Vol. 700 No. 3
1 Deputy Brian Hayes asked the Minister for Education and Science the number of school days lost due to the recent bad weather; if schools must make up those days between now and the end of the 2009/2010 school year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4312/10]
In the normal course there is no requirement for schools to either notify my Department in advance of a decision to close or to subsequently report to my Department on each individual decision taken by a school to close, whether this arises from adverse weather, failure of heating or water systems, or as a result of a bereavement within the school community. Consequently my Department does not have aggregate or individual data on the number of days schools were closed, either in the recent period of adverse weather or through the earlier problems with flooding.
The position regarding school closures this month varied from school to school depending on local circumstances. As the Deputy will be aware, all primary and post-primary schools were closed for at least one day and most schools lost a number of days since the commencement of this school term. The exceptionally cold weather also resulted in some schools having to close for a longer period after the onset of a thaw due to the lack of heat or water as a result of frozen pipes, burst boilers, etc. Some schools also had to close before Christmas when they were affected by flooding and were affected again by the cold spell.
The main focus for schools now must be on ensuring that any impact of the school closures on teaching and learning is addressed in an appropriate and sensible manner. Since the amount of time lost varies from school to school the impact on teaching and learning is something that can only be assessed at individual school level by the school authorities. The critical issue is that boards of management consider what can reasonably be done to ensure that by the end of the school year courses and programmes have been completed.
In doing so boards will need to be advised by the school principal of his or her assessment, formed through discussion with the school staff, of the impact on teaching and learning caused by any disruption. In considering the position, I believe it is important that school authorities consult with parent representatives and that the school communicates to the parent body feedback on how it is planned to address any impact closure may have had on teaching and learning.
Primary schools, traditionally, have had more scope to make up days before the end of June than post–primary schools where the school year is constrained by the commencement of the certificate examinations in early June. The critical issue is not necessarily that all time lost is fully made up but that school specific measures are taken to ensure courses are completed and that at second level the position of examination classes is given priority.
Would the Minister accept that this, again, highlights the complete shambles of his Department, that he cannot inform Dáil Éireann as to the number of schools that were closed and the requisite number of days that were lost? There is not a centralised database within the system from which information can be given about that.
I ask the Minister to be clear about this. Is he saying to school management and to school authorities that it is a matter for them, in the first instance, to decide whether or not courses have been completed and whether or not additional learning needs to be provided and that, effectively, he is giving no direction to schools? Can I take it that such is his position?
Is Deputy Brian Hayes saying to me that I should be micro-managing every school, that I should be aware of what is the lesson content? I have far more regard for the professionalism, integrity and commitment of principal teachers and school teachers than the Deputy has.
My Department officials have met with the relevant management authorities. They have discussed this issue with them. The management authorities believe that in unison with the principals and with the co-operation of the teachers, they can complete the school year satisfactorily, that they can ensure that the course curriculum is covered in all of the examination classes and that it is correct that teachers will ensure that no child is at a loss in terms of the learning and the education outcome.
When parents sought information from the Department as to the number of schools that were closed, the only information they were given was that contained on an RTE website. Would the Minister accept that his Department in the recent inclement weather did not give specific information to parents in schools all over this country, and would he ensure that were such an event to occur again, at the very least schools would be able to give information through his Department's website centrally, if that was their choice?
I would point out to the Minister that he has 13 education centres all over the country. What effort was made by him to use those centres as a means of informing parents and school boards of management throughout the country?
When the Minister came to the decision to close schools in the manner in which he did, he issued an embargo, in other words, he did not get the information out at the time and, effectively, as I understand it, he gave it to one journalist. What was the rationale in doing that? Why would the Minister put an embargo on a decision when, effectively, schools wanted to hear from him and his Department the advice he was to give them? Why would he possibly put an embargo on that?
I am glad the Deputy asked me that question.
Good.
The report came back from the central committee and the indication from that committee — from a senior official in my Department whom I respect very much — was that the weather forecast for that weekend was extremely bad and would have consequences. As the Deputy will be aware, a board of management has responsibility within the school itself. I felt I had a responsibility outside of the school. I felt that if we had snow of the expected nature on the Sunday night, parents and children would be in danger. It was on the basis of health and safety that my official advised at the meeting that we would consider closing schools but that he had to liaise with me.
