Vol. 626 No. 1
92 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science the reason SSIA savings are taken into account in determining eligibility for the third level grant; if she has discussed this matter with the Department of Finance; if the relevant regulations will be changed in order to ensure that SSIA savings are not considered as part of the means test for third level grant eligibility; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34441/06]
I assure the Deputy that the Government is determined to ensure that SSIA savers are treated fairly in the calculation of reckonable income under my Department's maintenance grant schemes. This is being achieved in two ways. First, income from SSIAs is being treated exactly the same as income from similar savings and investment products. Second, the reckonable income limits for student grants have been increased considerably in recent years.
Since SSIAs were introduced, the amount of income to be included in respect of them is the Government grant earned on the savings in the relevant tax year plus, 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 sustained in the relevant tax year 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, etc. The treatment of SSIAs is therefore consistent with the traditional treatment of other similar investments over many years. The Department of Finance is aware of this approach to the assessment of income for eligibility for student support.
In applying for a grant for the 2006-07 academic year, only the relevant income earned, as outlined above, on the SSIA in 2005 must be declared. The maximum Government grant to any SSIA saver last year, as in any year of the SSIA scheme, was €762. As I have pointed out in response to previous queries and parliamentary questions, this has been the position since SSIAs were introduced.
The Deputy will be pleased to know that income limits which apply when a person's eligibility for a grant is being assessed have increased significantly since SSIAs were introduced. The 2003-04 academic year was the first year in which the full year SSIA income had to be included in applying for a grant, as the reference tax year for the purpose of grant assessment was 2002. For 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 almost48%. 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, an increase of almost 73% on the amount allowed in the 2002-03 academic year.
As these increases show, this Government has shown a clear determination to improve the grant system to ensure that students get as much support as possible. Not only have we increased the income limits significantly, we have also made other improvements to the grants system. We have introduced two new income thresholds to allow for 25% and 75% grants as well as the 50% and 100% rates. We have brought in a new top-up grant to target extra funding at those who need it most and we have increased grant payment rates. The maximum level of the ordinary maintenance grant available this year is €3,110, compared to €2,390 in 2002. The maximum level of the top-up grant in 2006-07 is €5,970, compared to €3,000 in 2001-02.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
This year, more than €228 million has been allocated for the third level student support schemes. As the Deputy will be aware, further improvements to the grant system are on the cards, with the development of the Student Support Bill and the introduction of payment deadlines to ensure students get their grants earlier.
Not only has the Government ensured that SSIA savers are treated fairly in the assessment of income for maintenance grant purposes, but we have made major improvements to the grant system overall. This is in line with our proven commitment to increase access to third level education and ensure the maximum level of support for those who need it most.
Is the Minister aware that the Minister for Social and Family Affairs has been able to make changes for income from SSIAs? When the SSIA scheme was promoted by the Government, did it include in the terms and conditions the fact the reckonable income from it would be used when applying for a maintenance grant? If not, it is a matter for the Advertising Standards Authority. The terms and conditions should have made people aware of this.
I accept increases have been made in the maintenance grants but there have been greater increases in the costs of accommodation, travel and books. Does the Minister have a figure for the number of low income families who took out an SSIA expressly to fund college education for a child who have been affected by this decision? I have received complaints from several counties.
I reiterate that the savings people put away themselves are not taken into account, only the Government grant and the interest earned on it. Given the Government contribution for a year for a saver who put away €254 per month, the maximum, came to €785, and that the income limit was increased by substantially more, there are very few, if any, students who should be eliminated from the scheme solely on the basis of their savings in the SSIA. The scheme that is in operation this year is identical to the scheme that has been in place since the SSIA started. From the first time it was introduced, the income limits were increased by up to 48%. Anyone who qualified for a grant last year should not be disqualified this year on the basis solely of income from the Government grant or the interest on his or her SSIA. The income limit increased by much more.
The Department of Social and Family Affairs calculates income differently because it takes into account all of the capital, including all of the savings, and then allows a capital disregard. The effect is the same and it has not changed anything when it comes to the treatment of the SSIA vis-à-vis other savings and life assurance bonds.
