Olwyn Enright
Question:40 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science her views on the recent ruling of the Equality Tribunal on leaving certificate transcripts; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40510/06]
Priority Questions.
State Examinations.
As the Deputy will be aware, this Government has shown an unrivalled commitment to ensuring that children and young people with special needs get the extra support they need to reach their full potential at school. We have dramatically expanded investment in special education in recent years and improved access to State examinations for young people with special needs. A range of accommodations is provided to enable students with disabilities to access the certificate examinations. For example, enlarged print, Braille, translation, modified questions and use of a scribe, reader, personal assistant, tape recorder or word processor may be allowed depending on needs.
The scheme was expanded in 2000 following the report of an expert advisory group to provide opportunities for exemptions where a candidate was not in a position to demonstrate achievement in a core area of assessment. In keeping with the advice of the expert advisory group, a system of annotation was applied to any case where a student was exempt from a core area of assessment or where the mode of assessment used had the same effect. This change, for example, enabled a hearing impaired student to be exempt for the first time from the aural component of language subjects. His or her marks on the balance of the examination would be grossed up proportionately towards 100% and the certificate would include a note to the effect that all elements of the subject were assessed except the aural component. Spelling and grammar waivers in language subjects were provided to cater for students with dyslexia on a similar basis, with annotation of the certificates. The aim of these changes was to facilitate the operation of a responsive and flexible system which enables all candidates to demonstrate their achievements, while preserving the integrity and fairness of the exams by ensuring that special arrangements are operated in a transparent manner.
The introduction of the expanded scheme was seen as important in widening access and promoting the optimum participation for students with disabilities. Since then the number of students availing of accommodations in the certificate examinations has increased dramatically. In 2002, 4,438 accommodations were granted, including 39 component exemptions and 1,945 spelling and grammar waivers. By 2006, this number had increased to 12,136 accommodations, including 987 component exemptions, and 5,450 spelling and grammar waivers.
An annotation only applies where a core element of assessment in a particular subject is not assessed. This is used to ensure fairness and integrity vis-à-vis other students who have been assessed in these components and in order not to mislead the end user of the certificate.
In relation to the Equality Tribunal's findings the legal position is that they must either be implemented in full or appealed within the specified timeframe under the Equal Status Act 2002. My Department has examined the findings and is concerned that the widening of access through the use of exemptions, coupled with annotations, has not been fully understood in this case and that the fundamental nature of the accommodations being provided has been questioned. It has, therefore, been decided to appeal the findings.
I have also asked the State Examinations Commission to re-examine policy and practice in this area because I am determined to ensure our system continues to evolve in line with best practice, promoting high standards of quality and integrity, while ensuring access, participation and benefit for all our students.
The provision of accommodations to students with disabilities is welcome. In what sense does including on the leaving certificate a statement that an accommodation has been granted ensure integrity and fairness? The Equality Tribunal explicitly stated that the students in question had been disadvantaged by the Department. This is a serious finding given that the Department's function is to ensure equality for all students sitting the leaving or junior certificate.
The Dyslexia Association of Ireland stated that while the accommodations remove the disadvantage faced by the students in question, the inclusion of endorsements on certificates places them at a further disadvantage. I ask the Minister to comment.
While I welcome the Minister's decision to examine certain aspects of the findings, as recommended by the Equality Tribunal, I am concerned by the decision to appeal the tribunal's ruling. How will this ensure integrity and fairness? Ensuring integrity and fairness means equalising the exam for all students so they can all sit it in a fair way and receive the same certificates.
The figures on the types of accommodation and the numbers availing of them speak for themselves; they show how flexible and responsive the system is for young people with special needs. The leaving certificate, however, is simply a statement of grades attained and subjects examined for all students. A simple annotation at the end of the certificate happens to highlight for individual students where a core component was not examined and the marks were aggregated upwards. The fairness and integrity are ensured by giving the students the accommodation they need and recognising their needs. It is also an objective statement on exactly what was examined. It is up to the end user of the certificate to decide if he wants to use it or why. It is simply a factual statement of what was examined in the leaving certificate or junior certificate examinations for a particular year.
Naturally we are anxious to accommodate as many students as possible but the ruling has called into question the whole issue of accommodations. We have seen other countries draw back from the types of accommodation offered instead of adding annotations. I do not want to see that happen. We must strike a balance where we do not disadvantage students with special needs in State examinations while ensuring the certificate and the examinations are transparent.
