Vol. 651 No. 3
62 Deputy Brian Hayes asked the Minister for Education and Science the primary schools, estimated to be 50 in total, which will lose a teaching post from September 2008 in view of the failure to reduce the staffing schedule from 27 children to 26 children per classroom teacher. [13470/08]
The Department of Education and Science has published the staffing schedule for the 2008-09 school year. Given the increased enrolments in primary schools generally, the application of the schedule is likely to result in an increase of over 600 mainstream teaching posts for primary schools in the next school year.
Approximately 120 posts will be lost in schools that had fewer pupils enrolled on 30 September 2007 than on 30 September 2006. It is estimated that up to 50 of these posts might have been retained under a schedule that operated on the basis of a general rule of one classroom teacher for every 26 children compared to the basis of the current schedule which is a general rule of 27 children per classroom teacher. I am arranging to have provided for the Deputy a list of the schools that might fit the alternative criterion, if it had applied.
I caution, however, that the final position cannot be determined until the independent staffing appeals process that is available to boards of management of individual schools has taken place. Under this process schools can submit an appeal under certain criteria to an appeal board, specially established to adjudicate on appeals on mainstream staffing allocations in primary schools. Details of the criteria and application dates for appeal are contained in the staffing schedule. The appeal board operates independently of the Department and its decision is final.
The Government has made provision for approximately 1,200 extra primary and post-primary teachers to be appointed in the next school year. These include the net increase of circa 500 teachers referred to and others who will be employed in special education and language support posts.
Budget 2008 provided €4.6 billion, or €380 million extra, for teacher pay and pensions. This is a substantial level of additional investment in the current economic environment and reflects the huge improvements made in school staffing in recent years.
In the primary sector, approximately 6,000 more teachers are on the Department's payroll than in 2002. Extra teachers have been provided in the 2006-07 and 2007-08 school years to reduce class sizes. The programme for Government contains a commitment to provide 4,000 additional primary teachers between 2007 and 2012. With the extra teachers already put in place this year and those provided for in the budget, we are ahead of target with approximately 2,000 extra primary teachers to be delivered in just two years.
Over the lifetime of the Government, we are committed to providing more primary school teachers specifically to reduce class sizes. We will also continue our focus on measures to improve the quality of education in our primary schools to ensure increased resources lead to better outcomes for our children.
I thank the Minister for her reply but it did not address my question. I asked the Minister to name the 50 or so schools which will lose a teacher in 2008 because of her failure, and that of her colleagues in the Government, to honour promises made before the last general election and in the programme for Government.
Two months ago, I asked a similar question only to be informed there were IT problems with getting the names of the schools in question. It is some IT system that on a Priority Question from the Opposition the Minister cannot give us the list of shame.
The Minister was filleted at the INTO conference last month because of her failure to honour her promise in the programme for Government to reduce staffing schedules from 27 to 24 children over the next three years. For the 50 schools that will be affected, will the Minister examine changing the retention schedule which will allow them not to lose a much-needed teacher?
The list of schools affected is being extracted and will be given to the Deputy presently. It would be impossible to list them all here. It is a genuine case of officials having to go through the IT system to inform us which schools will lose 120 teachers. When the information is complied it will be forwarded to the Deputy.
We examined the possibility in-house of changing the retention schedule. In the current economic climate, however, with the extra numbers attending school in September, it is not possible to do it this year. I would like to have continued the process I started in 2006 of reducing class sizes. The Deputy, however, will accept the economic climate is not good in allowing us to achieve all of what we had set out to do. It still remains a Government commitment, however.
We do not know if the Minister will still be in the position to continue this process in a month. The very best of luck to her in the Cabinet reshuffle. Will she inform the House how much it will cost to reduce the average size by one child in the staffing schedule? My information is that it is not a large amount of money.
Will she give a guarantee to the House that she will honour the commitment made before, during and after the general election for the 2009 staffing schedule?
Is it still the Government's policy, enunciated in 2002, that children nine years of age and younger will be in class sizes of 20 or fewer?
The cost per teacher is estimated to be €60,000. It is made up not only by the employment of the teacher but knock-on effects such as posts of responsibility, administrative principals etc.
