Vol. 651 No. 3
67 Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Education and Science the specific action she will take following an audit of school enrolment policies carried out by her Department; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13374/08]
I have spoken on a number of occasions about the responsibility of all schools to welcome and include children of every background and need. The audit of school enrolment policies conducted at my request considered the enrolment of Traveller children, newcomers and children with special educational needs in almost 2,000 schools at primary and post-primary level. The audit also considered the written enrolment policies of a proportion of these schools and, more tellingly, how these policies translate into practice in terms of actual enrolment patterns.
At a general level, the audit found no evidence of any system-wide enrolment practices that give rise to concern. However, there are geographic pockets where, within a cluster of schools, the evidence points to certain schools' assuming a greater or lesser share of the responsibility for meeting the full range of community needs. While local factors can have an influence and an element of self-selection can also come into play, important questions remain about how seemingly inclusive written enrolment policies can translate into less inclusive practices on the ground.
At a basic level, there is now a need to empower parents by giving them a greater understanding of their rights. As a first measure, I will be taking practical steps to achieve this. The audit gives rise to wider policy questions, such as the effectiveness of the current system of appealing against non-enrolment; the consequences for newcomer families of practices such as retaining pre-enrolment waiting lists of several years or favouring children of past pupils; the potential for improved co-operation between schools in a given area with a view to meeting the full needs of their local community; and how identified problems can best be addressed. Over the coming weeks I will be consulting with each of the education partners on the policy options available, based on related specific questions but not precluding any wider inputs or ideas that people wish to contribute.
Why is the Minister not prepared to publish the audit and release the information into the public domain? Segregation will always thrive where there is a lack of information, and there is a lack of information in this area. This does not concern only newcomers, although it is an important issue for new communities, but also indigenous communities, Travellers and children with learning difficulties. It is fundamentally important in the context of the debate on the management of schools, enrolment and so forth that all information is put into the public domain so that we can deal with this issue based on the information available rather than in a void as at present.
I do not intend to publish the individual findings about schools for two reasons. First, the results are simply figures and do not give any background information. For example, did parents actually apply to a certain school? If a particular school in an area has a reputation for being good for children with special needs, parents may automatically enrol their children there. We do not have such background information. Second, I can foresee some of the less inclusive schools using the survey to demonstrate how good they are academically as they do not take anyone with special educational needs. They may use it to promote an exclusionary position. I will shortly be sending the audit to each of the partners with the names of the schools blotted out so that they can see the problems that pertain in certain areas.
Why not publish it with the names blotted out?
Once it becomes available to the partners it will then be available publicly if people want it. I do not want it to be used to formulate a league table on the basis of schools that accept many pupils with special needs and those that do not.
The Minister should blot out the names and publish it.
It is too sensitive an issue. In addition, it is something that must be dealt with at a local rather than a national level. People had the impression that there was a whole sector of schools that did not take particular children, but this is not evident from the audit. Significantly, there does not seem to be any problem at primary level. For the most part, children go to their local national schools. That is a good basis on which to work.
What about west Dublin?
Generally, if we consider three or four schools within a town, it is far more telling. It will tell us that people from a disadvantaged area are going to one school, newcomers are going to another, and children with special needs are going somewhere else. Or, indeed, all three might be going to one of the schools.
The Minister has been going over this for the last two years and the audit has been getting headlines for the last two years at the TUI conference. We have asked the Minister to publish it. If she chooses not to do so, will she at the very least publish the details of the geographic pockets, as she called them, in which this form of selection is taking place? She said nearly 2,000 schools were included in the audit. How many were primary and how many were post-primary schools? The Minister also stated that she had come across examples of specific schools with selective enrolment policies. That is a dangerous thing to say because it raises the question of what sanctions she will impose on these schools. She is the person responsible to the House for the public funds that go to these schools, yet she admitted in public that she has come across schools with selective admission policies. What sanctions will she take against them?
