Vol. 678 No. 3
41 Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Education and Science his views on a recent recommendation by the National Competitiveness Council that bonus points for higher level leaving certificate mathematics should be given immediate consideration; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12192/09]
Decisions on the award of points and admission criteria for entry to higher education programmes are, under legislation, a matter for the higher education institutions. My Department asked the Higher Education Authority to initiate a discussion across higher education institutions regarding the desirability or otherwise of awarding bonus points. The overall view emerging was that the introduction of bonus points was unlikely to dramatically increase uptake of higher level maths.
The report of the Points Commission in 1999 considered the issue of bonus points and advised against such an approach on the grounds that it would lead to a narrowing of the range of subjects taken by students, create pressure on students to make early career choices, give rise to equity issues where the subject was not available and lead to distortions in third level access and provision. When bonus points were removed in 1994 on foot of curricular reform, participation in higher level maths increased. Curriculum reform has more impact than points in this area.
I recently launched a major initiative, Project Maths, designed to encourage better understanding of maths, reinforce the practical relevance of maths to everyday life, and ensure better continuity between primary and second level and junior and senior cycle. The initiative started in 2008 and is being piloted in 24 schools. The curriculum changes will be phased in over three years and mainstreaming in all schools will begin in 2010, prefaced by a national programme of professional development for teachers beginning in 2009. The changes under Project Maths are proceeding simultaneously at junior and senior cycle to allow for optimum progress in implementing the reforms. The reforms are also designed to encourage greater uptake at higher level.
Project Maths will be supported by intensive investment in professional development for teachers. A mathematics support team has been appointed and is currently supporting the project schools, as well as preparing for mainstream in-service development which will start in September 2009, followed by mainstream implementation starting in September 2010. Some €3 million has been provided for the programme in 2009 and the investment will continue over a number of years, to at least 2013, in a rolling programme of reform.
Education provision must cater for all students, and placing some subjects at a higher value, notwithstanding the importance of other disciplines, and the abilities, interests and legitimate choices of students, could potentially be counterproductive.
The question refers to the recent recommendation of the National Competitiveness Council for the immediate awarding of bonus points for mathematics. The uptake of mathematics is crucial for the future of the economy. It feeds into financial services, sciences, engineering and IT. Only 17% of students take the higher-level leaving certificate mathematics examination and similar figures are reflected in the students taking it at junior certificate.
A question please.
Does the Minister take note of the National Competitiveness Council report? Has he had any engagement with the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment? There should be some crossover between that Department and the Department of Education and Science. Uptake of mathematics is essential and unless we focus on it we will not develop the cohort of graduates necessary for the Government's knowledge economy.
Obviously one takes note of all the reports. IBEC has indicated that it would recommend awarding bonus points. The council, itself, came out with the report during the week with its indications. All of the relevant information suggests that understanding mathematical concepts is far more important for children. Having curricular reform is far more important——
Why not do both?
——in the longer term.
We do not have time for the long-term solutions.
Allow the Minister to reply.
I ask Deputies to consider the University of Limerick and DIT. They are awarding bonus points. There is no indication that there is an increase in the uptake of mathematics in their degree courses. I believe it is appropriate to introduce curricular reform and bring about a better understanding of the mathematical concepts. It is not appropriate to put mathematics as a singular entity out there, indicating that it is a particular subject and making it less appealing to the students.
The idea is to attract students.
As I said in my reply, this is a matter for the third level institutions. I have asked the Higher Education Authority to liaise with the universities and the institutes. They do not favour the introduction of a bonus points system for mathematics.
Does the Minister agree that part of the problem is that students are afraid of failing the higher level leaving certificate mathematics examination? If they fail higher-level leaving certificate mathematics they are immediately disqualified from many third level courses. Does the Minister have any research information on the number of students who study to higher level standard and then on the day of the examination opt to take the ordinary level paper? Is there a problem that needs to be addressed and does he have any suggestions for addressing such a problem?