It is not up to the student to decide he wants to use it if an employer asks for it before an interview. If the finding of the tribunal is upheld, will certificates be adjusted retrospectively? Students will be treated differently in job interviews if they have this on their certificate.
Approximately 26,000 certificates have been issued with annotations so it would be highly unlikely the ruling would be backdated, although that would be subject to an appeal. Along with looking at the appeal, because I believe it did not take into consideration the range of accommodations and will have far-reaching consequences, I am also asking the State Examinations Commission to look at best practice internationally and ensure we are in line with that. Our bona fides are proven by the range of accommodations and the growing numbers availing of them.
Special Educational Needs.
Jan O'Sullivan
Question:41 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Education and Science the action she will take to prevent schools from cherry picking students who are more likely to get good examination results and discouraging students who have special learning difficulties; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40277/06]
I have expressed a view on a number of occasions that some second-level schools do not appear to be doing as much as they could to welcome students with special needs. I made a particular point of raising this when I attended the annual conferences of the education partners over the course of the year.
It is the general position that a school cannot turn away a child solely because he or she has special needs. A student may be refused enrolment on the basis of criteria in the school's published enrolment policy, such as those that relate to the school's catchment area, preference given to siblings of existing students etc., but the policy must be legal and cannot involve discrimination against special needs students.
While the legal position on non-discrimination in enrolment policies is strong, some schools seem not to be officially refusing to take students with special needs but rather encouraging parents to apply elsewhere on the basis that another school would better meet their needs.
I am concerned about this practice, particularly given all the extra investment that has been provided by this Government to ensure that all schools can cater for students with special needs. In the current school year, more than 1,850 whole-time equivalent teachers and more than 1,350 special needs assistants have been allocated to second level schools to cater for pupils with special educational needs. This represents an increase of more than 200 teaching posts and more than 260 SNA posts on the previous school year.
Of course, as well as the extra resources that have been provided in recent years, the process for accessing special needs supports has also been improved dramatically by the establishment of the National Council for Special Education and its teams of local organisers. Schools now have a specific person to whom they can apply for supports based on the professionally assessed needs of the individual student. All schools should see that there is now a strong system in place to ensure that special needs students get the additional resources they need. It is necessary, however, for schools to be willing to be proactive and seek extra support from their local SENO.
I also want all parents to be aware of both their legal rights and the fact that all schools have access to special needs supports, and will be asking the NCSE to assist in this regard.
With regard to parents who feel that their child has unjustly been refused a school place, they may appeal the school's decision to the Secretary General of the Department under section 29 of the Education Act 1998. Such appeals are dealt with within 30 days of their receipt and, where an appeal is upheld, the Secretary General is empowered to direct the school to enrol the student.
With the improvements that have been put in place in recent years, students with special needs should not only be welcome in all schools but should be embraced as part of an inclusive and caring school community.
I do not doubt the Minister's concern in this matter and her statements are welcome but she is the Minister for Education and Science — will she take action? Will the Minister introduce regulations under section 33 of the Education Act, which allow for regulations on the entrance policies of schools? Is the Minister willing to stand by and watch this apartheid take place in the school system? It has been described in The Irish Times today as apartheid by the former principal of a comprehensive school where 10% of students have special educational needs while other schools in the area have no special needs children. What will the Minister do other than telling people what she thinks about it?
The Deputy heard me highlighting this at all of the conferences this year and ensuring schools adopted inclusive enrolment policies, which is the best way to go.
Much of the evidence we have is anecdotal because the parents are not being refused but are being referred in a positive way to another school. For that reason they do not make a section 29 appeal. I encourage parents to do that, however, because it gives us the evidence on schools that are operating segregated enrolment policies. It would be open to regulation but schools must take children with special needs. As a result of the lack of evidence under section 29 appeals, even though there have been 88 appeals so far this year, we are carrying out an audit of identified areas to see the effect on the ground that will give me real information on numbers.
The Deputy referred to Mr. Derek West, the retired principal of Newpark Comprehensive School, who is correct in stating the numbers at the school. He, like some other principals in the country, is a victim of the success of his school in welcoming students and providing top class facilities that are well supported by the Department of Education and Science. Once a school gets a good name for dealing with children with special needs, the parents opt to send their children there. It is the parents on the ground who are making the decision and that ends up letting other schools off the hook.
