Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Nov 2011

Vol. 746 No. 4

Priority Questions

Third Level Funding

Brendan Smith

Question:

1 Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Education and Skills when he intends to publish the report by the Higher Education Authority into funding for third level; if he will commit to publishing it prior to budget 2012; and if he will provide details on the proposal in the report. [35173/11]

I have just received the report referred to by the Deputy, which relates to the sustainability of the existing funding framework for higher education. The report, which was undertaken by the Higher Education Authority, was submitted to me on Monday of this week. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationships between funding levels, the scale of growth and the maintenance of quality in the system so that realistic and sustainable levels of growth in numbers can be supported and better informed choices on policy options for future funding can be made. I will consider its findings and discuss them with my Government colleagues as part of our budgetary deliberations. I understand the board of the Higher Education Authority will consider the report at its next meeting on 29 November next. After the report has been considered, it is my intention that the Higher Education Authority should arrange to publish it without delay.

When did the Minister receive the report? Why does it have to go back to the board of the Higher Education Authority, given that the authority drew up the report in the first place? I would have assumed that the board cleared the report before it went to the Minister. I ask the Minister to impress on the authority the need to publish the report. Perhaps it is within his own capability to do so. People are anxious to have certainty on this issue, which needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. When the Hunt report was published a year ago, the Minister, as his party's education spokesperson of the time, called for any follow-on studies to be published immediately. Will he ensure this report is published as quickly as possible? The parents of students who aspire to go on to further education at third level want to know what the financial position is, what choices they might face and what onus will be on them with regard to costs at third level.

I am not entirely sure why a report that is the product of another body has come to me first. It has not come as a draft report. The report has been completed. I will make inquiries to find out why that has happened. I will take on board the Deputy's point that the report should get into the public domain as soon as possible.

The Minister gave a commitment and a strong pledge to the Union of Students in Ireland and the student body. He said that if he was in government, he would reverse the €500 increase in the student service charge and the €200 charge for post-leaving certificate courses, both of which were introduced by the previous Government. A year ago, the Tánaiste gave a commitment to the effect that the Labour Party was opposed to the introduction of third level fees by the front or back doors. Can the Minister categorically assure us that he will honour the commitment and the pledge he gave to the Irish electorate on 21 February 2011, in the full knowledge of the fiscal position of the Government of the time? I refer specifically to the written pledge he gave to the Union of Students in Ireland.

As the Deputy knows, these matters are still under consideration. Budgetary decisions have yet to be finalised. I will bear in mind what the Deputy has said.

The Minister is aware that there has been a huge increase in participation in further and higher education, thankfully. The number of students in third level education increased from 100,000 in 1997 to 160,000 in 2010. Such a 60% increase was a remarkable and necessary achievement. Like everyone else in this House, I want to see a further increase in participation levels. I ask the Minister to deny that the Government is considering putting a cap on student numbers in 2012.

I do not know how many times it has to be conveyed to the Fianna Fáil Party that this country has lost its economic sovereignty. It was signed away 12 months ago by a Government of which Deputy Smith was a member. We control neither the chequebook nor the policy in relation to a range of items of public expenditure. We have to work within that constraint. We will do whatever we can to regain that economic sovereignty as quickly as possible. The Deputy should not ask questions when he already knows the answers to them.

The Minister made the pledge to which I refer on 21 February last, when the fiscal position of this country was well known. This country's expenditure and income targets had been laid down in the budget that was delivered in this House in early December 2010. All Government reports suggest those targets will be met this year. The fiscal position has not changed. It has improved somewhat, thankfully, since the Minister and his party leader — the Tánaiste, Deputy Gilmore — made a solemn commitment to students and subsequently won the support of a substantial percentage of this country's student population. I suggest that many parents of students voted for them on that basis as well.

I understand what the Deputy is saying. I also understand why he is saying it.

So election promises should not be taken seriously.

Special Educational Needs

Seán Crowe

Question:

2 Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Education and Skills if the sanctioning of special needs transport by a special education needs organiser is subject to the limitations of the National Council for Special Education circular reference number NCSE 03/08, whereby health care professionals cannot identify a quantum of education supports and resources for a child with special educational needs when such professionals recommend that a child be enrolled in a special school in agreement with the parents and that school is located further away than the school recommended by a SENO as being capable of meeting the needs of the child despite professional reports to the contrary. [35172/11]

Under the terms of the school transport scheme of the Department of Education and Skills, a pupil with special educational needs is eligible for school transport if he or she is attending the nearest recognised mainstream school, special class, special school or unit that is or can be resourced to meet the child's special educational needs under the Department's criteria. To date, the process of identifying such a school has involved the National Council for Special Education, which advises on this matter. Circular NCSE 03/08 provides that responsibility for deciding on the quantum of educational supports and resources to be allocated to individual schools or individual children lies with the council through its special education needs organisers. Health service staff do not have any responsibility for the allocation of educational resources or supports to schools or individual children. Transport is provided following receipt of advice from the National Council for Special Education in relation to the relevant school. The Department and the council intend to bring greater clarity and transparency to the process of identifying the nearest school. A code of practice to provide guidance on this issue will be prepared with the assistance of the council's consultative forum in the coming months.