On the embargo, I took a decision as early as I could on the Friday so that schools and parents would be aware of what was coming down the track and they could make arrangements. I was in Cork city. I did an interview with one media organisation, which, I think took place at approximately 4.30 p.m., and which was supposedly for the 6 o'clock news. The media organisation ran the story at 5 o'clock, which caused difficulty, and we then decided we had better tell all of the other media outlets.
Unfortunately, Mr. Seán Hogan was on Matt Cooper's programme live at 5 o'clock and was not aware of the decision. He would have been aware of the forecast for the weekend and of the concerns, but we had not communicated it to him. I had telephoned the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, and left a message on his mobile telephone. I got my Secretary General to telephone the Secretary General of that Department to advise her of this decision. Therefore, all avenues were covered.
Can I, before I finish,——
Briefly, we are over time.
——pay tribute to RTE on what an outstanding service it gave to people, and to parents and schools throughout the country? I am not sure it would be in our interests to be duplicating and, indeed, triplicating that.
Ceist Uimh. a dó.
Can I ask——
No, we are well over time. I am afraid we are two minutes over time.
2 Deputy Ruairí Quinn asked the Minister for Education and Science if he will publish the findings of the State audit into the assets of the 18 religious teaching orders which was ordered in view of the Ryan report; the reason, more than eight months later, no revised contribution to the cost of the Residential Institutions Redress Board has been agreed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4258/10]
I will be bringing the report of the panel appointed by the Government to assess the statements of resources submitted by the 18 religious congregations that were party to the 2002 indemnity agreement, together with details of the congregations' offers of contributions, to the attention of the Government shortly. The arrangements for the publication of the panel's report and the offers of contributions will be considered by the Government. While some individual congregations have published details of their offers, the Deputy will be aware of my concern to have the collective comprehensive position available for survivors and their representatives in the first instance.
The Deputy will be aware of the background to the call for a further substantial contribution from the religious congregations and the establishment of an independent panel to assess the financial statements of the congregations. As the Deputy points out, it is some eight months since the publication of the Ryan report. It is fair, however, to acknowledge that the work of the panel was complex involving an assessment of financial statements from 18 congregations. The panel submitted its report at the end of October. Following examination my Department sought some clarifications and in response the panel submitted an expanded report on 25 November. Over the same period a response was awaited from the religious congregations to the calls for a further substantial contribution. These responses were received during the period from late October to early December.
While an overall offer of a contribution on behalf of the congregations collectively was sought, the congregations' responses have been on an individual basis, and a complete set of responses received by early December, 2009. These offers are separate from the 2002 indemnity agreement and associated contributions. The current engagement with the religious congregations does not involve a re-negotiation of that agreement. The offers are not the subject of any negotiation with the Government but rather are a matter for the religious congregations to make in the light of the findings of the Ryan report, the cost of redress to the State, the resources available to the congregations and, ultimately, for the public to judge. The uses to which the contributions will be put will be considered by the Government in consultation with the representatives of the survivors and the congregations.
Since early December my Department has examined the panel's final report and the responses from the congregations. It has also been in contact with other relevant Departments and has commenced the formal consultation process required before I submit the matters to Government. As I indicated at the outset I hope to do this very shortly.
I thank the Taoiseach——
Not yet.
He is so close to the Taoiseach that it is an understandable mistake and slip of the tongue.
Absolutely.
I do not wish to know what is in the panel report and I do not necessarily wish to know at this stage what decisions the Minister will take regarding the matters he has just outlined. Can the Minister inform the House how much has come in? Can he give a breakdown between cash and kind, because this is not negotiable? This is a matter of fact and, according to the Minister, he has had the figures since early December.
It would be remiss of me to remark otherwise. The Deputy will be aware that there are several statements from various congregations in the public domain which outline their offers. They are in the public domain.
Yes.