Obviously Project Maths and the roll-out of the new curriculum are extremely important. The circumstances relating to a new primary level mathematics curriculum has been very fruitful. Rolling out Project Maths into the secondary level and giving mathematics teachers the associated in-service training are fundamental. There has been low participation in mathematics at the higher level. The uptake at higher level was 17% in 2008 when we would expect an uptake of 20% to 25%. Obviously that is what we are trying to achieve. It is also important to note that we have the junior science curriculum. We have the discover science and engineering programme. We have a promotion in terms of understanding mathematics itself and the sciences in general. We hope to increase participation levels through curricular reform. I recently met the president of Stanford University, which feeds into the Silicon Valley firms. The number of people taking mathematics as a subject is also a problem for that university. The attractiveness of mathematics as a subject is a worldwide phenomenon.
The Minister used the word "hope". We need more than the hope that curricular reform will work. Project Maths is being piloted in 24 schools at the moment. How long it will take to roll out and have an impact? We are staring into an abyss. I spoke to representatives of Engineers Ireland during the recent engineers week. They are seriously concerned over the number of students attracted to the sciences, engineering and mathematics. Finland identified a problem with mathematics. The authorities trained teachers and put them on a different level, if one likes. They focused on supporting mathematics because the economy needed it. In that regard the Minister has a very important role to play along with the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
Project Maths is not a hope. It will be a reality. Project Maths will encourage a far greater understanding and will certainly reinforce the practical relevance of mathematics to everyday life. It will ensure a better continuity between the primary curriculum and the second level one. The initiative commenced in 2008. As we speak it is being piloted in 24 schools. The curriculum changes will be phased in over three years. Mainstreaming will begin in 2010 in all schools prefaced by a national programme of professional development for teachers which has begun in 2009.
42 Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Education and Science further to Parliamentary Question No. 38 of 26 February 2009, the reasons the contracts could not be signed as was promised; the outstanding details which have yet to be resolved; if the terms and conditions of the contracts will be made known publicly in the interests of transparency and accountability; the duration of the contract and the annual percentage rate of interest for the duration of the contract; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12227/09]
The first bundle of post-primary schools announced by my Department in November 2005 comprises Coláiste na Síonna, Banagher; Gallen Community School, Ferbane; Scoil Chríost Rí, Portlaoise and St. Mary's CBS, Portlaoise. A preferred tenderer, Macquarie Partnership for Ireland, was appointed for this bundle in October 2007. Full planning permission for all four schools was secured by Macquarie in August 2008 and I am now pleased to inform the Deputy that the contract for the provision of these four schools was signed by the National Development Finance Agency on 6 March 2009. A total of 2,700 pupil places will be provided when these schools are completed. The contractor, Pierse Group, moved on to the three sites immediately and construction work commenced on 9 March. It is expected that the schools will become operational in September 2010.
During the finalisation of contract details for this bundle, the financial landscape has changed considerably and this affected the timeframe for closure of the bundle. Specifically, the original bank proposed by the consortia withdrew from the market in the third quarter of 2008 and a replacement bank had to be found.
Regarding the interest rates for this project, I have sought the advice of the National Development Finance Agency and have been advised that this information is considered commercially sensitive and cannot therefore be provided. While I am not in a position to provide details on the terms and conditions of specific bundles, I will provide the Deputy with a copy of the project agreement template which outlines the terms and conditions that apply to all PPP contracts.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I appreciate he is not responsible for the nonsense with which we are confronted. We are supposed to live and work in a market economy and be able to access what prices are so that there can be adjustments for other competitors. Would the Minister not agree that it is unacceptable for scarce taxpayers' money to be used to fund contracts the cost of which the Minister is denying to this House? He is not doing it personally but is being instructed to do it. This is a time when the rate of interest available in the open market for a project with banking certainty such as schools building is considerably below anything that PPPs traditionally demanded. The Minister is the prisoner of this nonsense and I wonder whether he is going to continue with it. It seems to be a denial of democracy for him to say here that we have entered into contracts, the total value of which must be in the millions. A very good building contracting company is undertaking the project but we need to know if we are getting value for money. This is the nonsense we have been getting from the bank since last autumn. We simply do not know and, incidentally, nor does the Minister, who is the prisoner of the secrecy this system has imposed upon him. Will the Minister undertake to open up the system? There are many builders who would love to have a go at providing this kind of work on the same terms and conditions that are in place. It is wrong in every sense of the word that the terms and conditions are commercially sensitive. What does that mean?