The 50 schools in question are the only ones to lose but others may gain teachers. It must be acknowledged that a greater number of teachers would be coming into the system if those 50 schools were not affected. Some of these schools might be able to retain teachers under the appeals system.
Considering the current international economic climate, no one can say what will happen. Reducing the staffing schedule remains a Government commitment but it must be considered in the context of finances available during the Estimates process. It is a matter for which we will continue to fight.
Concerning class sizes for children aged nine and under, John Carr, general secretary of the INTO, said that reducing the class schedule from 29 to 27 children and then to 24 would enable schools to break junior infants classes from two to three groups.
That is only for one year.
63 Deputy Ruairí Quinn asked the Minister for Education and Science the steps she proposes to take to regularise the anomalies, including rates of pay, access to pensions and PRSAs, a sick leave scheme, procedures for grievance, disciplinary bullying and harassment, contracts of employment and issuing of pay slips surrounding the terms and conditions of employment of school secretaries and caretakers; if her Department met, in January and March 2008, IMPACT, the trade union that represents many of the school secretaries and caretakers; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13414/08]
In general the arrangements for supporting secretarial and caretaking services in schools mirror those for providing support funding for the schools concerned. Primary and secondary schools are funded through capitation grants and likewise secretarial and caretaking services are funded by grants related to the number of pupils in the school.
A small number of primary and post-primary schools continue to have caretaker and secretary posts funded under a scheme that was put in place in 1978. This is being phased out as it has been superseded by the grant scheme that I have mentioned. The original 1978 scheme covered a relatively small number of primary and secondary schools. The decision to phase it out was part of a policy decision to spread the support more widely and ultimately cover all primary and secondary schools with funding for such services.
The funding approach adopted for caretaking and secretarial provision in second level schools in the VEC and community and comprehensive sector schools is in line with the funding mechanisms that apply generally in those schools. The amount of funding given to primary and secondary schools is not directly linked to any particular pay rates and furthermore schools have discretion on how to apply this funding across their support service needs. The Department does not have any direct role in determining the pay and conditions under which they are engaged. These are matters to be agreed between the staff concerned and the school authorities. However, boards of management of individual schools are expected to comply with employment legislation and are advised accordingly in guidance from the Department.
In the context of discussions on the social partnership agreement, Towards 2016, an informal forum was established in the public sector to explore several staffing-related issues arising in companies-bodies operating in the voluntary-community sector that are largely funded from public funds. As part of that informal process, the Department has facilitated a number of meetings between the managerial bodies of schools employing secretaries and caretakers and the IMPACT and SIPTU trade unions representing the grades concerned. The most recent meeting took place on 11 March 2008, at which my officials undertook to continue to facilitate those discussions. In addition, representatives of the management bodies of schools agreed to meet separately the trade unions concerned on issues of concern to their members.
I find the Minister's response utterly irresponsible considering that the new leader-designate of Fianna Fáil, Deputy Brian Cowen, announced earlier at a press conference that Fianna Fáil would respect social partnership and an inclusive approach to society. In effect the Minister is presiding over a yellow pack form of employment. The Minister has not answered the question properly. She has not recognised the difficulties presented on 11 March to her officials and her interpretation of ongoing discussions is utterly at variance with the other impression, which was to the effect that negotiations had all but broken down. Deputy Brian Hayes might confirm it but that was the interpretation I took from the deputation which took part in the meeting.
Is the Minister indicating that ongoing discussions will continue with IMPACT and officials have been empowered to engage in constructive and positive negotiations with a view to addressing the illegal labour law anomalies in effect under the Minister's watch in schools in the Republic of Ireland? Will the Minister indicate if she proposes to increase the overall capitation grant for schools so they are not forced into yellow pack conditions of employment, which are an absolute outrage in a country that claims to have the second highest standard of living and per capita income in the European Union?
With regard to the talks which have been ongoing, the Department agreed on 11 March to establish formal structures for dealing with those secretaries and caretakers under the 1978 and 1979 scheme.
That is being phased out.
The Department is not the employer of those employed under the other grant systems. I would be very concerned, as would anybody, if employment legislation was being broken——
It is.