Others wished to keep the matter confidential. The Deputy will recall the Taoiseach gave a commitment that as part of the overall situation, he would discuss the matter and the Government would consider the panel's report and the composition of the offers. After that, it would hold discussions with the survivors and the congregations and it would then be made public.
I appreciate this new found obsession with secrecy and privacy on behalf of the Government, but we are discussing taxpayers' money. The taxpayer is out to the tune of €1.27 billion in terms of funding the costs of the redress board. The religious congregations have contributed in the order of 10%. Whatever about the final destination of the money, the taxpayer has had to pay the balance in the meantime. Surely, at this stage without prejudice to any decision the Minister may make or to the outturn of the panel's report, the Minister should be able to give an indication of how much has been offered in gross terms either in cash or kind or some combination of the two.
The offer has been made in cash and kind. However, I will not reveal the exact amount of cash offered. The Government has the right to consider this matter.
The Minister is not negotiating; if he was I would not interfere. It is a flat, take it or leave it offer.
I refer the Deputy to what the Taoiseach asked of the congregations. He believed they should make a substantial contribution. It is for the Government to decide whether this is a substantial contribution, based on what appeared in the Ryan report. It is only right and proper that the Government should have an opportunity to consider all these elements. I have circulated the memo to all Ministers at this stage. I have asked Ministers to consider the matter and I have allowed more than one week for them to revert with observations. I hope to have the matter before Cabinet in the next couple of weeks.
If it is not a substantial offer in the opinion of the Cabinet, what is the next step? Will the Minister go back for more?
I have no wish to anticipate what the Cabinet will do. However, I point out the use of the word "substantial". The Government must consider the offers made and it must reckon whether any offer is substantial. I reiterate that the final arbiter in this case will be the public.
On a point of order, will question No. 13 be answered with this question?
I am afraid not.
3 Deputy Brian Hayes asked the Minister for Education and Science when he will bring forward legislation to abolish the National University of Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4313/10]
Provisions to dissolve the National University of Ireland will be contained in the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Bill, included in the legislative programme. Recently, the Government approved the general scheme of the Bill and it is hoped that it will be published before the summer recess.
Several factors were taken into consideration in deciding to dissolve the National University of Ireland, NUI. Since 1997, the NUI has not been a federal university in any real sense. All significant powers ordinarily associated with a university are directly assigned to the four constituent universities of the NUI. They make awards themselves and have their own quality assurance procedures that are externally reviewed not by the NUI, but by the Irish Universities Quality Board. While the NUI senate provides a forum for discussion, on most major issues the universities make the decisions. Awards of the four constituent universities may continue to be titled NUI awards and I have commenced discussions with the constituent universities about an appropriate mechanism to ensure the protection of the national and international reputation of the NUI degree.
The NUI performs a wider range of functions for its recognised colleges, including the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, the National College of Art and Design, the Institute of Public Administration, the Shannon College of Hotel Management and the Milltown Institute. This includes making awards and acting as an external quality assurance agent. In the context of the establishment of the new qualifications and quality assurance agency, I consider that the arrangement whereby such a separate awarding and quality assurance framework is maintained by the NUI for a small number of recognised colleges is not sustainable. When the awarding and quality assurance functions are removed, it is difficult to support the continuation of the NUI to carry out its remaining functions, the bulk of which would most likely be performed by the constituent universities, as they are by non-NUI universities.
Most of the five recognised colleges of the NUI have already been exploring possible future options for award making, and when the dissolution is completed these colleges will need to enter new awarding arrangements. The recognised colleges could enter a quality assurance and award making relationship with the new qualifications and quality assurance agency or with an existing university. The RCSI is seeking to have its statutory degree-awarding powers commenced and I am moving to have an appropriate review process put in place in this regard. The international reputation of Irish education must be based on the quality of teaching and research as well as the wider experience offered to international students. I do not believe the dissolution of the NUI will have any adverse effect in this regard.
This has all the hallmarks of a decision the Minister was bounced into taking. Since he made it, he has been back-tracking all the time. The Minister carried out no consultation whatsoever with the constituent colleges of the NUI before the decision was taken. He freely admits this decision will not save money. The McCarthy report outlined a saving of €3 million but the Minister has put on record already that this is not true because the Department does not provide a subvention to the NUI to the tune of €3 million per year. Now, the Minister has produced the argument that this is connected with the new quality assurance agency, which we all support in principle. However, there was never any difficulty with the NUI working with any of the existing agencies when it came to quality.