There is a change. If a person is a few euro over €762, he will not get the grant. The Minister said possibly no one was affected but I have received complaints from people who are effected. Has the Minister asked the local authorities and the VECs how many students have been affected by this?
If a student got a grant last year and did not get it this year, it is not solely on the basis of his SSIA; it cannot be because the income limits are far greater than the increase he would get on the basis of the SSIA. Also, a student would not lose a grant, but could fall to 75% or 50% of that grant instead.
93 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Education and Science her views on whether the sex education provided in schools is adequate for the pressures of modern life in the context of the recent report, Irish Study of Sexual Health and Relationships; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34296/06]
I too was interested in the findings in the report, Irish Study of Sexual Health and Relationships, launched by my colleague, the Minister for Health and Children.
The survey, unsurprisingly, highlighted major changes in sexual behaviour and attitudes in Ireland in recent decades. It also drew attention to challenges that must be faced from both a public health and an education point of view.
From my Department's perspective, the survey clearly highlighted the value of sex education. Of note is the finding that 18 to 24 year olds were the most likely of all the age groups to have received sex education and the most likely to use contraception.
As the Deputy will be aware, many positive developments in the teaching of relationships and sexuality education have taken place in recent years, and these have been further strengthened through making social, personal and health education a mandatory programme for junior cycle since September 2003. The impact of this would not have been reflected in the survey. RSE is now a core part of SPHE at primary and at junior cycle level. While a senior cycle SPHE course is currently being developed, all schools are already required to have an RSE programme at senior cycle.
At primary level, the SPHE programme covers areas such as taking care of my body, growing and changing, relating to others and safety and protection. At an age-appropriate stage, children learn about differences between the male and female body, the changes that occur at puberty and how the reproductive systems work. By the end of sixth class they are also expected to be able to understand sexual intercourse and birth within the context of a committed loving relationship.
The RSE support service provides information evenings for parents. These aim to inform parents about the RSE programme and to help them to communicate more effectively with their children about sex and relationships. The support service has also worked with the National Parents' Council (Primary) to develop a six-week RSE parent training programme.
At second level, the RSE programme covers areas such as sexually transmitted infections, human fertility, family planning and sexual orientation.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
All schools are expected to teach all aspects of the RSE programme, regardless of their ethos. They are also required to draw up an RSE policy through a collaborative process of consultation with parents, teachers and members of the board of management.
Schools are supported in the implementation of RSE by the SPHE and RSE support services. They provide guidelines on policy development, curricula and teacher guidelines, information for parents, teaching resource materials and teacher training. Schools are also encouraged to use the resources produced by the Health Promotion Unit.
There have been many positive developments in the area of relationships and sexuality education in recent years. Nonetheless, this is an important and rigorous study and I have asked the RSE support service to consider its findings carefully.
I accept there is sex education in schools but is it adequate considering the findings of this study? The average age for first sexual experience for Irish people is now 17 so we can assume most people are sexually active while they are still at school. Women who have sex before the age of 17 are 70% more likely to have an unplanned pregnancy and three times more likely to experience an abortion. Is what we are teaching adequate?
Deputy Fiona O'Malley suggested we remove VAT from condoms and she has a point, but we also need to arm young people with more knowledge and guidance, as well as with a piece of rubber, before we send them out into the world. Does the Minister agree that we must examine what is happening in schools in light of the findings of this survey?
The Deputy referred to first sexual intercourse at an age lower than 17. This is also, worryingly, associated with high levels of regret, STIs and crisis pregnancy. The teaching of RSE is, therefore, a hugely important element in the education of young people. It is a requirement of all schools, regardless of their ethos, that they should teach RSE.
We are conscious that schools need support to do that. They are supported through our support services for SPHE, guidelines and policy development on curricula are given to them and information is provided for parents. Just like in other sensitive areas of education, every school must have a policy on teaching RSE so parents know exactly what is being taught, teachers are comfortable and it is being done in the context of the whole school. Everyone has a responsibility.