It means two other bundles will be going out to the market, one in the middle of 2009 and the other at the end of 2009. It is the NTMA's view that it would be commercially sensitive to give that information now. To be fair, on a previous occasion when the Deputy raised the issue of interest, I gave him the details of the interest charge.
Which was way over the market rate.
I will be in a position to give the Deputy the details of the interest as soon as the other bundles have been cleared and clarified. As a former Minister for Finance, the Deputy more than anyone else would understand exactly what is the situation.
On the question as to whether I am satisfied that the contract is not more expensive than funding this via the Exchequer, the bid accepted by the National Development Finance Agency passed all value for money tests as prescribed in the Department of Finance public private partnership guidelines. These guidelines apply to all PPP projects regardless of whether they are funded by direct Exchequer funding, by deferred annual payments from the Exchequer, by user charges or by any other means. Four formal value for money tests are completed during the PPP procurement process. The first two tests are the responsibility of the Department prior to the handover of the project to the National Development Finance Agency for procurement, and responsibility for the third and fourth formal tests rests with the National Development Finance Agency itself. The bid accepted by the National Development Finance Agency passed all of these tests.
In the current market conditions, which are totally different to the ones applying when the PPPs were first conceived, I ask the Minister to reconsider this and to think again. I cannot see why we do not publish what was the price for this contract in better times in 2007, and subsequently in 2008 with a falling market. If that is publicised, surely we are likely to get better value. One would not run a cattle fair the way the Minister is running this kind of school programme. Farmers going to market know what the price of cattle was last week and the week before. Why can we not know the same kind of information in this context? That is what the market economy is supposed to be about.
I am rather surprised at Deputy Quinn. As a former Minister for Finance, he will understand that sometimes commercially sensitive information must be kept from the public view. The important point is whether we got value for money and whether the PPP projects now in place are giving value for money. There is a public sector benchmark which provides a key measure for my Department and the NTMA to test the extent to which bids are good value for the State. In the case of the schools bundle 1, the final tender amount, inclusive of interest, remained below my Department's public sector benchmark. The Department and I are well satisfied that we have got good value for money.
I disagree.
43 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Education and Science further to Parliamentary Question No. 22 of 26 February 2009, if he will state, in respect of the 63 properties which were transferred to the State as part of the indemnity agreement towards the cost of the redress scheme, the name and address of each property; the part of the Health Service Executive that is in occupation or using 30 of the transferred properties; the location and use of the 15 properties which are being used by his Department; the name and address of the 17 properties which have been transferred to various voluntary bodies with an indication of the use to which these voluntary bodies are putting these properties; the names and functions of all of these voluntary bodies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12241/09]
I wish to advise the Deputy that, with regard to the queries raised by her in regard to the properties being transferred to the State as a result of the indemnity agreement, the specific details sought are contained in a number of lists which are currently being distributed to the Deputies.
List A gives the names and addresses of the 63 properties transferring under the terms of the indemnity agreement, together with the names of the various bodies to which they are transferring. Of the 30 properties transferring to the Health Service Executive, 18 are going to the HSE southern area, six to the HSE eastern region, four to the HSE south-eastern area and two to the HSE mid-western area. The various properties are being used to provide a range of day and residential services including child care, primary care and intellectual disability services for children and adults.
List B gives the names and locations of the 15 properties transferring to my Department. All of these properties, whether in the form of school buildings or sites, are for education facilities.
List C contains the names and locations of the 17 properties transferring to voluntary bodies and local authorities. These properties are being used to provide voluntary or social housing and a range of other health and social services.
I trust that this information, together with the details contained on the lists provided, satisfies the Deputy's queries.
I thank the Minister. It probably would have been easier to get the details of the third secret of Fatima than to get this information but it is on its way and I cannot contain myself with excitement.