Will the Minister justify to the House the decision taken in the context in which he asked Dr. Hunt and his colleagues to report to him soon in terms of the future of higher education in Ireland? Would it not be a more sensible arrangement to wait to see exactly what Dr. Hunt comes up with from that expert group review, rather than allow the Minister's officials to bounce him into making this decision?
First, I will answer the charge that I was somehow bounced into this decision. I refer Deputy Hayes back to the budget of October 2008. I refer the Deputy to the intention of the Government at the time to introduce a quality authority.
I remember it well.
Does the Deputy recall that at that time we clearly indicated that we would examine the situation regarding the NUI? To say I was bounced into this decision is not correct. Also, I refer the Deputy to the fact that at the time we set out a consultation process in place.
Perhaps that is so but we have not seen it.
I advise the Deputy that the NUI made a submission to this consultation. Some of the universities also made a submission. Submissions were made to the higher education review group by the NUI. I find it ironic for the Deputy to say there was no consultation given that his party leader, without any consultation at all, took out of the melting pot a proposal in regard to a much more imperious body, Seanad Éireann, much to the chagrin of the Fine Gael Senators and Deputies.
It is the people's decision.
I find it a little ironic to accept that type of criticism.
One of the reasons the Minister is all over the place on this issue is that he has been caught. He does not understand the nature or detail of the decision he has taken. Quite frankly, hundreds of thousands of graduates of the NUI are laughing at him and at his complete failure to justify the decision. What will happen to the €12 million investment fund which is still within the National University of Ireland and which was set aside for scholarships and awards to students?
I refer to the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland that greatly supports the branding of its college and its degrees through the National University of Ireland, which has an international reputation of which even the Minister should be aware. At a time when we are trying to brand Ireland internationally, abolishing an organisation which has an international brand of more than 100 years standing seems not only to be an act of stupidity on the Minister's part but an act in which he has not engaged in consultation with any of the players concerned. This issue has a long way to run and I suspect it will run long after the Minister is no longer Minister for Education and Science.
It is difficult to give a brief reply to such a long question.
Try it.
Could we have an agreement on short answers to short questions?
That is no problem. I will give short answers if the Deputy asks me short questions.
The Deputies should allow the Chair to determine that.
I have no problem with that but if asked ten questions, I have a right to answer them.
Consultation took place; I accept that. The Deputy is obviously well briefed by his Fine Gael colleagues. In regard to the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, the Deputy spoke about international recognition. We are prepared to leave the NUI as a brand name. I have spoken to the presidents of the four——
A brand name without the NUI. Brilliant.
Allow the Minister to reply.
It is waffle.
I have spoken to the four university presidents. If it is their wish to continue with the brand name and if that is the way they wish to award their degrees for international credit, that can be put into legislation as NUI. The corporate entity of the NUI will not remain because it is not a federal university.
In regard to the Royal College of Surgeons, there is a letter in the Department from that college looking for degree awarding powers on the basis of a by-law which I can change.
It is not looking for the abolition of the NUI.
It is looking for degree-awarding powers and I have had discussions with it. It will have to undergo a review process like every other institution which wishes to award degrees. It has agreed to go through that process and I am putting that in place for it at present.
4 Deputy Brian Hayes asked the Minister for Education and Science when he will respond to a request from Educate Together for recognition as a patron for post-primary education provision here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4315/10]
My Department is examining a range of issues relating to patronage at second level, including the issue of an independent process for the recognition of new patrons. Given the current trend of an increasing student population and the need to ensure maximum benefit from the financial resources available to me, my Department is considering a number of broad policy issues relating to the recognition process for second level schools. These broad policy issues are not confined to the current applications from Educate Together but relate to how we deal with the establishment of new schools across the entire second level sector. The application from Educate Together to be recognised as a patron body at second level is being examined within the context of the relevant legal, financial and other factors.