There are a number of issues to take into consideration. The schools, however, have heard my views and the parents who decide to follow through can give the evidence we need and the audit will show me that evidence. After that I will be in a better position to decide what rules and regulations must be implemented.
Part of the problem, as the article points out in The Irish Times, is that under section 29, more children with special needs attend Newpark Comprehensive School because they have taken section 29 cases, increasing the numbers there.
When the Minister amends section 29, which she has said she will do, will she insert regulations to ensure there is a balance in a particular area? It states in the article that Newpark wanted to keep its current balance and was trying to reduce the number of special needs children as a result, because it had taken in more than its fair share. When it tried to do so, section 29 appeals were used against it. Does the Minister agree there is a need to change the legislation or make regulations to address this serious issue which divides the education system?
If this is allowed to continue, it will be a very serious matter. The Minister's lecturing will not change things, unfortunately. It might do so if she was a teacher in a school but she is the Minister with responsibility for education. Schools will not change their ways perhaps unless they are forced to do so by either regulation or legislation.
It is the case that parents are choosing to send their children to the school with the good name and good record. I have some anecdotal evidence in my area of where some parents are paying to send their child of average or good academic ability to a fee-paying school while choosing to send their child with a learning difficulty to a different but non-fee-paying school. Those are the kind of choices for which it is very difficult to legislate or create regulations.
Of the 88 appeals with regard to refusals of post-primary schools to enrol pupils this year, 30 were upheld. In other words, the parent won in the case of 30 appeals.
That is not solving the problem.
I ask the Deputy to listen. Three cases were resolved at facilitation and eight were resolved locally. Twenty-two appeals were withdrawn and 25 went to a hearing and were not upheld. Many of them were sorted out at local level.
The Deputy is correct that the second school which does not admit the child is the school that suffers under section 29 of the Act. This is all the more reason the parent in the first instance when their child has been turned down by a school needs to take the section 29 appeal against that school and not the one which is already very inclusive and does not take the child.
They must be formally turned down.
Yes, they have to have been turned down.
School Attendance.
Paul Nicholas Gogarty
Question:42 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Education and Science the amount of funding the National Educational Welfare Board will receive in 2007; the additional posts this will create; the positive impact this will have in dealing with student absenteeism and related social issues; when the full complement of educational welfare officers will be place; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40310/06]
I am pleased to advise the Deputy that the Estimates for 2007 for the Department of Education and Science include a provision of €9.8 million for the National Educational Welfare Board. This represents an increase of 20% on the 2006 allocation and of 50% on the 2004 level.
This substantial increase in funding is a clear indication of this Government's commitment to prioritise investment in favour of those most at risk. Through increased investment and improved services we are determined to optimise access, participation and educational outcomes at every level of the system for disadvantaged groups. The increase in funding for the board will allow it to expand its services further and increase staffing.
Since we formally launched the board in December 2003, the number of staff has increased to 94. The board operates through five regional teams, with bases in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford. A service is provided from 26 locations nationwide. Staff are deployed in areas of greatest disadvantage and in areas designated under the Government's RAPID programme. In addition, the board follows up on urgent cases nationally where children are not currently receiving an education. Educational welfare officers monitor school attendance and work to improve it. They also help parents who are experiencing a difficulty with getting a school place for their child.
Since January 2004, 20,000 cases involving students with reported school attendance difficulties have been resolved by the board. The NEWB has also written to every family with children of school going age advising them of their rights and responsibilities in respect of education and school attendance and where they can get help.
The first national data on school attendance has also been collected and is being used to inform the board's work. With respect to the effectiveness of the service, it is encouraging to note research findings that attendance at school in the areas where EWOs are working intensively improved in 2004-05 compared with the previous year.
The board is currently working on guidelines for schools on developing attendance strategies and the prevention of student absenteeism. Work is also advanced on guidelines for codes of behaviour.
While the NEWB was set up just three years ago, much has already been achieved by the service and the Government is committed to strengthening its role even further.