——on those matters. The management bodies specifically asked for examples of where this was happening and agreed to follow up on it.
The Department will continue to facilitate any meetings or talks between the management bodies and unions on the matter. We have issued circulars to all schools advising them of their responsibilities and roles with regard to employment legislation, which they must keep absolutely.
The second question relates to capitation. It is the case that the ancillary grants, rather than capitation, would go towards paying for secretaries and caretakers. The Deputy will be aware we have increased that significantly in recent years and we will continue to do so. We accept this is the money issued for schools. Last year the amount was €65 million and this year it will be well over that because we have increased it again.
Will the Minister accept that the approximately 20,000 new members of boards of management, particularly in the primary sector, who have come on board to look after the school in which their children or grandchildren may be students, and in trying to facilitate the best possible support for the principal and staff in the school, are now confronted with a position where the Minister is giving them a miserable amount of money? This forces them into breaking labour law and proper working conditions in order for them to get basic things.
For example, the secretary of a school does not just do paperwork in a back office, he or she is also the permanent receptionist in the school. All primary schools also have a security issue regarding who goes in and out the door. The Minister is forcing boards of management to break the law or else deprive the principal of having support for a secretary. Does the Minister find her response is utterly inadequate, given the vast resources this Administration has at its disposal?
Clearly I do not accept the Government is forcing anybody to break the law as no matter what funding is available, everybody has a responsibility, particularly with employment, to ensure the substantial legislation is adhered to. Secretaries and caretakers do a very good and important job but even the smallest of schools receive a minimum amount of money under the ancillary scheme. The larger schools get up to €75,750, the maximum amount available.
The length of a school day and school year is short. In primary schools, for example, this allows four hours work by a secretary, for example, as schools are only open five hours and 40 minutes. The school is open for 183 days. We have stated we will be happy to continue to put down formal structures for the 1978 and 1979 scheme——
That is being phased out. It is irrelevant.
That was an employment creation scheme.
I remember it well.
There was never any intention to spread out the numbers and increase the personnel in the public service. It is important——
The Department has closed down negotiations.
We will continue to facilitate meetings between management bodies and unions to ensure the employment rights of secretaries and caretakers employed by local boards of management have effect.
64 Deputy Brian Hayes asked the Minister for Education and Science when she will make a decision following the publication of the Port report in February 2008. [13471/08]
To date applications have been received to invoke section 9 of the Universities Act 1997 from Waterford Institute of Technology, Dublin Institute of Technology and Cork Institute of Technology. Any such application requires a detailed examination in the context not only of the detailed statutory process to which they are subject but also of their wider implications for higher education policy generally.
These applications raise significant issues regarding Government policy towards higher education, in particular the existing roles of the universities and institutes of technology which have distinctive missions from each other, provide different levels and types of academic programmes, fulfil different roles in the community and have separate academic and governance structures.
The Government wants to build on our strengths and to provide an environment where all our higher education institutions can develop in a way that best serves the country as a whole and the regions where they are based. These issues must be central to consideration of the appropriate next steps in all applications, which I have been examining in conjunction with my Government colleagues.
Waterford IT is already making a significant contribution to the development of the south-east region. It has an excellent track record of industry collaboration, particularly in areas of applied research and curriculum design. I want to see Waterford IT further develop its strengths in these areas in line with the objectives of the Government's strategy for science technology and innovation.
In this regard one of the key development and investment priorities for the Waterford gateway in the current national development plan is the "investment in the R&D capacity of Waterford Institute of Technology to underline the importance of education to Waterford as a centre of excellence".
While Dr. Port's report is specifically on the Waterford application, it also provides a useful analysis of the wider context in which any application for designation as a university must be considered. The report provides an overview of the complex issues involved and will contribute to an informed debate, nationally and regionally, on the issue and help inform final consideration of the matter.
The options presented in the Port report are being examined carefully by officials of my Department and the Higher Education Authority with a view to developing specific proposals on the appropriate next steps in the context of wider considerations. I intend to present proposals to Government in this regard very shortly.
The net question is if the Minister supports the establishment of a university in the south east.
It is a very important question.
It is and I recall the last Question Time was allowed to run over so this matter could be taken.