It is important to bear in mind that the establishment of any new post-primary school involves a very substantial investment by the State in terms of the initial capital costs, including the acquisition of land and also the subsequent operational costs of the school. Before any new post-primary school can be established, regardless of the patronage model envisaged, my Department must be satisfied that the long-term enrolment potential of any such school justifies the level of investment. New post-primary schools must be capable of catering for as broad a spectrum as possible of the community they are intended to serve in order to be viable and to provide the wide curricular range rightly demanded by parents in modern times. As a consequence, all factors must be carefully considered, including the implications for enrolment patterns at existing schools, before approval can be given to further expand the present range of post-primary patron models.
At a meeting last year between officials from my Department and representatives from Educate Together, there was a wide-ranging and constructive discussion about the issues associated with Educate Together's application to become a patron at second level. The discussion also focused on the blueprint for post-primary education published by Educate Together in June of last year. This blueprint outlines the approach by Educate Together to providing an inclusive education where all young people, whatever their ability, will be provided with learning opportunities and classroom practices that explicitly take account of the different ways students learn.
In view of the range of issues involved, it has not been possible to bring this matter to a conclusion as quickly as I would have liked. However, it is my intention to finalise this matter and convey a decision to Educate Together at an early date.
I am absolutely dumbstruck by that. This is great stuff. One of the Minister's senior officials told the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Science before Christmas that the matter would be sorted out within weeks given that this application is now more than two years old. In reply to Deputy Quinn on 22 April last year, the Minister stated that the examination of the recognition process for patrons at second level would be finalised before the start of the next school year and that his Department would be in contact with Educate Together when that had been completed.
Why can the Minister not tell it whether it will be recognised as a patron for post-primary education given the fact this organisation, as I am sure he will admit, is already a well-recognised patron in primary education? Why is it taking the Department more than two years to come to a view on this matter given the status and standing of this organisation?
I agree with the Deputy that Educate Together does a very fine job as patron of primary schools. It is not a simple matter to give new patronage at second level. There are serious issues, including legal issues. I had to consult the Attorney General because we need to look at the Education Act 1998 and the Constitution and the effects thereon. These legal issues relate not only to the application from Educate Together but would arise in the case of any proposed new patron or body.
The development of a framework under which all proposed new schools would be assessed will need to have a sound basis and underpinning. There is no provision in the Education Act 1998 for a new patron or for the recognition of a new patron. Under the 1998 Act, there is a provision for the provision of a new school.
There are legal implications. We have had consultations on the matter. We are, more or less, at the end of the process. I will bring this to Government because it is a fundamental equality issue on which the Government will have to sign off.
It is my understanding that this is the first time this legal issue has been raised. Up to this point, the Minister has never raised the question of the legal status of Educate Together as a patron in post-primary education. When the Minister refers to the Education Act 1998, is he referring to section 10?
I think so.
I think the Minister is. Section 10 gives the Minister the right to recognise patrons which in this case is an existing patron. There is considerable legal opinion to the effect that it does not have to go through all the hoops again to be recognised given that it is already recognised in the primary school sector.
This is a very important intervention by the Minister because the legal question has never been raised before. If he is now putting this on the table, one can only come to the conclusion that this matter will be long-fingered once again.
The Minister said in his reply that he will speak to Educate Together about this soon. Will he give a timeframe given that his assistant secretary, Mr. Wyse, mentioned weeks at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Science? Is the Minister holding this back or are there other elements in his Department doing so?
Educate Together is held in very high esteem in my Department. We take its applications very seriously and we know if it is appointed as a patron it will do an exceptionally good job. I have a role as Minister for Education and Science to make sure that whatever I put in place has a legal basis and a sound framework. I also have to examine any new patron, the school it intends to develop and the impact that school will have on other schools. I have to establish the cost of the various associated costs with the establishment of the school and its long-term viability. All of these issues have now been considered. The legal aspects have been considered and I hope to be in a position to bring it to Cabinet shortly.