First of all, I did not say the schools had specific enrolment policies. What I said was that if one looks at figures for individual schools in a specific area, one can see where there has been a gravitation of special needs pupils towards them. That might mean that the parents of those children, recognising that a school is particularly good or has got a name of being good for these children, opt to send them there in the first place. I will be giving the details to the partners and can make them available then. However, I will not be highlighting the particular findings in towns such as, for example, Swords, Navan or Wexford because then it would be easy to identify the schools involved.
South Dublin, for instance.
No. It is important to work through it with people because we need a more localised dynamic. If we had principals and schools talking and working more with each other on a localised region then one could solve the matter on a community level. I am not going to introduce financial sanctions against schools. We cannot stand up here one minute saying "Give the schools more money", and then turn around and penalise the rest of those schools.
If they had a selective enrolment policy, would the Minister stand over it?
No, but nobody has said that they have a selective enrolment policy.
So what was the whole objective of doing it?
There is prima facie evidence that they have.
We are saying that, looking at the figures, people might have gravitated towards it. We must see how we can have that localised dynamic. Can we perhaps have more peer monitoring? I want to answer the Deputy's question on the numbers. There must also be information for parents on their rights because so many parents do not appeal or do not know they can do so. That is important. There are plenty of ways one can introduce sanctions on schools concerning their enrolment policies for example, which might hit some of them far more than by looking at finances. All those issues should be examined and I will be examining them with the partners.
What was the breakdown?
The survey was of 1,995 schools, of which 1,572 were primary and 426 post-primary. That is more than half the primary schools and two-thirds of post-primary ones.
I agree with the Minister that post-primary is the issue here, not primary.
I call the Minister on Question No. 68.
Yet only a quarter of the examples were post-primary in the Minister's audit.
Hold on. There are 750 post-primary schools, of which 426 — that is more than half of them — were audited. We took ten different counties and 17 local authority areas.
The vast majority were primary schools.
We know that there is not a problem in the primary schools because we——
Why did the Minister not audit them?
So that we could show that there was not.
The vast majority of the audit related to primary schools.
It would have defeated the whole argument if we had only audited schools where we thought there was a problem. We needed to get a picture in an individual area. We got it for the individual areas and also got it for the national area.
The number of post-primary audits was very small.
68 Deputy Ulick Burke asked the Minister for Education and Science the number of representations, that is, calls, e-mails, letters and so on received by her Department to date regarding the case of a new community post-primary school in Ballinamore, County Leitrim; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13299/08]
My Department has received numerous representations from concerned parties regarding the provision of a new community school in Ballinamore, County Leitrim. The representations were initially concerned with the acquisition of a site and more recently concentrated on the commencement of architectural planning for the new school building.
My Department recognises the need for a new community school in Ballinamore to facilitate further the amalgamation of the three post-primary schools in the area, and has drafted a schedule of accommodation for this school. The schedule of accommodation is based on the long-term enrolment of 400 pupils and has a proposed floor area of 4,094 square metres. The schedule will provide seven general classrooms, two lecture rooms and 19 specialist rooms, as well as several offices and other ancillary accommodation. It also provides for a PE facility hall comprising a total area of 606 square metres. The external provision allows for a covered area for construction studies, four hard play courts, 32 car parking spaces, an external storage facility and a general yard. In addition, my Department has secured a site for the provision of a new school. The final legal transfer of title is currently under way. My Department is considering the most effective way of delivering this project, including examining the feasibility of allowing it to proceed in the next bundle of public private partnership projects.
I am committed to providing a new school for Ballinamore at the earliest possible date. However, at this stage it is not possible to be definitive regarding a start date for construction of the proposed new school.
That is not the answer to my question. I asked how many e-mails and letters the Department had received to date regarding the case of a new community post-primary school in Ballinamore, and if the Minister would make a statement on the matter. We all know what is happening to this school. Ballinamore has a problem in that there are three school buildings with students commuting along the streets as classes interchange. A new school has been sought for 20 years. A departmental inspector's report in 2000 cited the loss of school time due to travel between classes, major safety concerns, and the quality of education in such a difficult layout spread around the town of Ballinamore. The Office of Public Works and the Department have spent seven years looking for sites and eventually settled on a site they examined many years ago. There is not much urgency about the matter. Now the site has been acquired, contracts were signed on 7 June and the vendors have been paid. The situation is very serious.