I am sure it would not have if we could just have had an answer.
The application will be considered in the context of not only the region of Waterford but also international priorities. That leaves something for the Government to consider.
The WIT application dates back to 2005. The Minister commissioned Dr. Port's report to get her through the general election and she knows this was published on 20 February, the last time my colleagues put down a question on it. The Minister stated at the time she would come to a view on the report within a matter of weeks. Will the Minister please get off the fence and make up her mind on the issue?
The Cabinet is clearly affected by dissension and division on the subject, as could be noted from the rather public spat the Minister had with the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Cullen, at the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting last month. When will the Minister make up her mind on the issue? Her indecision is leading to total instability within the higher education sector and she must come to a view sooner rather than later as to the future and the responsibility and need for a university in the south east. When will we get the decision?
I am cognisant of the OECG report, which discussed the binary system in Ireland and the distinct roles of the institutes of technology and universities. That has led to the success of regional development in this country and I want to ensure nothing impinges on that. That report indicated in particular that this system should be protected, and naturally I want to do so.
I am equally cognisant of the regional argument being made by Waterford IT and that it has developed an academic expertise. Since the application came in, a number of significant events have happened, particularly the introduction of the legislation on the institutes of technology. That addressed many of the issues raised by Waterford Institute of Technology in its application. These included monetary issues, the management structure, academic freedom and budgets. All those were addressed by the legislation, which changed the context for the Port report.
Dr. Port discusses in the report that there are no criteria in this country——
That is section 9.
——under section 9. It would be absolutely impossible for any Minister to start a process if there are no criteria by which it could be judged. That should be done in the first instance.
In reply to a previous question, the Minister stated that her Department will soon place proposals before the Government. The key issue on which she must decide is whether to allow the Waterford application, which was made in 2005, to be independently assessed under section 9, as it currently stands. Is she suggesting that she will, in light of the recommendations in Dr. Port's report, be reformatting section 9 in advance of allowing Waterford or any other college to seek full university status? Is that the position?
Not only did the context change in respect of the legislation, it also changed when the Dublin and Cork institutes of technology revitalised their applications. We also received a submission from the institutes of technology in general regarding a federal structure for Ireland. The one thing the Minister for Education and Science must do is protect the status and standard of higher education in Ireland. We witnessed what happened with the polytechnics in the UK and we want to ensure that does not happen here.
We all agree with the Minister in that regard.
In the first instance, the proposals set out in Dr. Port's report suggest that we must examine not only the regional model but also its national counterpart. We must also consider what action to take in respect of the criteria. It is not possible to kick-start a process without——
Will a decision be forthcoming before the summer?
The Deputy has got to be joking.
Proposals based on the recommendations in the Port report will be put to Government shortly.
Will that happen before the summer?
It will happen in the coming weeks.
65 Deputy Ruairí Quinn asked the Minister for Education and Science the arrangements made to date for the forum or conference on the issue of governance for the primary school sector which she announced at the Irish National Teachers Organisation conference would take place in summer 2008; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13415/08]
The rapid pace of social and demographic change in Ireland is reflected in a radically altered and more diverse society from which our school communities are drawn. The vast majority of primary schools are, and will continue to be, Catholic in ethos. They have historically welcomed pupils from all backgrounds and still do. More recently, other models of patronage have emerged which have widened the range of choice available to parents. As the school system evolves, we must ensure that all our schools reflect and fully represent the communities in which they are based.
In that context, it is important that we develop a common vision of how existing and new models of patronage can collectively respond to future diverse demands for primary education. The new multi-faith community national school model that is to be piloted next September aims to meet a need for plurality of provision within the framework of the single-school setting.
On a point of order, I tabled a succinct question on the Order Paper. A lecture on the changing nature of society is——
The Minister is entitled to two minutes in which to make her reply.
The Minister is wasting time.
The Minister is entitled to two minutes for her reply.
I would not be holding a forum if there had not been a change in context.
We know there has been such a change. We are seeking details.
It is important to place the relevant information on the record and I am entitled to do so.