The findings of this report indicate that because the number of young people between 18 and 24 who have received sex education is greater than older age groups, there is a recognition that it is happening, and the majority said it was helpful, which shows it is working. It must be kept under review. There are schools that do this not just within the context of relationship and sexuality education or the religious ethos of the school but through science from a biological perspective and special courses in transition year. The schools are tackling this but we will keep it under review.
We live in an age where young people are bombarded with images on the Internet and in magazines. Would the Minister consider whether the message from schools is strong enough to counter the messages coming from the society young people must deal with now?
The curriculum is strong given that it lists areas I have outlined. It is also taught in the context of responsibility in relationships, which is just as important as the biological facts. When we see the impact media and peer pressure have on young people, responsibility and respect must be brought to the fore. This course, like other courses, will be kept under review to ensure it meets the needs of our young people.
94 Mr. McHugh asked the Minister for Education and Science the action she proposes to take to address the failure to progress the proposed amalgamation of four secondary schools in Tuam; the reason the amalgamation has not progressed; the position on site selection and acquisition; the position on a schedule of accommodation; the timetable for the implementation of the amalgamation; and if she will take the action necessary to ensure this amalgamation and building project progresses. [34677/06]
Decisions on amalgamations are, in the first instance, a matter for the respective patron and trustees of the schools concerned. An agreement was reached by the respective patrons in late 2000 to rationalise provision of post-primary provision in the Tuam area to establish a single boys' and single girls' school. The amalgamation in each case is dependent on the availability of suitable accommodation.
On the girls' school it is proposed to provide a new school on a new site. The Office of Public Works, which acts on behalf of my Department with regard to site acquisitions generally, is considering a number of site proposals with the intention of acquiring a suitable site to facilitate the development of a new school building. Due to the commercial sensitivities of the site acquisition process, the Deputy will appreciate I am not in a position to comment further. On the boys' school the patron has offered to provide a site to accommodate the new school and is in discussions with the county council regarding the provision of services for the site.
I fully appreciate the sense of urgency felt by the schools and all those involved with them. In this regard it should be noted that the projects have been assigned a band 1 rating by my Department, which will positively influence the timescale for delivery of the project. As soon as the site issue is finalised, the building projects required to deliver the appropriate accommodation will be considered in the context of the School Building and Modernisation Programme 2006-2010.
Does the Minister recall a meeting she had with all Members of the Oireachtas from the Galway East constituency in 2004 to discuss this project? During the meeting, Members noted the seriousness of this issue and called for it to be addressed with urgency. Although the Minister expressed considerable interest at the time, no action has been taken in the intervening two years. She continually informs me that her officials are in discussion with the patron of the school and representatives of the local authority or that the property management section of the Office of Public Works is doing this, that or the other. Will she tell them to stop talking and do something practical in order that progress can be made on this project? The time for talking is over. Who is to blame for the lack of movement? Is it the Minister or her officials, because it is certainly not the school's board of management or its patron or staff?
A school cannot be built until a site has been selected and the problem is there are no sites.
There is a site.
I am delighted to learn there is a site and that all the difficulties identified by the Office of Public Works and the local council have been addressed, but that is not the information available to the Department.
The Minister has known for two years that sites are available.
The Office of Public Works, which has worked on this matter for several years, identified various sites but technical problems arose with all of them to the extent that it had to place further advertisements seeking suitable sites for the girls' school.
Why?
The closing date for receipt of site proposals was 8 August 2006 and technical assessments of these sites are being carried out, all other sites having been proven to be unsuitable. It is not possible to progress with construction of the school unless a site is approved.
The patron has identified a site for the boys' school but servicing provisions must be agreed with the council before progress can be made. I understand both parties are discussing the issue and as soon as they reach agreement, I will be more than happy to progress with the building project. I cannot sort the technical problems which appear to exist with regard to the proposed sites.
The Minister can sort out the matter if she instructs those concerned to stop talking and start doing practical work. The time for talking is over. A health and safety problem has arisen in one of the schools. In the event that this results in the injury or death of a member of staff or pupil, the Minister may not argue that she did not realise the gravity of the position. I have told her how serious the matter is and I ask her to allow both projects to proceed. If there is a difficulty regarding the girls' school, will she allow the boys' school to proceed separately?