A question please, Deputy.
Will the Minister state on the record that this school will be delivered in the coming weeks under her new programme?
Even I cannot build a school in the next few weeks.
We have been waiting for 20 years.
The Deputy asked about the number of calls and e-mails received. Calls to my office, the Secretary-General's office and the building unit are numerous but they are not all recorded or listed for each of the various sections. One person has been particularly active on behalf of the school in ringing various offices and sending e-mails. As regards the importance of delivering this school, I met the deputation from the school and assured them that once their site was finalised they would be on the next design team list. That situation has not changed with the single exception that we are examining the most efficient and speedy way of delivering the school for the community in Ballinamore. That is why we are examining the possibility of including it in the next PPP bundle.
That is not on.
We want to see if that would be a quicker way of doing it because we are committed to delivering this school.
When does the Minister hope to be in a position to finalise the next PPP budget? My understanding was that the legal transfer was through and that moneys have already been paid over. Is the Minister now telling us that the legal transfer is not through even though the moneys have been paid over? Why are e-mails from the community in question to the Department and the Minister's office not being responded to? How many other schools are split between three separate sites that have not been sanctioned to date? Will the Minister issue a public apology to the local community for the way she berated them in the local media when she visited there recently?
I have not visited Ballinamore but I met a deputation from the school, comprising parents, members of the parent body, the principal and the patron. I gave them a commitment that they would be on the next design team list. That is still the situation unless we determine that a more efficient and speedy way of doing it would be through the PPP process. We want to deliver this as quickly as possible. E-mails should be responded to but the situation has not changed since I spoke with the group. That was the determination at the time and when I met them their site had not been finalised. It is now finalised but I did not mention anything about finances or the site. I do not know what the Deputy was referring to there.
The Minister said in her reply that the legal transfer was ongoing.
Yes.
The final contract, yes.
So is it finished or not with the OPW?
As I understand it, the final contract papers are not finished but there is no difficulty with the site. That is why we are anxious to move ahead quickly.
That is a "maybe" answer.
As regards the PPPs, the second bundle will shortly be going to the market and we will be doing the third bundle quickly after that. It may well be the best and most efficient way to proceed.
So it is not the next bundle, but the one after that.
The second bundle has already gone, so the next one will be the third bundle, which is the one we are considering this school for.
It is a bungle all right.
It may well be the most efficient way of doing it.
The site is currently in the school's possession but can the Minister give a date for that third PPP bundle? The adults and children of Ballinamore are waiting for this date immediately.
They will learn the third secret of Fatima before they get that answer.
I do not have an exact date for the third bundle.
Does the Minister even have a ballpark date?
No. It is intended that the first bundle will go on site over the next couple of months. The second bundle will be moving out after that and we are preparing the third bundle at the moment. Obviously, the decision to include Ballinamore will be the first thing and then to organise a bundle of schools for inclusion.
It will be considered sometime after the local elections.
No. It will be well done by then because we have the budget under the PPP heading and we want to ensure we get the best benefit from it.
69 Deputy Ruairí Quinn asked the Minister for Education and Science the primary schools in Dublin 2, Dublin 4, Dublin 6 and Dublin 8; the number of places available for the student year 2007-08 in each school; the enrolment for 2007-08 in each school; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13197/08]
The number of primary schools operating in the areas of Dublin referred to by the Deputy is as follows. Dublin 2 is served by three primary schools with a total current enrolment of 315 pupils. Dublin 4 is served by 12 primary schools, including two special schools, with a total current enrolment of 2,166 pupils. Dublin 6 is served by 19 primary schools, including three special schools, with a total current enrolment of 4,816 pupils. Dublin 8 is served by 17 primary schools, including two special schools, with a total current enrolment of 2,829 pupils.