I welcome the Minister of State's statement that the Department will clearly explain to parents how decisions on schools are made in these circumstances. I became aware of this issue when the case of a six year old girl was brought to my attention. She has autism, a rare chromosome disorder, fluid on her spine, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, limited speech and a hole in her heart. She was in a school but it was recommended that she should go to a different school. The people who made the recommendation said that the school in question was the best school for her. The nearest school is not necessarily the best school for this child. Who will parents listen to in such circumstances? Will they listen to the health professionals they have been working with or to special education needs organisers they have probably never met? That is part of the difficulty with regard to these decisions. My question relates to cases of this nature. How can the Minister of State explain the approach that is being taken to the mother of the girl I have mentioned? A bus goes past this woman's house. She has to travel 32,600 km per annum. The system is not clear to me or to parents, many of whom are working within the system itself. We are relying on special education needs organisers whose backgrounds might not be as informed as those of other professionals. I refer to the psychologists etc. who made the original recommendations. That is the difficulty. We really need to sort it out. The Minister of State is probably aware of many cases of this nature.

If the Deputy wants to pass on the details of the individual case he has mentioned, I will undertake to explore it further with him. Special education needs organisers have expertise in providing special education and assigning special educational supports to individual children on the basis of their unique individual needs. The policy we operate is that transport shall be provided to a centre that is, or can be, resourced to meet the special educational needs of the child. Such a decision is based on the opinion of a person who is professionally qualified to make such an assessment. I agree with the Deputy that there has been a lack of clarity and transparency with regard to this process. That is why we have undertaken to put a code of practice in place that can be easily understood by education professionals, by those involved in education and by parents and families. We must bear in mind that at a time when I am challenged to find €17 million in savings across school transport over the next three years, we need to make the best possible use of the scarce resources we have. The average cost of school transport for a child without special educational needs is approximately €1,000 per annum while the cost for a child with special educational needs is of the order of €7,000 to €9,000, depending on his or her unique requirements. We must be careful not to over-extend ourselves by bringing children to centres which are further away than centres closer to home which are well capable of meeting their needs. If there is a bus passing by the door, there is an opportunity to get on it if there is space available. Perhaps the Deputy will speak about the child in question.

I welcome that because parents believe the reason they must go to local schools is purely on budgetary grounds. It is does not make sense if there is a bus going by which has space on it. In this case, the parent is a single parent but she is committed to that child, as are all such parents. Those parents will travel to the ends of the earth if they believe it is the best school for their child. The Minister of State is in a difficult situation in regard to this matter but the information needs to be made available to parents.

I will undertake to examine that case personally.

Pupil-Teacher Ratio

Catherine Murphy

Question:

3 Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Education and Skills if reports that he intends to reduce significantly the number of teachers are correct; if so, the number of same; if an impact assessment has been done at secondary level on the loss of subjects; the way that these will impact on the strategy for a knowledge economy; the maximum class size will be at primary level; if an impact assessment has been carried out in respect of the delivery of the curriculum; the way these changes will affect children with special needs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34885/11]

Brendan Smith

Question:

4 Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will commit to no further increases in class sizes for the 2012-13 school year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35174/11]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together.

I do not propose to give any specific commitment on the overall number of teaching posts in the education sector or on any changes to the pupil-teacher ratio and the impact it could have. These are issues that I am considering with my colleagues in Cabinet in the context of the forthcoming budget discussions and meeting our obligations under the EU-IMF programme. This is all the more challenging in the context of significant increases in demographics.

The Government will endeavour to protect front-line education services as best as possible. However, this must be done within the context of bringing our overall public expenditure back into line with what we can afford as a country. The challenge will be to ensure the resources that are provided to schools are used by them to maximum effect in terms of providing an appropriate range of subjects to meet the needs of our knowledge economy and in delivering the best possible outcomes for all our pupils.

That is a disappointing response. I asked the question because there is a lot of information out there which may well be misinformation or kite flying, but there are considerable concerns about the plan of action for our education system. If the Minister reduces teacher numbers at second level, there could be a reduction in subject choices. We talk about having a knowledge economy. For example, physics and music are key subjects because one draws out different abilities.