From the Minister's assessment of the indemnity agreement, what is the outstanding amount which must be paid through the scheme? One action is currently before the High Court, as the Minister knows. What is the current liability the Department must pay to the victims?
Up to 31 December 2008, the board had made awards in the case of 11,848 applicants. A further 699 cases have been withdrawn, refused or have resulted in no award being made. This leaves a balance of 2,047 cases remaining to be processed. The overall average award from the inception of the scheme is €64,892. Based on the number of applications received, the final cost of the scheme may be €1.1 billion, including legal and administrative costs, which are now running at approximately 28% of awards.
Any estimate of the final cost of the scheme at this point will, of course, be tentative as there are approximately 2,047 outstanding cases at present. As the board generally clears between 200 and 220 cases per month, it is estimated that the remaining cases will be processed by the end of 2009.
To clarify, €1.1 billion is owed by the Minister's Department to the victims of abuse. That is the total sum at this stage——
It is a tentative sum.
It is the amount coming from the Department. We could put many teachers and schools in place, as well as many special needs classes which we are suppressing.
We could.
Has the Minister had discussions with the Attorney General about the possibility of reopening this deal with the religious orders given the fact, to which Deputy Quinn's question refers, 63 properties were included at a time when property values were exceptionally higher than they are now? Is there potential to reopen this sordid deal given the young students of this country are now picking up the bill for it?
We are well outside the scope of the question.
There are two points to remember in this regard. The Committee of Public Accounts examined this and, at the end of the day, its view was that the best deal possible in the circumstances was obtained by the State. The Deputy conveniently forgets that the State had already decided it was going to put a redress scheme in place before there was any view that the churches should make a contribution. An agreement has been reached with the churches. That is signed, sealed and delivered and it is not my intention to seek a review of that agreement.
I accept what the Minister has said but there are other ways of re-entering negotiations with the religious orders, which are the owners of the educational property, to see if they can transfer the legal ownership of that property, maintain the schools as ongoing places of education and maintain the nature of their patronage so they will not, as their numbers decline, be tempted, as has happened in the past, to unilaterally decide to sell off those schools. I have raised this matter previously with the Minister. I accept the present deal is a bad one and was not the best available. However, there are other avenues that should be explored.
I answered this question for Deputy Quinn on the last occasion. At that time, I looked at a system that was working well, which has served us well and with which parents seem to be happy. I must ask myself, in terms of transferring these schools into State ownership, whether I am better off putting money into capital resources, building new——
I am not talking about money. No cash will change hands, just the deeds.
We have moved well outside the scope of the question.
We have. The Deputy is in a generous mood this afternoon. I am not sure others would match that generosity.
It is a fair point.
44 Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for Education and Science if officials from his Department have met with the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12123/09]
I knew the Minister would like this question.
The Secretary General and senior officials from my Department met with the special group on Wednesday, 18 March 2009.
It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the work of the special group until it has completed its work and submitted it to the Minister for Finance, who will report to Government on the matter.
On the subject of the third secret of Fatima, it would be useful if we had a public debate in regard to what was discussed at the meeting which took place last week. For clarification purposes, the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes is an bord snip nua, the group currently investigating expenditure by each Department of State.
Perhaps the Minister will state whether he or his officials, prior to meeting with the group, had any discussions with the education partners in regard to areas of potential wastage within the education Vote. From my discussions with the partners, they can readily identify second and third level expenditure areas in which savings can be achieved. Progress can be made in this area if we work on a collaborative basis. Was there any discussion with the education partners in advance of that meeting?
Can the Minister outline any potential areas where big savings and reform can be achieved? I have gone on record in regard to a number of them during the past six months or so. We can make progress if we work with the education partners.
We meet regularly with the education partners and did so in the context of the last budget in terms of funding. We are in regular contact with them. The Secretary General and senior officials from my Department liaise on a regular basis with the education partners. We are apprised of some of the issues. I have met with principal teacher organisations and have listened to their proposals. Obviously, I welcome that participation and level of dialogue.