Details of all 51 schools and their respective 2007-08 enrolments have been compiled for the Deputy and they will be forwarded to him immediately.
The exact number of places available in each school is not easily quantified given that increasing space norms and reductions in the pupil-teacher ratio, combined with significant increases in ex-quota staff in recent years effectively mean that the actual number of classrooms in a school may not directly relate to its capacity. If schools feel they do not have sufficient places to meet demand, they should contact the Department so the situation can be examined as to how best to provide whatever additional capacity is required.
It is important to point out that the Department's responsibility is to ensure that schools in any given area can, between them, cater for all pupils seeking school places. This approach ensures the use of existing accommodation is maximised and that the development and support of one school over others does not occur.
The forward planning section of my Department will keep the position in the areas outlined under review to ensure that any additional emerging needs are met as expeditiously as possible. The forward planning section is in the process of identifying the areas where significant additional accommodation will be required at primary and post-primary level for 2009 and onwards.
Factors under consideration include population growth, demographic trends, current and projected enrolments, recent and planned housing developments and capacity of existing schools to meet demand for places. Having considered these factors decisions will be taken on the means by which emerging needs will be met within an area.
70 Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for Education and Science her views on whether the seven universities here face a budget deficit of approximately €25 million, that direct Government support fell by €11,240 per student, 18% in real terms, between 1995 and 2001, that further cuts have resulted in a 32% reduction in the student core grant funding during 1995 to 2005 and that €50 million, taken out of the third level budget in the years 2002-03, has never been replaced; the steps she will take to reverse this serial reduction in gross funding for universities here; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13214/08]
I am aware of the annual demands for additional resources for the higher education sector and have afforded significant priority to investments in this area. Spending on higher education has increased dramatically over the periods mentioned. Over €836 million in recurrent funding has been allocated to the seven universities for 2008. This excludes separately provided programmes of funding for capital, research and development and the strategic innovation fund. It represents an increase of approximately 25% since 2005 and an increase of 152% since 1997, when recurrent funding amounted to approximately €332 million.
When all higher education funding is taken into account, the overall provision by my Department for the sector amounts to some €2 billion for 2008. This represents a 230% increase on the 1995 provision.
In terms of international comparisons, between 1995 and 2004, in real terms, allowing for inflation, total public and private spending on higher education here has increased by 74%. This scale of increase was the sixth highest of any Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, country. Spending per student in higher education increased by 26% compared to 9% on average in the OECD.
Support for reform and development at third level and the creation of world-class excellence at fourth level are central Government priorities. The National Development Plan 2007-2013, recognises the critical role of higher education in the national innovation system that will be the basis of Ireland's economic and social development. The plan identifies the full funding of the sector, over €13 billion through the period, as a key strategic investment.
In 2006, the Government introduced a multi-annual strategic innovation fund for higher education with significant additional recurrent funding of €510 million over the seven years of the NDP. To date, some €140 million has been allocated, of which €100 million is earmarked for the university sector. The Government's strategy for science, technology and innovation also involves major investment in higher education infrastructure and skills over the period of the NDP.
Unprecedented investment is now being made in our higher education infrastructure, in promoting excellence through system-wide collaboration and change, in widening access and in creating a vibrant fourth level sector. These are key long-term investments in Ireland's future.
I recently announced that a national strategy for higher education will be developed which will outline the national ambitions for higher education over the next number of years. This strategy, as part of a number of objectives, will review the current use of resources and identify the medium-term resource needs of the sector.
A famous commentator whose name escapes me once denounced a response to a question as lies, damn lies and statistics. I do not doubt the Minister's statistics but if I am to believe them I must conclude that the professor presidents of Trinity College and University College Dublin, UCD, were telling lies. Is it a lie that support fell by €11,240 per student, 18% in real terms, between 1995 and 2001? Only the Minister can answer that question. Is she lying and are the presidents telling the truth? Is it a lie that further cuts resulted in a 32% reduction in the student core grant funding during 1995 to 2005? Is the Minister telling the truth and are the presidents lying? Is it a lie that €50 million, taken out of the third level budget in the years 2002 and 2003, has never been replaced? Is the Minister telling the truth and are the presidents lying?