5 Deputy Catherine Byrne asked the Minister for Education and Science his plans to introduce funding for orchestral music projects in primary schools in view of the success of such projects in place in schools (details supplied) in Dublin 12 and Dublin 10; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4314/10]
I am very aware of the excellent work being done by the schools in question using music as a key vehicle to promote inclusion and effective learning and I congratulate them on their work in this area. Other than the additional resources available through DEIS and the school completion programme to schools designated as disadvantaged, my Department is not in a position at this time to provide additional funding to support orchestras in primary schools.
Music Network is currently recruiting a project manager to progress an expansion of music education partnerships as a result of a partnership between U2, Music Network, the International Funds for Ireland and the education sector. As soon as the necessary administrative arrangements have been put in place, it is intended that Music Network will seek tenders for proposals for the establishment of area-based music partnerships on a phased basis to provide vocal and instrumental music tuition for young people throughout the country.
Schools in DEIS and SCP projects are provided with additional funding and have discretion as to how best to spend those funds within a framework of guidelines set out by the Department. The guidelines provide that funding may be used on initiatives to support retention, supporting and engaging parents and the wider community, co-operation with the youth sector, promoting cross-curricular literacy initiatives, music, dance, drama and promoting social, sport and leisure activities which impact on children's learning. The music education projects in these schools fall well within the parameters of what can be funded under DEIS and the school completion programme.
The schools in this initiative are funded under band 1 of my Department's DEIS programme and receive additional funding for the delivery of integrated action plans promoting the educational inclusion of pupils at risk. These two schools receive additional capitation grants of over €70,000. In addition, funding is provided under the school completion programme on a cluster basis for interventions to address educational disadvantage. A local management committee, involving primary and post primary schools, parents and relevant statutory, voluntary and community agencies manages each SCP project. The school in Dublin 12 is one of three schools in the Crumlin SCP project, while the school in Dublin 10 is one of five schools in one of the Ballyfermot SCP projects. Both SCP projects are provided with funding of about €398,000 annually. In addition, €70,000 is provided to the school in Dublin 10 towards an after school project.
I want to read from a report——
The Deputy can refer to it.
I will refer to it. The report states children can have more positive stimulation and enjoy music, performance and composing. It acknowledges that the younger students are, the better their retention, learning, physical and teamwork skills are. I asked this question because of the wonderful success of the two schools in Ballyfermot and Crumlin. Music is very important in everybody's life, for young children in particular, because of many reasons. I have spoken to a number of teachers in my constituency who told me they have had to cancel many of their music classes because of a lack of funding and they would have to scrimp and save from one end of the year to the other to keep the project going. It fell to parents in the community who have little money to spend, especially on funding music lessons in schools, to solve the problem.
I acknowledge that some work is being done in certain areas and schools but music should be available in every school. I know about the U2 funding and the Irish funds. It is now ten months since the scheme was launched. How is it being advertised? How will the money be allocated? Some €5 million will be available over the next six years. What schools will be selected for the scheme? How can schools access the funding? None of the schools I have spoken to have those answers. The Minister of State might be able to answer some of those questions.
The Deputy has asked many questions. Music is a core part of the arts curriculum in all classes in all primary schools and comprises listening, responding, performing and composing activities. Music is a core part of the arts programme of the primary school curriculum and its benefits are widely known. On the Music Network initiative, the administrative arrangements are being put in place for it, it will be rolled out in 2010 to 2013 and it will involve the recruitment of music teachers. That initiative is under way. The funding is being provided and, in due course, it is intended that the Department will take over the funding to ensure this initiative continues in the long term. It is open to schools in DEIS and the schools completion programme to use the extensive resources and facilities available under those programmes in whatever way they wish. Music activities would be a key element of activity to be promoted under those programmes.
I am very pleased to hear that, but I must again stress that it is ten months since the scheme was launched. There is no sign of any advertising, no schools are aware of it and I have heard nothing in the past three or four months to make people aware of the scheme. I urge the Minister of State to take action immediately, let schools know exactly what this fund will do and who will be able to avail of it because nobody knows.
I again put on the record that the Department is fully supportive of this initiative. There are very definite dates involved — the scheme will be rolled out between 2010 and 2013. The administrative arrangements are being put in place at this time. The Department is fully supporting it and implementing this initiative is a very definite policy.
