service, and the use of specially designed TV programmes is one part of this approach.
The National Adult Literacy Agency has stated that only 7% of those with literacy difficulties are actually participating in literacy programmes. I acknowledge the good work that has been done on adult literacy, but there is a need to expand it to include more people. The programme is broadcast at 1 p.m. on Sunday and at midnight on Tuesday. Are there any plans to broadcast adult literacy programmes at more accessible times for the public?
Many of us are members of the all-party committee which produced a report that suggested a need to quadruple the spending on adult literacy in the period up to 2013. There were members on that committee from the Government parties. Does the Minister agree that such expansion is needed in order to reach people who really need adult literacy?
I agree we must get the message across about these programmes to those who wish to improve their literacy and numeracy skills. Through research, we found the most effective way has been through the use of television. The "Read Write Now" series was a tremendous success considering the number of people who tuned in to watch it. With help from the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland and working with NALA, more than €2.6 million has been put aside for the new multimedia approach over the next two years.
I take the point that the transmission times of these programmes might seem a little odd but the ratings for the "Really Useful Guide" have been extremely encouraging thus far. It is not just a case of watching the programme at the actual broadcast times because video clips and workbooks are available.
My question refers to the question I asked the Minister about primary schools. A submission will be made to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Science that a number of adult non-nationals are taking places on adult literacy classes. Whereas they are completely literate in their own language, they need English language classes to be provided for them. Has the Minister of State any mechanism in mind to provide for people who need literacy classes can avail of them and those who need English language classes will have that facility afforded to them?
I certainly recognise the differentiation between those two groups. It is a question of language acquisition as opposed to literacy as we mean it. A number of schemes are in place to help those coming to our shores who might not have English as a mother tongue. I refer to the point made by Deputy O'Sullivan. The national development plan committed €93.5 million to the service in the period 2000 to 2006. The expenditure over this period has exceeded the NDP commitment and will reach €123 million by the end of 2006. We are very mindful that further investment is needed in the area of literacy. It is a Government priority and the progress to date should be acknowledged.
100 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Education and Science her views on whether her Department has failed to invest sufficiently in second level education as reflected in Ireland’s position at 29th out of 30 countries in the OECD league table by GDP and 24th by GNP and that, notwithstanding investment in special needs and international students, the vast majority of second level students here have not seen a reduction in class sizes; if she will commit to providing 1,000 additional second level teachers in 2007; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34240/06]
I am pleased to inform the House that funding for second level education has improved significantly since 2003, the financial year indicated in the OECD report referred to by the Deputy.
Spending by my Department on second level education increased by 17% between 2003 and 2005. In 2005, €2.7 billion was spent on second-level education, up from €2.3 billion in 2003 and €1.25 billion in 1997. These increases have allowed major progress to be made both in the staffing and in the day-to-day funding of our schools.
With regard to funding, the standard capitation rate increased from €266 per pupil in 2003 to €298 per pupil from 1 January last. In addition, the support services grant for secondary schools has been increased from €127 per pupil in 2003 to €159 per pupil from January last. This per capita grant is in addition to a range of equalisation grants of up to some €15,500 per school per annum that were also approved for voluntary secondary schools. A secondary school with 500 students will this year gain €270,000 for general expenses and support services.
Significant improvements have also been made in the staffing of our second level schools in recent years. With the creation of over 2,000 additional posts and the retention of over 2,100 posts which would otherwise have been lost due to the fall in enrolments, there is now one teacher for every 13 students at second level.
This increase in staffing has dramatically improved the support available to children with special needs at second level. Indeed, there are now over 1,800 teachers working specifically with students with special needs in our second level schools — up from only about 200 such teachers in 1998. In addition, there are more than 500 learning support teachers and more than 1,300 special needs assistants in our second level schools.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The number of language support teachers at second level catering for pupils for whom English is a second language has also grown significantly from just over 100 teachers in the 2001-02 school year to nearly 350 such teachers in the current school year.
Guidance provision has also been improved, with an additional 100 guidance posts allocated in the 2005-06 school year. The additional posts included provision for a further improvement in the allocation of guidance hours for post-primary schools participating in the DEIS programme. There are currently a total of 683 whole-time equivalent posts allocated for guidance in post-primary schools.
With regard to class size as referred to by the Deputy, it is significant to note that at lower second level, Irish schools had the fifth lowest average class size in 2004 among OECD countries. Ireland's average class size was 19.8 compared to the OECD average of 23.8. Class size will vary between subjects and levels and schools are given discretion as to how they use their teaching staff.
Major improvements have been made in both the funding and the staffing of our second level schools in recent years. I assure the Deputy that I will continue to prioritise further progress in both these areas.
No more than the Minister's commitment in An Agreed Programme for Government to reduce class sizes in primary schools, will she admit that she has failed with regard to educational investment at second level? Will she acknowledge she is using this special needs and language support argument as a hoary old chestnut? The reality is she is not spending enough on education and as a result, 30,000 second level students are in classes of more than 30 students. Will she also acknowledge that although there has been an increase in the past number of years, we are still in the bottom half of OECD spending? Ireland was ranked 29th out of 30 countries using GDP figures and 24th out of 30 OECD countries using GNP figures. Will the Minister acknowledge this is a shame in terms of educational investment?
How dare the Deputy from the Green Party refer to children with special needs as "a hoary old chestnut". How dare the Green Party——
I am suggesting we should be investing in both.
——refer to investment in those children——
The Minister should not be telling me——
——as "a hoary old chestnut". This Government has done more than anybody to improve the status of the——
It is a case of dealing with mainstream students and special needs students and the Minister has failed the mainstream students. It is not a case of "either, or". The Minister should not use that chestnut in this House with me.
It is the chestnut season.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