I am caught in the middle. I would love to believe the Minister but I respect the presidents of the two major universities in this country. Their position was further reinforced by a major article, recently published in a newspaper, under the authorship of Mr. Peter Sutherland. I do not believe he has an interest in either promoting Government policy or telling lies. There is a major gap between what the Minister has put on the record of this House and what the two presidents, in an unprecedented article, published in the newspapers. Can we have a resolution to this matter?
The university presidents were selective in their statements on State funding because they did not include the grant in lieu of tuition fees. The figures mentioned by the presidents relating to money given to universities did not include funding given by the State to universities in lieu of fees students would otherwise pay. This type of funding came to around 32% of recurrent funding for universities in 2007. Expenditure on free fees in the third level sector came to €326 million last year.
I understand why the presidents sought more money and I feel the third level sector merits an increase in funding. In my position as Minister for Education and Science I have always increased the amount of money allocated to higher education. Not only does this apply to day-to-day grant funding but it also applies to the strategic innovation fund, which amounts to €510 million and allows universities introduce changes and modernisation. To give credit to the university presidents, they have done very well in introducing change and modernisation in the past few years.
There is no conflict over funding and nobody is telling lies in this matter. The university presidents have simply not included the substantial amount of money I mentioned in their funding calculations. Allowing for changes in the economic climate, I aim to continue the rate of increase in funding that has been seen in recent years. We often look to Scandinavian countries like Denmark and Sweden to compare levels of funding and, while they are starting from a higher base, the rates of increase there are substantially lower than ours. Our rate of increase was 74% and Denmark's was 33%; this shows the commitment of the Government to higher education, and not just at the level of research and development. Fourth level, research and development, is often highlighted but increases in funding have been made at third level, undergraduate level, also. This is where the difference lies between what I am saying and what the presidents say.
When times are hard, third level is seen as an easy target when it comes to reducing core funding in education. Does the Minister accept that the introduction of top-up fees in Northern Ireland has seen universities there gain a considerable competitive advantage over universities in the Republic? They have additional revenue that is not available to colleges here and this view was forcefully expressed by presidents of universities in this State. What is the Minister's view of the additional support universities in Northern Ireland gain from top-up fees, compared to universities here?
I am not sure that top-up fees add to a university's competitiveness. I do not like the higher education league tables that are used internationally but the Government's investment in research and development in universities has led to Trinity College gaining a place in the top 100, UCD gaining a place in the top 200 and DCU and UL increasing their standings significantly by making it into the top 300.
The Government's investment is starting to show on the international stage but I feel it is more significant that the attainment of higher education in Ireland is far ahead of many other countries. Some 41% of Irish 25 to 34 year olds have received higher education, though the OECD average is only 32%. The outcomes of Irish education are better than the outcomes in other countries. Ireland has the second highest retention rate of all OECD countries, so the investment that has been made in support of students is working well.
Every educational institution in the country could use more money but I decided a couple of years ago that, no matter what economic demands are on other sectors, each sector of education is deserving in its own right. It is true that in 2002, as Deputy Quinn mentioned, the higher education sector suffered when things got tight but I feel it is an important part of our economy and we must continue to support it.
There is a clash between the figures that have gone on the record of the House today and those cited by the university presidents. Is the Minister suggesting that they failed to include core funding for students in the article they jointly signed? Do I understand the Minister correctly? As a consequence their figures, of necessity, must be inaccurate. Is that a correct understanding of what the Minister said?
I call the Minister for a final reply.
I will not refer to the particular article as I do not have it or their figures in front of me. However, I know that in a number of their statements they did not include the fees funding which is given to them.