A larger health and safety issue would arise if an unsuitable site was used for a school building. The patron and council are in discussions regarding the boys' school. The Department wrote to the patron on 25 September, almost a month ago, seeking an update but has not received a reply. Perhaps the Deputy will contact the patron to ascertain the latest position.
The Department will be pleased to progress with the girls' school as soon as a suitable site is found. The closing date for receipt of proposed sites was 8 August. A second advertisement was placed because sites proposed following the previous one failed technical assessments. Further technical assessments are being carried out on the proposed sites received by the latest deadline.
I recognise that difficulties have arisen with the project and have indicated this to the schools and their patrons and boards of management. For this reason, the project has received a band 1 priority rating. The problem of site selection is not of the Department's making. As soon as it is resolved, I will be more than happy to progress the school project.
If a site is found for one school, will the Minister allow construction to proceed?
At the moment, we do not have a site for either school.
95 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science the number of recommendations outstanding for implementation from the task force on the physical sciences; the reason same have not been prioritised; the timescale for the implementation of these recommendations; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34442/06]
As the Deputy will be aware, the Government has prioritised improvements in science education at all levels, from primary school science to advanced fourth level research. Progress has been made in a wide range of areas in recent years. A new science curriculum has been introduced at primary level supported by a resource grant in December 2004 of €1,000 per school plus €10 per pupil. A revised, much more practically focused syllabus in junior certificate science was introduced in 2003 and examined for the first time in June 2006. Its introduction was supported by €16 million in grants to schools. Revised syllabi in leaving certificate physics, chemistry and biology have also been introduced in the past five years and supported by comprehensive in-service programmes for teachers. Additional equipment grants have been provided for schools, while laboratories continue to be refurbished as part of the ongoing schools building programme.
The Government has also provided €4 million for the discover science and engineering awareness programme to ensure a co-ordinated approach to promoting interest in science. It is engaged in a range of innovative activities, not only to improve interest in science among school children and the public but also to encourage young people to view science as a viable career option.
With regard to scientific research, Deputies will be aware that investment in the programme of research in third level institutions, PRTLI, continues apace. Between this programme and the various grants to the research councils and other sources, €102.5 million was invested in research in third level institutions in 2005 under my Department's Vote.
The overall level of Government expenditure across all Departments on science, technology and innovation amounted to €658 million in 2005. With all the improvements that have been made in the area of science education in recent years, progress has been made on implementing 25 of the 34 proposals in the task force on the physical sciences which relate to the education sector.
As I have explained on previous occasions, one of the recommendations of the task force about which I am not convinced is that on laboratory assistants. As the Deputy will be aware, laboratory technicians have not been a universal feature of support for second level science teaching in other countries. There is no doubt that provision of technicians in this area would lead to demands for similar assistance across other areas of the curriculum where there is a strong practical component. While I remain to be convinced of the necessity for technicians, I will, nonetheless, keep the position under review.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
As the Deputy will be aware, the strategy for science, technology and innovation sets out a range of measures to further strengthen science teaching and learning and improve the uptake of senior cycle physics and chemistry. These include ensuring the project-based, hands-on investigative approach in place at junior cycle is extended to senior cycle, the appropriate type of assessment is used and emphasis is placed on the interdisciplinary nature of science in society.
Other aspects of the plan include reviewing the implementation of the primary science curriculum to ensure its effectiveness in stimulating interest and awareness in science at a very young age, strengthening teacher training in this area, reforming maths and leaving certificate physics and chemistry curricula, promoting science initiatives in transition year and providing information and brochures on science opportunities and careers, linking effectively with school guidance services. Taken together, the comprehensive set of measures provided for in the SSTI will build on the improvements made in recent years and ensure even greater support for science education.
Is the Minister's primary concern that she may come under pressure from other subjects or is it, as it should be, the need to ensure a high uptake in science subjects? While I welcome investment in third and fourth level, to make this investment worthwhile we must also ensure the system functions correctly at primary and secondary level.