The new model can provide a valuable new option in ensuring that our school system is responsive to future parental choice. In ensuring that the range of patronage models, new and existing, collectively achieve this, it is important to build on ongoing dialogue with the education partners in encouraging a wider public discussion of the issues involved. In that regard, I recently announced my intention to host a conference on the governance challenge for future primary education needs in late June. I can confirm that the conference will be held on 27 June at the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham. I have been working with my officials in considering the practical arrangements involved. Detailed arrangements for the conference will be made public.
The conference to which I refer will facilitate all stakeholders in considering together the implications for the primary education system of the changing shape of Irish society. Discussions will focus on the particular challenges of ethos and inclusion for patron bodies, under both the existing patronage models and the new patronage model to be piloted in three community national schools this September. The conference will consider the long-term challenges of organising and developing our system of school governance to accommodate new parental demands and aspirations. It will also deal with issues of capacity, choice, ensuring inclusion and the implications for enrolment policies. I look forward to engaging collectively with stakeholders on these important issues that will shape the future of our primary education system.
Will the stakeholders include representatives of Opposition parties?
Of course. They are more than welcome to attend. The relevant date is 27 June.
All the work will be done in one half day.
Will it be a one-day conference?
The initial aim is to have a one-day conference. People referred to having an ongoing forum. In the past, various fora have discussed various topics for weeks and months. I cannot say that these fora have ever actually delivered anything other than——
What about the New Ireland Forum or the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation?
They were part of a bigger process.
This is a very big process.
Yes, but what is significant in this instance is that the conference will obviously involve a number of key presentations as well as workshops. It will allow people, including parents, to listen to each other. A key element to assisting our discussions will be the working through of the new patron model, which will be up and running in September. At that stage, we will be able to see — from the perspective of parents, teachers, principals, patrons and local communities — how the model is working. That will feed in to our discussion on this matter.
Will it be a forum or a conference?
It will be a conference.
So it is less than a forum. In order that time will not be wasted, will the Minister request that stakeholders circulate their papers in advance in order that we do not waste time listening to material we have already heard but that we will have an opportunity to digest such material and be in a position to ask pertinent questions? If this is not done, the exercise will not be as productive as might otherwise be the case.
Hear, hear.
The key speakers will be invited to circulate their papers. One aspect of the value of this process is that it will allow people to listen to the points being put forward by other groups. Officials of my Department and I have met the various representatives and there are also bilateral arrangements in place. In the context of the ongoing structured dialogue involving the State and the churches, education is always one of the key issues. Any one of us could probably outline what each of the individual patron bodies, the teachers, the INTO, the principals or the parents have to say on this matter. However, it is really important that each group should listen to what the others have to say.
Of how many hours duration will be conference be?
We are still working through that. Asking people to circulate their papers is a good idea. The conference will not take place until 27 June. I had intended holding it earlier but it was decided to hold the forthcoming referendum on the original date selected. There is ample time in which to organise the conference. All of the bodies are anxious to participate and we will ask them to circulate their papers.
What does the Minister hope to get out of it?
How many questions is the Deputy entitled to ask?
There is no limit on the number of questions he may ask so long as he poses them within the time that has been allocated.
Excellent.
The Minister has let the cat out of the bag.
It is important that we should engage in this ongoing dialogue, rather than just having people sitting around at a forum. It is hoped that all of the different groups will realise what their counterparts, particularly the patron bodies, envisage for the future of education in this country.
We must consider a number of key areas. There is, for example, the issue of choice for parents. However, choice cannot be contemplated without there also being the capacity to deliver. That balance must be considered as part of the argument.
What does the Minister hope to get out of it?
We must proceed to the next question. The time for this question has expired.
The issue of enrolment policies must also be examined.
What does the Minister hope to get out of it?
The enrolment policies of some groups run contrary to those of others.
We must proceed to Question No. 66.
Another issue that must be examined is that relating to the teaching of religion. I hope that——
I have called Question No. 66 and we must proceed to it.