I cited the article.
Yes. I do not have it with me.
The reply was based on it.
I know they have not taken into account the grant in lieu fees.
71 Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Education and Science the position following her decision to approve the replacement of the existing temporary accommodation in a school (details supplied) in County Cork; the next stage to replace the present obsolete structures, including prefabs, with a new school within the new building approval and administrative system in the context of the multi annual school building and modernisation programme; when work will commence; when the new school buildings will be completed; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13205/08]
All applications for capital funding are assessed by my Department. The assessment process determines the extent and type of need presenting based on the demographics of an area, proposed housing developments, condition of buildings, site capacity etc., leading ultimately to an appropriate accommodation solution. As part of this process, a project is assigned a band rating under published prioritisation criteria for large scale building projects. These criteria were devised following consultation with the education partners.
Projects are selected for inclusion in the school building and modernisation programme on the basis of priority of need. This is reflected in the band rating assigned to a project. In other words, a proposed building project moves through the system commensurate with the band rating assigned to it.
The school to which the Deputy refers is a co-educational primary facility with a September 2007 enrolment of 91 pupils. It has a current staffing of a principal, three mainstream classroom assistants and one permanent learning support-resource teacher.
The board of management has applied for a new school building. A project of this nature attracts a band two rating. In the new school, it is intended to provide accommodation for a long-term staffing of a principal, eight mainstream classroom assistants together with appropriate ancillary accommodation. This level of accommodation has been agreed with the school authority.
The next step for the project is the appointment of a design team. Such a step will take place as part of the implementation of the current school building and modernisation programme and the timing of this appointment will reflect the fact that the project has a band two rating. Due to other competing priorities in the school building programme, I am not in a position at this stage to indicate when it will be possible to approve the appointment of a design team. However, as soon as it becomes possible to do so, the Department will be in contact with the school authorities.
To improve conditions at the school in the meantime, I have approved the replacement of the four existing prefabs with new ones. The Department is awaiting tenders from the school in this regard. I know the existing prefabs have been a cause of some difficulty for the school due to their condition and I want to assure the Deputy, once the tenders are received, a speedy response will issue from my Department to the board of management.
72 Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Education and Science if she has details of the number of primary schools using prefab classrooms in a format that provides readily accessible cumulative information on the overall position in order to facilitate efficient and cost-effective management; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13185/08]
As the Deputy will be aware from previous replies over the past few weeks, the position is that while comprehensive information is held on individual school files, the Department does not yet have these details available in a format that provides readily accessible cumulative information on the overall position regarding temporary accommodation. However, this issue is being addressed as a matter of urgency and work on compiling a comprehensive database of such information is well advanced. This work is part of a general review of rental policy being undertaken. Information is being collated on approximately 900 schools which have received approval from the Department for temporary accommodation, including but not limited to prefabs. This will be used to produce a database of information which will be maintained on an ongoing basis. I will ensure the Deputy receives the information sought once it is available. I anticipate this work will be completed shortly.
The Deputy will be aware that demand for additional accommodation in schools has risen significantly over the last number of years, with the appointment of 6,000 extra teachers in the primary sector alone since 2002. In considering the need to provide extra resource and other teachers to schools in recent years, the Government could have decided to make children wait until permanent accommodation could be provided. However, we prioritised putting the extra teachers into schools as soon as possible.
Against this background, my Department has nonetheless managed to keep expenditure on temporary accommodation low. It should be noted that the amount spent on rental accommodation was still only 5.5% of the total investment in school buildings in 2007. Even when the rental and purchase of temporary accommodation is taken together, it still only comes to 6.2% of overall investment in school buildings last year. This compares with 10.8% in 2003. Suggestions that spending on prefabs has grown dramatically in recent years are therefore quite misleading.
It should also be noted that temporary accommodation is not limited to prefabs and can also involve the rental of high quality buildings. I share the Deputy's concern that expenditure on prefabs be kept as low as possible and I assure him that this is the case. The database of temporary accommodation that is currently being finalised will inform my Department's future decision-making in this area.