On the review group, its remit is to examine all areas of public spending. I am examining expenditure in the third level sector and in this regard met with the Higher Education Authority yesterday. I also addressed a meeting of the new authority. Last week, the Secretary General and I met the chairman of the HEA and other people who had examined expenditure in one of the third level institutions in terms of how it had and could make further significant savings. I am not waiting for the review group to complete its work. I have asked the HEA to request the presidents of the institutes of technology to meet with this group to tease out with it where savings can be garnered. I will meet later with the presidents and provost of Trinity College, Dublin, to tease out with them where savings can be made within that particular sector. That is one example of where we are being proactive in terms of ensuring we obtain value for money in respect of every day spending.
Will the Minister agree that an area where savings could be made is exceptional salaries to people in the third level sector? These people must acknowledge the circumstances facing this country and the pressure on the Minister's Department in terms of resources and in this regard be prepared to take a significant cut in salary as a means of achieving savings and showing good leadership. Does the Minister agree with that position?
I made my position clear on a radio programme last week when I instanced that secretaries general within the various Departments had taken significant cuts in their salaries. I also indicated that people who held similar positions within the education sector should, perhaps, consider doing likewise.
Is it the intention of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes to revisit the Department of Education and Science to reconsider some of the proposals made at the meeting held last week or was that a once-off meeting?
I am not sure. The remit of the review group is to report to the Minister for Finance who will then present a report to Government. Obviously, I will be party to the submission brought before Cabinet.
45 Deputy Joanna Tuffy asked the Minister for Education and Science if his Department considers itself under a legal obligation to provide English language support to foreign students in order that they can participate fully within the school environment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12252/09]
The Education Act 1998 sets out the legislative framework for the provision of education to all pupils. There is no specific reference in that Act to English language support. In my view, language support must be approached from the perspective not of legal imperative, but of enabling pupils for whom English is not the mother tongue to access the curriculum and participate fully in the Irish education system. Language support is a measure that is integral to a policy of inclusion.
I recognise that the quality of supports pupils receive and the inclusive atmosphere cultivated in schools are important factors influencing the quality of learning obtained by newcomer pupils. Research is being carried out on a number of fronts to ensure that a quality service continues to be provided. To assist teachers with this work, resource materials, including intercultural guidelines and assessment kits for primary and post-primary schools, have been prepared and provided to all schools.
My Department supports an inclusive school environment that reflects values and affirms linguistic, ethnic and cultural diversity. Schools are encouraged to have in place policies and procedures that promote and facilitate the inclusion of all pupils. A school's commitment to creating an inclusive school environment should be evident in the school plan, the promotion of parental involvement, the provision of equality of access, the facilitation of professional development opportunities and in whole-school and classroom practice. Pupils should also be encouraged and facilitated in maintaining a connection with their own culture and language through curriculum activities and displays.
On supports for schools, I must operate within the level of funding provided by the Oireachtas. In light of the budget 2009 decision, my Department has now published a circular for schools which sets out how the new arrangements for the allocation of language support teachers from September 2009 will operate. The circular sets out a structured and transparent approach for the operation of the alleviation measures announced in the budget for schools that have a significant concentration of newcomer pupils. The alleviation measures provide that these schools can qualify for up to four language support posts with the possibility of additional posts also being approved through the independent staffing appeals mechanism.
Additional information not provided on the floor of the House.
Schools can apply in the normal way to my Department for language support posts. These posts are approved on a provisional basis initially and will be confirmed in September 2009 following receipt from the schools of actual enrolments of pupils requiring language support. It is estimated that, notwithstanding the budget measures, there will be more than 1,400 language support teaching posts in our primary and post-primary schools in September 2009 and up to approximately 500 other teachers in part-time posts. By any standards, this is a significant resource and the challenge will be to ensure that it is used to maximum effect.
Will the Minister confirm that the impact of the measures as originally announced will be the removal from the education system of 550 teachers who are providing language support, that this will result in a saving of approximately €33 million and that the words "unemployed" or "sacked" teachers will not appear anywhere else because these people are on contract? This is a cruel way of achieving a small, snappy reduction in expenditure.