However, it should be remembered that the board is just one aspect of the comprehensive framework this Government has put in place to improve school attendance and encourage more young people to finish school. In this regard, extra supports targeted at young people in disadvantaged areas include both educational initiatives such as intensive literacy programmes and services such as breakfast clubs and homework clubs.
In addition to the NEWB, there are currently some 490 staff within the education sector with a role in school attendance. Home-school community liaison co-ordinators, in working with parents, promote school attendance and its importance for success in school. School attendance is a central objective of the school completion programme with attendance tracking a core feature and one of its preventative strategies. Access to these services is being increased under the new action plan for tackling educational disadvantage, DEIS.
The Minister of State stated that the National Educational Welfare Board is but one aspect of a comprehensive number of measures which the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government is taking to tackle issues of educational disadvantage and school attendance. The Minister of State will be aware that the National Educational Welfare Board is the only body statutorily charged with dealing with school attendance issues. Prior to the establishment of the board, the independent Rochford report recommended that at least 300 educational welfare officers were required. The current numbers are less than 100 officers — the last figure I have is 79. The Rochford report recommended that an investment of €25 million, which is approximately €28 million in today's figures, would be required. Last year the Government provided €8 million and it is now providing €9.8 million. While this is a 20% increase, will the Minister of State acknowledge this falls far short of the Rochford report recommendations? When will the full complement of statutorily charged officers be rolled out? Will it be in the lifetime of this Government or ten years down the road?
Deputy Gogarty is under an illusion which I fear will blind him if he ever has the opportunity of entering Government. The Department of Education and Science and the Minister never accepted the Rochford report nor the reasoning in it. I am concerned because we have heard so much from the Opposition benches about value for money. This is a clear indication of any negotiations in any future Government which his party naturally aspires to. I noticed the outbreak of realism on that side of the House in recent times——
Keeping children in school is a value for money measure.
When a quango is set up under legislation, the Department has a duty to ensure the taxpayer receives value for money and this is the Government's position and the position which any responsible——
It is better value for money than having them in prison.
——Minister will take. The Rochford report was considered in great detail by the Department of Education and Science. The officers of the Department examined the report and advised the then Minister, the predecessor to Deputy Hanafin, on the merits and demerits of that report. A view was taken in the Department about how the Act should be implemented. I think my reply makes it clear that an amount of progress has been made in implementing this legislation. It is very encouraging to see that welfare officers are making a difference on the ground.
I agree with Deputy Gogarty that important statutory responsibilities are cast on this board as well as important statutory functions such as the power to institute prosecutions where parents fail and are derelict in their duty of ensuring their child attends school. This is a fundamental matter. I note the old school attendance service with a far smaller complement of staff had far more prosecutions before the courts than this board has so far secured. This is not to say the board has not instituted some prosecutions but I make that point that a Department has a duty in legislation of this type to see to it that the work is progressed. The legal responsibilities to which the Deputy refers make reference to the power of the board to institute prosecutions and to exact certain information from the principals of the different schools, both primary and secondary. As school principals have no doubt advised Members on all sides of the House, the board has been assiduous in obtaining that information and in insisting that it be forwarded. This has given the board the first comprehensive data on this subject which is to be welcomed. On foot of this legislation, there is a much clearer picture of the position than ever before. There is a strategy in place, the legislation has been implemented and it forms a basis for progress in this area. I wish to disabuse the Deputy of the idea that the Rochford report was in some way accepted by the Government because it never was. The Government accepts an obligation under the Act and the National Educational Welfare Board has obligations which it is meeting. The Government will continue to support the board. Any fair examination of the provision that has been made and the number of staff now involved which is currently 94, will show a substantial commitment by the Government to the operation of this board.
I thank the Minister of State for clarifying the Government position on the Rochford report. My party has already stated it will implement the recommendations in full. I am glad the Minister of State says he is not interested in implementing it under current policy because what the Government is implementing is so far removed from the recommendations of the report that there is no comparison. The Minister of State mentioned value for money in terms of what is currently being spent. The Government is delivering value for money because, for example, the ratio of welfare officer to student is 1:12,000, compared to 1:3,000 in Britain. Approximately 84,000 students aged under 16 are missing more than 20 days per year while approximately 28,000 are missing more than 40 days per year. The latter figure equates to approximately 1,000 classrooms full of children. While current expenditure may represent value for money, will the Department invest more money so that we can put more value into the system and ensure that children actually go to school and get an education?