It is probably about six to seven weeks since I first asked this question. The Minister is either being economic with the truth, to borrow a phrase from a famous trial in the southern hemisphere, or her Department is being economic with the truth with her. She will have to satisfy herself as to which of those allegations is more accurate. It is beyond belief, after three years plus in the Department, that she has no overall view of the physical inventory of the primary school infrastructure. Any other organisation that had a chief executive — she is the chief executive of a Department — faced with a growing increase in numbers of pupils in need of physical accommodation would be able to say in spring 2008 how many primary pupils are in prefabs. She cannot say what is the age of those prefabs. She cannot say what is the cost of those prefabs. She cannot say when permanent accommodation, as in her reply to the previous question, will be put in place. Instead she will waste money on new prefabs when the parents and everybody else in that school outside Mallow, albeit with 70 odd pupils, want a permanent building. Is it any wonder her Department is rated as the most incompetent and dysfunctional of the primary major Departments? Will she agree she has presided over that for the past three to four years? Her reply is an absolute disgrace. I will continue to put down the question. No managing director of a sweet shop would survive the length of time in office that she has survived if he or she did not know what was the stock on the shelves. She does not have a clue what is the school accommodation of the primary pupils. She is a disgrace or, more to the point, her Department is a disgrace.
I thank the Deputy for his kind comments. I thought he was quite a good Minister for Finance. Those who manage my Department, the Secretary General and the senior management group, are highly efficient, highly committed, dedicated people, who give all their time to managing a budget of €9.3 billion. They oversee a system of 4,000 schools, seven universities, up to 20 higher education institutions and look after the interests of individuals from the age of three right through to adulthood. We look after youth groups, adult literacy groups, people who are within formal systems and people who are outside of formal systems. The only person who has accused the Department of Education and Science in the manner in which Deputy Quinn has done here today is Deputy Quinn.
It is most unfair to say that to a Department which runs an education system that is very efficient. Not only that, it does it in the spirit of partnership with patron bodies, management and unions — always with the interests of the students at heart. When one is trying to manage a budget of that amount where there are 4,000 boards of management, of course it presents challenges for them and for the Department. It works extremely efficiently.
We recognise that quite a number of demands have been made on the Department in recent years because of the growing population and the very positive Government policies that have ensured extra teachers have been put in place where needed without waiting for the permanent accommodation. It would have been very easy for me, two or three years ago, to decide, even though I wanted children who were slow learners and had special educational needs to have immediate access to a teacher, to wait until there was a place to put that teacher. We did not do that, we put in the teachers and that created the demand for extra temporary accommodation. We gave it at the time because the children came first and the buildings came second. I will stand over that policy any time.
The Minister——
We have written to 900 schools that have received sanction from us and we have received replies from most of them. As soon as the information is available I will give it to the Deputy. There are schools which are set up that do not get immediate permanent recognition. We will not put those in a permanent building if they do not have permanent recognition. There are schools that need temporary accommodation and they get it. There are schools that need accommodation immediately and they get it, because of whatever pressure is on them. We have to be flexible enough as a Department to be able to do that.
We are also taking on board the suggestions, ideas and comments made by the Comptroller and Auditor General regarding the purchase of temporary accommodation as opposed to its rental and the policy of having an inventory. That is exactly what we are doing.
Go raibh maith agat a Aire.
I will stand over and compliment the senior management group of my Department on the work they do in managing a system in the manner in which it exists, which serves the children of this country very well.
May I ask a supplementary question?
I am afraid not, we are three minutes over time. I allowed the Minister some leeway in terms of her response.
73 Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Education and Science the steps which she will take to upgrade facilities and the capacity of science laboratories at second level; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [33288/07]
As part of the multi-annual school building programme, the Government has invested heavily in the modernisation of school facilities throughout the country including science facilities in post-primary schools. Provision of science facilities is an intrinsic part of many school building projects at post-primary level. Typically this investment involves the provision of modern science facilities in new post-primary schools or the upgrading of science facilities in existing schools either as part of a school building project or as a dedicated investment to facilitate the teaching of science.