The Minister indicated she will keep the position under constant review. Is she prepared to make any commitments on laboratory technicians? Is she aware that certain schools have still not implemented the practical element of the junior certificate science syllabus because some of them do not have proper facilities, while others do not have sufficient time to complete the onerous task of setting up experiments? Does the Minister have plans to ensure all students take science to junior certificate level? Will she ensure all second level schools can offer the full complement of science subjects to leaving certificate level, which is not currently the position?
I am not prepared to give a commitment on laboratory technicians. It is important to continue to invest in the curriculum, syllabus and science laboratories and in supporting and training teachers. Next spring, I expect to receive from the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment proposals on assessment at senior level and other matters.
Changes to the primary school curriculum have been exciting and changes in the junior certificate science examination have been a major success.
They are not being taught in all schools.
As part of the summer works scheme last year and this year, the Department invested significant amounts in developing and expanding science laboratories. With the exception of schools that formed part of larger building projects, all schools that applied for funding to upgrade their laboratories received grants. I look forward to finding out which schools applied for funding for this year.
I have no intention of making science compulsory at junior certificate level because 86% of students already take science at junior certificate on a voluntary basis. This is an encouraging figure. Given that numbers are increasing because students want to study science, it is not necessary to introduce compulsion.
As the Deputy will be aware, schools have absolute discretion regarding the subjects they offer at leaving certificate level and which teachers they employ. There is one teacher at second level for every 13 students. It is a matter for schools at local level to determine how they want to offer science subjects.
The Minister is putting her head in the sand. Some schools cannot offer all science subjects to leaving certificate level because of the number of teachers available to them. I am sure the Minister is sincere in wishing to see an improvement in the development of science, and resources are being allocated to ensure that. However, if students wish to take the subject but it is not available due to timetable problems, that must be addressed. The ultimate responsibility for addressing it lies with the Minister in terms of ensuring that the schools are adequately resourced and can offer the full complement of science subjects. If students cannot study science at second level, they certainly cannot attempt to catch up at third level.
There is no reason that schools cannot offer science subjects. The fact that 86% of students are studying science at junior certificate level should encourage many more to study it to leaving certificate level. There is a teacher in every second level school for every 13 students and it is up to the local schools to decide, based on the demands of their students and the ability of their teachers, what subjects they will offer. At present, we are anxious to increase the number of students who are studying science subjects at leaving certificate level. A total of 14.4% are taking physics this year while 13.9% are taking chemistry. We aim to increase that to 20% through the science strategy. However, the take-up of biology at leaving certificate level is still quite high at 48.8%. The difficulty, however, is that even those who do well are not continuing the subjects at third level. That is where guidance is most important. I hope the fact that the Government is investing so heavily in the knowledge economy and in the future of industry in that sector will encourage students to do so.
96 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Education and Science the measures that will be put in place to improve literacy levels in disadvantaged areas in view of the failure to reach the target of halving the number of primary pupils with literacy difficulties by 2006; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34297/06]
This Government is committed to doing everything it can to improve literacy levels in disadvantaged areas. We are conscious of the fact that good levels of literacy and numeracy are fundamental prerequisites for full educational and social participation, and we are redoubling our efforts to promote these.
A key underlying principle of DEIS, the action plan for educational inclusion, is that of early intervention. It focuses on identifying and assisting children who are having difficulty with reading and writing at an early stage with the aim of preventing literacy difficulties from becoming entrenched. Children in DEIS schools that are identified as having major reading difficulties will be targeted early to benefit from intensive, individualised literacy tuition through the reading recovery programme. This programme, under which each child can be provided with 2.5 hours of extra reading tuition a week, has been extremely positively received since its introduction a few years ago. The number of schools participating in the programme has already been doubled from 66 in 2004 to 136 in 2006. Access to reading recovery is being rolled out to all the more than 330 urban primary schools participating in DEIS.
Children with writing difficulties in these schools will also be targeted for extra support through the roll-out of the first steps programme to all urban primary DEIS schools.
Taken together, the expansion of these two programmes, will significantly improve the service available to children with literacy difficulties in disadvantaged areas. These measures will also be augmented by other extra supports being put in place under DEIS, such as smaller classes at primary level, an expansion of the home school community liaison scheme, a new initiative on pre-service and in-service professional development for teachers and more school libraries at second level.