To focus on these 90 and the legal responsibilities is to miss the point. That was implicit in my answer to the Deputy. We know what the legal responsibilities are——
We know what the circumstances are for children not attending school.
The legal responsibilities include compiling registers and taking prosecutions. The board is also responsible for assisting parents in the preparation of section 29 appeals. The board meets those legal responsibilities. In addition, the board has other responsibilities which are, strictly speaking, not legal ones. These involve helping, advising and guiding parents, and that is important. There are 490 staff employed in the system. An additional 137 individuals are deployed in educational disadvantage programmes whose work involves a school attendance element. I do not know if the Deputy included that when he drew the comparison with British figures. A further 137 are due to come on stream under the DEIS initiative in the coming months.
Computerisation Programme.
Olwyn Enright
Question:43 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science the state of the informational communications technology hardware in primary and post-primary schools; her plans to introduce ICT as a subject at second level; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40511/06]
The Government is determined to ensure that all students have the opportunity to achieve computer literacy and to acquire the necessary skills for participation in the information society. To this end, we have put in place significant investment and new initiatives to increase the number of computers in our schools, to provide a range of ICT training options for teachers, to improve the availability of online resources and to ensure that all schools have broadband access.
Between 1998 and 2005, more than €170 million was invested in the schools ICT programme, including €114 million in capital supports. This helped to improve the number of computers in our schools, a fact reflected in the 2005 census of ICT infrastructure in schools published recently by the National Centre for Technology in Education. The census was conducted during the first half of 2005, and is the fourth in a series that began in 1998. The 2005 census shows improved pupil to computer ratios at both primary and second level. At primary level, there was one computer for every nine children in 2005 compared with one for 11 in 2002. At second level there was one computer for every seven students in 2005. In special schools, the census found a pupil-computer ratio of 3:1.
As the Deputy will be aware, the major focus for investment over the past two years has been on developing computer networks in schools and ensuring schools have broadband access. The census was carried out at a point when schools were beginning to fully avail of this funding. The schools broadband access programme comprises three elements, local connectivity to schools, a national broadband network and a national service desk at a cost of approximately €30 million. As of 14 November last, 96% of schools have local broadband connectivity, including the installation of a broadband router. The remaining schools are predominately those that currently have a building project under way and broadband installation will be carried out in tandem with completion of the building works. A small number of schools elected to continue with their existing broadband provision.
A lot of extra investment has been provided for the schools ICT programme in recent years. We have also ensured that extra investment in infrastructure has been complemented by an increased focus on teacher training. The National Council for Technology in Education has provided 10,000 training places annually in recent years to meet the specific needs of teachers in their use of ICT, including technical courses, subject specific courses, and Internet, web design and digital media courses.
While the ICT facilities in our schools have improved considerably, I am conscious of the need for further investment to ensure that we are realising the full potential of ICT to improve the learning experience for our young people. To that end, I intend to publish a comprehensive new ICT strategy in 2007 covering the period of the new national development plan to 2013. A critical challenge under this new strategy will be to develop an e-learning culture in schools with a central objective of embedding the use of ICT in teaching and learning across the curriculum rather than a focus on treating ICT as a separate subject.
I welcome the fact that the Minister is to introduce an ICT strategy from 2007; it is crucial that we have one. I have been critical of the fact that we did not have one since the end of 2002. Both the Minister and I have read the report and can therefore choose different sets of statistics. Arising from the report of the National Council for Technology in Education, I am concerned that 10,000 computers in primary schools are in need of upgrade or repair and 5,000 are beyond repair or use. Therefore, one in four computers in primary schools does not work, while one in five does not work at second level. Some 29% of primary school computers are more than six years old and the Minister will know how quickly computers are evolving.
I welcome the fact that 96% of schools now have broadband access. However, the broadband connections are already going out of date. It is difficult to deal with, but higher speed access is always required to meet the rapid changes in technology. The type of broadband available in many of our schools does not have the capacity to download certain files from the Internet and to access certain websites.
How does the Minister intend to deal with those problems? How will she ensure that all computer hardware in primary schools is functioning? Does the Minister have any intention of providing a service to allow equipment to be upgraded? Providing maintenance locally would probably be the better idea, but what type of maintenance does she propose to ensure school computers are usable and neither sitting in boxes nor beyond use?