Schools have also received funding under the summer works schemes 2004-07 to refurbish science laboratories. There will be a summer works scheme in 2009. In the 2006 application form for the summer works scheme, post-primary schools were asked to identify specifically, and provide details of, any science and technology upgrade or refurbishment projects separate from any other projects being applied for, so that consideration could be given to approving these projects for 2006. Over 60 schools were approved for funding in 2006 and 2007 under my Department's summer works scheme to enable them to get science laboratories refurbished on a devolved basis.
Additionally, the Government has funded the provision of class materials, basic general equipment and chemicals for practical work for the sciences. My Department also spent in excess of €13 million in 2004 to facilitate the introduction of a revised junior science syllabus. Schools received a basic grant of €3,500 per science laboratory to enable them to provide the new curriculum. Additional funding was made available to schools where other specified equipment was required. In addition, certain schools identified as needing new or refurbished science laboratories as a result of a 1998 national survey received funding. My Department will continue to take a proactive approach in the provision of the necessary facilities for the teaching of science in schools.
How many applications are with the Department in respect of upgrading science laboratories in the post-primary school sector?
The only way schools would have applied for science lab upgrading was under the criteria for the summer works for this year. Given that we decided not to proceed with those, we have not analysed them and I cannot give the Deputy that figure. In 2006 and 2007 I gave funding for science labs. We do not have a budget heading for science labs but obviously in respect of extensions, refurbishments and new schools, state-of-the-art facilities are being established and much headway has been made in that respect in the past few years.
Following the previous question from Deputy Quinn about an inventory of prefabs, an issue on which he has campaigned over the past few months, can the Minister provide an inventory of applications received on this issue? It is astonishing that, while the Minister comes into this House knowing that she will be asked about this and knowing that the first supplementary question from Opposition spokespersons will be on the number of applications, she cannot give that basic information to the House. She manages one of the biggest Departments in the State and it is the most obvious question. Can she give me the information when she gets back to Marlborough Street?
I spoke last Friday to the National Parents Council in County Kildare. The condition of science laboratories is a big issue for parents. The basic core funding that the Department gives to schools is pathetic. Why has the Department failed to respond to a basic proposal from school management groups and science teachers? This would establish laboratory assistants in many schools, at least clusters, who would help science teachers to prepare experiments and laboratories and to get the best from the infrastructure that exists.
Applications were not sought from schools for the upgrading of science laboratories so the only way we would have that information is if it was included in the summer works scheme. The applications received can be considered for next year's summer works scheme. They will be examined at the end of this year and the beginning of next year.
There will be two years of applications back to back.
We will not seek——
There are existing applications and next year's applications.
Yes, but in respect of the existing applications, schools will not be asked to double up.
The Department will receive more applications.
We will not be examining the applications so I cannot give the Deputy the information because we do not have a fund for science labs this year, nor are we seeking information on or requests for science labs.
The Minister should have this information at her fingertips.
Although it is included in the science strategy as a matter that should be considered, it is not my intention as a current priority to introduce lab assistants because of the cost and the knock-on effect. We estimate that €24 million is the cost of laboratory assistants this year. There is nothing surer than that all other practical subjects would also seek an assistant, which could come in at up to €120 million per year. It is not a priority for me or Government.
It would not work on a cluster basis and could not because all schools are in school on the same days for the same hours.
With different timetables one could have an assistant for two or three schools. The Minister should use a little imagination.
Schools do not have different timetables, they all start between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. I am sure the Deputy knows these are the timings of our schools. There is no way a laboratory assistant could work between a number of schools given that they have classes on the same days.
It works with career guidance.
It is not a priority and will not happen in the immediate term. We will examine it under the science strategy over the next few years. We will continue with our commitment to upgrade the school facilities as we have been doing for the past few years.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