There will be a much greater focus on target setting and planning under DEIS to ensure that the substantial extra resources being provided will lead to better outcomes for children. As well as improving the supports we provide in our schools, initiatives that help parents with any literacy problems they may have themselves can have a hugely positive effect on their children's achievement. For this reason, the establishment of a new family literacy project is also a key priority under the DEIS programme. The project will build on previous experience in this area and will be based on a partnership approach involving the VEC adult literacy services, home school community liaison teachers and the National Adult Literacy Agency.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
In this context, the Government has dramatically improved the level of provision for adult literacy training in recent years. Indeed, expenditure on adult literacy has increased more than twentyfold since we came into office, 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.
I believe this unprecedented level of investment in adult literacy services will not only bring major benefits for the adults but will make a positive difference to their children's lives. Helping a parent to be able to read to their child could be one of the best things that we, as a Government, can do for both parent and child.
As I have outlined, not only has the Government done a great deal in recent years to improve the literacy levels of children and adults from disadvantaged areas but we are currently redoubling our efforts so that further progress can be made. I am confident that, taken together, the initiatives I have outlined will ensure a much greater level of support for children with literacy difficulties and that achievement will improve considerably as a result.
The report last September of the Comptroller and Auditor General on educational disadvantage shows that from 1998 to 2004 the gap in literacy levels between children in disadvantaged schools and those in ordinary schools widened. Children in disadvantaged schools are, therefore, having greater difficulty with literacy. The Minister has introduced DEIS since then but one of the points made by the Comptroller and Auditor General referred to the need to monitor and measure to ensure the programmes are working. What does the Minister have in place to ensure that what is being put into the system will improve standards?
The weighted model was introduced at the same time as DEIS. The weighted model system is, in effect, removing with one hand what DEIS is providing with the other. Has the Minister evaluated the effect of the weighted model on the most disadvantaged schools and what these schools have lost as a result of providing special needs support on the basis of the number of students in the school rather than the need?
The Comptroller and Auditor General, in his statement, welcomed DEIS and the fact that it will co-ordinate the resources and services that are available. Although this country has a high standard of literacy, there is no doubt that those at the bottom are not doing well. It is significant that in surveys carried out by the Department on literacy levels in disadvantaged schools the findings were very poor. At the same time, many of those children were in small classes of 15:1. Some of them were even as low as 11:1, yet the literacy levels were not good.
This only proves that the problem cannot be tackled in isolation within the classroom. It must be done in the context of supporting the family and through the targeted initiatives. With initiatives such as reading recovery, mathematics recovery, the first steps writing programme and the family literacy programme, we will tackle this in a holistic way, using all the expertise within and outside the schools.
The Deputy is correct to ask about targeting and getting results. One of the criteria for inclusion in the DEIS scheme was that schools had to sign up to planning and targeting.
What about measuring?
We have a team with that specific task. A national literacy tutor has been appointed to ensure that the targets are being met. When we are spending €640 million on disadvantage, we must ensure we are getting the best value for money and that we are targeting those children.
The general allocation model was bedded down before DEIS commenced. DEIS is only being implemented this year whereas the general allocation model was implemented last year.
Schools lost teachers.
Schools have not lost anything under the general allocation model.
They have.
For the first time every school in the country has an allocation of teachers to deal with children with learning difficulties. DEIS ensures that the schools get even more to add to what they already have.
There are schools with high numbers of children with special needs who have lost teachers under the weighted model. Previously, they were allocated teachers on the basis of an assessed need but now teachers are allocated on the basis of the overall number of children in the school so they have lost. With regard to measuring, is there somebody who will report back to the Minister at a specified time on what progress has been made on literacy in disadvantaged schools? Is there a specific measurement target whereby the Minister can assess the progress being made and whether the programmes are working?
With regard to literacy and numeracy, a new advisory service has been established. A deputy national co-ordinator has been appointed as well as five additional cuiditheoirí tutors to deal with literacy and numeracy throughout the country. The schools have already signed up so it is compulsory that they do standardised testing. The results of those tests must be made available.