It is unfortunate that computers go out of date so quickly. Despite considerable investment in hardware in recent years, it can be difficult to keep it up to date. Our priority in the past couple of years had to be on networking and broadband — there was not much point in schools having computers if they did not have this connectivity. The existing broadband access is perfectly adequate for the type of work that schools are doing. For the most part, they are not downloading files and much of the work involves using particular software for educational purposes. I have seen this in use in schools.
While we will introduce a new programme in the NDP, industry also has a major role to play. Industry is constantly asking for more computers to be installed in schools. Industry, as well as computer manufacturers, benefits most from such investment. Whereas industry played a part in the broadband roll-out, there is an opportunity for it to get involved in investing in school hardware. If a child is using a particular model in school, he or she will want to use the same model at home. This could complement what we are trying to do in the schools.
The census asked questions about technical support and it found that 68% of primary schools and 55% of post-primary schools use the services of IT contractors without fixed contracts, while others had fixed contracts. Of course, there is also ICT co-ordinating teachers within education centres and they play an important role in providing technical support. If one's computer does not work, one is able to call someone to have it fixed and it is important that a school should have that facility as well. This is one of the issues I am examining in the overall strategy.
It is all very well to say that industry has a responsibility, but the Deputy is Minister for Education and Science and the ultimate responsibility for what happens in schools lies at her door. I would welcome more industry involvement in the provision of equipment, but until it wakes up and decides to do that, we must ensure that students are getting the ICT facilities they need in the classroom.
Will the Minister reconsider the idea of having ICT as a distinctive subject? If we are to build a knowledge economy, it is vital that students have the necessary skills. Has the Minister had any discussions with industry about getting more involved in this area? She should bear in mind that it is the country, not just industry, which benefits from industry being successful. We have a changing economy which must be knowledge-led and driven. If this is to happen, it must start in schools and responsibility for it lies not with industry but with the Minister.
The integration of ICT into schools is what is crucial rather than segregating it into a subject which inevitably in the case of the leaving certificate would become a choice subject. What is even more important is that teachers integrate it into their teaching and students into their learning. There is some good software now but it is more important that teachers have the training to be able to use it in a curricular sense rather than have a separate subject.
Increasingly, we see ICT coming into the main curriculum subjects. For example, the new technology subject involves computer-aided design. That new subject will be examined for the first time in 2009 as it will be introduced in schools in 2007. Here we have an integration of the technology into a subject. We also see students using it in other subjects. Film, for example, which is part of the Gaeilge course for the leaving certificate, uses computer technology as well.
In recent months, the digital school awards, under the NCTE, have encouraged schools to be more innovative in the way in which they use the technology. I presented some of the awards in the schools and it is fascinating to see how they are integrating it into the wider school curriculum. I would like to see that cross-curricular culture of comfort of learning and of teaching being used in all the schools rather than segregating it as a separate subject.
School Meals Programme.
Seán Crowe
Question:44 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Education and Science the number of schools running breakfast clubs; her views on whether such clubs have a valuable role to play in assisting students and supporting children from disadvantaged areas; her further views on their full roll-out in disadvantaged schools and the actions her Department proposes to take to achieve this in conjunction with the other stakeholders and relevant Departments. [40588/06]
The majority of the 412 schools participating in the school completion programme in 2006 operate breakfast clubs or other meal provision, in accordance with the nutritional guidelines issued by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. In addition to the funding provided through the school completion programme, the provision of school meals is primarily funded by the school meals programme, administered by my colleague, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, and involving both an urban scheme operated by local authorities and a local projects scheme.
Educational research has shown that good nutrition improves concentration levels of students and that students from low income families are less likely to have access to an adequate diet. The social aspect of breakfast clubs cannot be overestimated and access to such clubs is offered on a whole class-whole school basis to encourage integration of children and young people, giving them an opportunity to mix and relax before classes commence.
Breakfast clubs provide a caring and supportive environment where young people can engage with their peers and discuss things in a social setting. This also provides an opportunity to prepare for the school day. Parents are also encouraged to become involved in running breakfast clubs, many of which are also supported by charitable agencies which bring with them expertise such as family support.