66 Deputy Brian Hayes asked the Minister for Education and Science if the issue of discrimination against gay and lesbian teachers in schools here has been brought to her attention or that of her Department; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13472/08]
I am aware that the teacher unions have expressed concern about discrimination against teachers on the basis of sexual orientation. They made particular mention of the provisions of the Employment Equality Act 1998 where a denominational school may not be regarded as discriminating against a person where action is taken to preserve the religious ethos of the school. These provisions, contained in section 37 of the Act, are not confined to schools but also apply to hospitals and any other establishments run by religious organisations. The legislation in question is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I am not aware that any denominational school has formally acted against an employee specifically under section 37 of the Act. I also understand that no teacher has brought a case to the Equality Tribunal on this issue.
If a case were brought, it would have to be looked at not just in the context of section 37 of the Employment Equality Act but also in respect of the extensive rights afforded to employees under other legislation such as the Unfair Dismissals Act. I further understand that in order to invoke the section 37 exemption, an institution would have to prove that it was necessary to protect its ethos.
On the wider issues affecting gay, lesbians and bisexuals in education, my Department has supported a number of initiatives aimed at promoting equality and tackling homophobic bullying in schools. The Deputy will be aware that all schools are required to have an anti-bullying policy and guidance has been provided to schools on this. Specific publications on tackling homophobic bullying have also been made available. School boards of management, as the employers of teachers and other staff, also have a responsibility to protect their employees from workplace bullying.
As the Minister rightly said, this issue was raised at the recent teacher conferences. It is disquieting that a group of teachers feel their work is threatened by their sexual orientation. I would like a reaction to the comments made, particularly at the INTO conference, by a couple of brave teachers who feel their future employment prospects are affected by their sexual orientation or that they have been subjected to homophobic comments within or outside the school.
The Minister referred to section 37 of the Employment Equality Act 1998. I know it is a matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, but I ask the Minister to work with the teachers' unions to see whether there are ways in which that section could be amended or improved to make it abundantly clear that irrespective of the patronage model of schools up and down the country, people cannot discriminate against gay or lesbian teachers. Will she engage in a constructive dialogue with the teachers' unions on that issue?
Obviously any form of homophobic bullying or bullying in the workplace should not be tolerated by the schools themselves or by any institution. There is legislation to protect people to whom this happens and it should be invoked. The general secretary of the Catholic Primary School Management Association, Monsignor Dan O'Connor, is on record as saying that sexual orientation is only an issue if it actively undermines the ethos of the school. It is significant that no case has been taken to the Equality Tribunal.
Exactly.
That speaks for itself. I can understand that people in that situation may feel a sense of fear, but the problem has not occurred to the extent that somebody has had to take a case. I hope we will never see this. The legislation does allow for schools to protect their ethos, which is a provision that exists in a number of countries. It does not apply only to schools but also to hospitals and so on.
Is it not the issue that teachers in permanent teaching positions within our schools would have considerable fear about taking a case such as the Minister has described because of their positions and their leadership roles within their communities? There is an unwritten cultural acceptance of such discrimination within our school framework. My question, which I repeat, is whether the Minister will engage with the teaching unions on this issue. While a small group of teachers had the courage to put on record their concerns about this section of the Act at the teacher conferences, I presume they represent a much wider group within the teaching profession.
Ten per cent of teachers.
I would have thought it was at least 10%. The Minister has an obligation to the House and particularly to the teaching profession to stand up in support of those teachers and to ensure their rights are vindicated and that there is no discrimination against them and their future prospects in our school system.
I want to ensure there is no discrimination and no bullying, within the context of the legislation, based on sexual orientation. It is encouraging for teachers to know that none of them has been forced to take a case. A teacher would only take a case if there was a feeling that he or she had been strongly discriminated against. I hope that will encourage other teachers to be more comfortable in their teaching positions.
There have been some indications that it is not school managements that discriminate against gay and lesbian teachers but parents. Some parents can be uncomfortable with the sexual orientation of their children's teachers. Perhaps there is a wider educational issue which should include parents. Our inspectorate has been working closely with teachers, representative groups and the Equality Authority to ensure that we have school policies in place that reflect the fact that everybody should be respected. It is important to mention that young people are also learning about this issue in their RSE classes, and respect is given to them as students. Section 37 of the current Employment Equality Act allows schools to preserve their religious ethos, but they must be able to show that whatever actions are taken are necessary.