I am sure the Minister's colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, who is responsible for integration, has informed him that the experience in Denmark and, in particular, the Netherlands has been that children of foreign emigrants, born in the relevant country, who have English as a second language for which they do not receive support fail to obtain the level of education qualification required to enable them to progress into the adult labour market, resulting in them becoming a constant burden on the country's social welfare system. That has been the experience in Denmark and the Netherlands. The Minister is building the foundations of permanent discrimination and racial antagonism between newcomers and residents because the former will be handicapped at an early stage in their lives, will not be able to participate fully in the Irish labour market and will be deemed to be a burden on the State.
On the first question, the reduction in posts will be approximately 550. This will be achieved through a combination of lower levels of immigration and the capping of language support at a maximum of two extra teachers per school, with some alleviation for the position of those schools where there is a significant concentration of newcomer pupils as a proportion of the overall enrolment. The reduction in posts is estimated to achieve a saving of up to €34 million in a full year and approximately €11 million in 2009.
When it came to dealing with language support, I was conscious of those schools with a high percentage of non-national children with English language requirements. When I was making a decision on language support services, I was conscious that certain schools take in a high percentage of non-national children with English language requirements.
We call them "the new Irish".
I have assured the schools in question that they will be able to make a special case. It has been suggested that additional language teachers will be allocated to particular schools on the basis of nods and winks, etc. Before 2006, the number of language support teachers who could be allocated to each school was capped at two. I have made it clear I want to ensure that schools that have been seen to integrate such pupils will be given the additional resources they require.
Good.
We have put in place an independent appeals mechanism to ensure that appeals can be made if difficulties arise.
I will ask the Minister about the appeals mechanism he has just mentioned. I have read the circular that was posted on the Minister's website yesterday. I welcome the fact that the circular has brought some finality to this matter, at least, thereby ensuring that schools can start planning for next September. Can I ask the Minister about the existing appeals mechanism that applies to the staffing schedule? When a school makes an appeal, it has no chance of getting the decision overturned. Can I ask the Minister to ensure that the appeals mechanism to be put in place in respect of English language support teachers will be flexible and open and will take the concerns of the various schools on board? Between 40% and 50% of the children in certain schools in my constituency, like that of Deputy Quinn, do not come from English-speaking backgrounds. Such schools need a flexible appeals system.
Yes.
I appeal to the Minister to ensure the appeals system outlined in the circular that was posted yesterday will meet the needs of such schools in a genuinely flexible manner.
My intention, when dealing with the numbers of additional language support teachers that could be put in place, was to be open and transparent. I did not want to be accused of operating on the basis of nods and winks, or political interference. I was keen to put in place a clear benchmark for the appointment of additional language support teachers. That is what has been put in place. Everybody can see that. If a school wants to make an appeal under the revised system, which has been clearly set out, some 25% of its children will have to be newcomer children with English language support requirements. The basis on which appeals can be submitted has been made clearly known to schools. I will not tell the independent appeals body to be flexible — it is familiar with my position, which is that flexibility should be built into the appeals system in cases of schools which are willing to integrate and are seen to take in a high percentage of children who need language support.
Can I ask the Minister about language support services for foreign students? Does he accept that education, specifically the language support system, must be part of any long-term strategy for turning our economy around? Is he aware that international experience suggests that children from foreign families or emigrants perform exceptionally well when language support services are made available to them in their host countries? Does he agree that such people can make a massive contribution to the development of Ireland and the Irish economy? Does the Minister accept that many well-off schools do not appear to have a balanced intake of foreign pupils? Does he have a plan for dealing with that issue?
We have gone beyond the remit of the original question. It is important for me to make clear, in case people think we are denuding schools of all language support teachers, that our schools will continue to avail of the services of approximately 1,400 language support teachers. Approximately 500 other teachers will be in part-time positions within the language support system. I can inform the Deputy, in response to the second part of his question, that the Department has undertaken an audit of the systems of admission of various schools. While the audit found that such systems are fair and above board, by and large, it also indicated that enrolment practices in certain schools need to be addressed. It is my intention to do that.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