The school meals programme aims to supplement the nutritional intake of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds in order to allow them to fulfil their potential within the educational system and also to reduce the risk of early school leaving. In 2006, it is estimated that 69,903 children benefited in 1,008 schools under the local projects scheme and the urban scheme provided support for more than 386 primary schools, with 55,000 pupils. In 2006, the Department of Social and Family Affairs has provided funding of approximately €10.4 million for the programme, an increase of almost 27% on the 2005 provision of €8.2 million.
The Department of Education and Science has been working in close co-operation with the Department of Social and Family Affairs to ensure that the resources available for school meals are used to best effect and to further expand school meals provision in schools serving disadvantaged communities. Each of the 873 schools participating in the new school support programme under DEIS, the new action plan for educational inclusion, will have access to the school meals programme.
In addition, it is proposed that under the dormant accounts fund a once-off start-up grant will be provided to schools commencing participation in the school meals scheme to provide suitable facilities and purchase equipment. The provision of breakfast clubs will continue to be a priority for the Government in tackling educational disadvantage.
I thank the Minister for her reply. We all favour the concept of the breakfast club. Most people to whom I have spoken about it believe it is a good idea. The frustration in many areas surrounds funding, roll-out and the quality of the clubs. Some people believe calling them breakfast clubs is a probably a bad idea and that if they were called Internet clubs and if music was played, it would encourage more students to come into school for the meal.
The Minister mentioned the number of schools involved. Will these clubs be rolled out in all schools in CLÁR and RAPID areas, or is it up to schools or the school completion programme in an area to determine in which schools they are rolled out? I have also been given information on some schools where there are breakfast clubs for two days a week rather than five. Has the Minister a view on that and the confusion it causes children? If we are to have these clubs, they should run over a five day period.
The Minister spoke about nutritional issues. Will the Department get more involved in these clubs in the future given the concerns in this area? In regard to the funding of these clubs, community education, etc, is funding available from the Minister's Department or any other Department for groups outside the schools system, such as those dealing with young people at risk of dropping out of school?
It is important these clubs are warm, interactive and welcoming and have a calming influence on children. As I said, everyone on this side of the House agrees with them. A club which is grim, bleak and cold will not attract young people. The clubs are a positive step for young people.
I am concerned about the roll-out of these clubs and the co-ordination between the Departments. Are there any plans in regard to future school buildings? Will kitchens be provided so that there is the possibility of hot meals? Some schools are talking about not only breakfast clubs but about lunchtime clubs to encourage young people to stay in school.
We do not mind what schools call these clubs. They can call them Internet clubs or whatever. If the meal is being provided, any positive way to get children into the clubs is all right with us and, I am sure, with the Department of Social and Family Affairs once the money is used properly. As the Deputy said, there are schools which offer lunch, or a dinner, as well as breakfast. Last week, I was in a school in Athy where every child gets a healthy break — a healthy milk drink or some variation of it, such as a yogurt. While I was there, the young girls were having shepherd's pie, which was beautifully laid out. I could get a waft of the beautiful shepherd's pie.
The perks of the job.
They did not offer me any. What I thought was a lovely idea was that they insist the girls sit down at properly set tables. They are not allowed to have books, games or anything with them so they must engage in conversation. They are learning basic table manners while at the same time communicating with each other rather than sitting in front of the television or a Game Boy with food on their laps.
I have seen inner city schools where parents come in very early in the morning to organise the breakfast for the breakfast club and then healthy sandwiches and rolls for the children. The programme is being implemented in different ways. Schools are able to decide how to implement it given their facilities, needs and the voluntary activity of some parents or whatever staff are available. We are very anxious all the schools in DEIS are able to benefit from it. At present, approximately 474 schools in DEIS are not involved. They are being written to on a phased mailshot basis, inviting them to apply to participate so that we can roll it out in an organised way. All the schools will be invited to participate.
Not all the breakfast clubs take place in the school. Under the local projects scheme, some of them take place in a community hall or some other local facility. Again, that links into the community and organisations working with families. It is a good and integrated way to do it. I am not sure Jamie Oliver's way of doing it in the UK school meals system worked. Certainly, the idea of healthy, nutritious food is important for children.
The last thing we want is to set up big structures with environmental health officers, etc, coming in and the whole thing getting out of control. What is happening now is a really positive and valuable way to support children and their families.