In regard to primary school class sizes, classes are very different from what they were even 15 years ago. There is a much more mixed arrangement in that children with special needs are, by and large, in mainstream classes. There are lots of children without languages skills. The difficulty is that when people see education reform, they see it as code for cuts rather than reform of the system to deliver measurable outcomes in terms of the money we put in.

In the absence of information, it is very difficult to ask a supplementary question. I imagine we will get some of that information tomorrow when we see the programme to be outlined by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in regard to public service reform.

The Deputy has been in the House for many years and she knows that asking a specific budgetary question three weeks from budget day is like trying to ask about the outcome of a football match before the game is over. It is still on. The Deputy will get all the answers to all the questions in due course but I need time to discuss them first with my Cabinet colleagues.

As the Minister said, the game is on and we wish him every success that he will have a good result in his Estimates. We all appreciate it is not easy as there are competing demands. Fine Gael and the Labour Party quite rightly included in their programme for Government a pledge to protect front-line services in education, which we all welcome.

The first debate on education in this Dáil was a Private Members' motion which I tabled on behalf of Fianna Fáil that called on the Government to prioritise spending on education. The Minister very magnanimously accepted that motion, as did all parties in this House. I assume he got Government approval to accept that Private Members' motion and I hope he will be able to convince his colleagues to prioritise front-line services in education.

This report appeared recently and I am not saying what union members said to me but what teachers at primary and second levels said to me. They said that too often in the past, pupils were literally lost in large classes and they fear any deterioration in the pupil-teacher ratio. There has been an improvement and, naturally, we want to see it further improved. In 1997, the ratio was 22:1 while in 2010, it was down to 16:1. All of us want to see that improved. Any deterioration would be a huge set back for the education system. I emphasise that teachers at primary and second levels are very concerned should there be any deterioration in the pupil-teacher ratio and increase in class sizes.

I share the concern of the Deputy and I am endeavouring to do the best I can in regard to these matters. However, as a former Minister, the Deputy will know that in Departments such as the Department of Health or the Department of Education and Skills, in particular, 80% of the budget is centred around salaries and related costs. Therefore, the room for manoeuvre is confined to that 20% which affects the rest of the activities of the Department of Education and Skills. In the context of the Croke Park agreement that means very difficult decisions must be made.

State Examinations

Maureen O'Sullivan

Question:

5 Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the resources he envisages that are needed for his proposed reform of the junior certificate; his views that there is a need for the training of teachers; and the rationale behind his decision regarding history and geography not being compulsory. [35221/11]

Teachers will be supported in implementing junior cycle reform through the professional development service for teachers, focusing on the syllabus changes, assessment and school moderation. The assessment and consideration of the resource implications of the proposals have begun. These will, of course, fall to be considered in the normal way by Government in the context of the Estimates and budgetary processes.

I have made no decision on the issue of history and geography being compulsory. These skills are required of all students under the 24 statements of learning recommended by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. Overall, I am in favour of leaving the decisions on what is offered at the discretion of the school — as a teacher, Deputy O'Sullivan might welcome that sentiment — and of students having as broad a range of options to choose from as possible. Curriculum choice is important in motivating students to learn and to remain in school to completion of senior cycle. It is also important to avoid an erosion of the practical subjects. The issue will be taken forward in discussions with the partners in education.

Teachers have always shown they are very receptive to innovation and inventiveness because they have embraced quite a number of changes in syllabi over the years. Education is about creating a well-rounded individual who has the transferable skills about which we speak. I am always alarmed when I hear a particular section in society say that education must respond to X. I dislike the idea that education can be corralled into a very narrow framework.

I was delighted by what the Minister said about history and geography. History was one of my subjects and it is a very important one which perhaps should be compulsory along with geography. History is more than just learning facts, which is a very small part of it. It is about examining evidence and looking at bias, distortion and at the media. It is very important that young people learn to look at the media and how they can manipulate particular situations. It is also about creative thinking. Literacy and numeracy both come into subjects such as history and geography and I welcome what the Minister said. I would be delighted if the Minister did not make the decision that they would not be compulsory. Did he have discussions with the History Teachers' Association of Ireland, the Association of Geography Teachers of Ireland or any of the relevant professors?

I do not know why there is such concern in the history and geography teaching communities about a fall-off in the study of their subjects. The take-up in the junior certificate examination this year was 90.2% for history and 91.5% for geography, making them the fifth and fourth most popular subjects respectively. While in the leaving certificate the percentages differ due to a wider range of subject choice, they were ninth and fifth respectively in popularity.

History is far more than just the recitation of facts. The analytical understanding why certain events occurred is a critical competent of the subject and is embedded in some of the skills we want to see emerge in the junior cycle reforms. As we are entering into discussions with the education partners, I would be quite happy to meet with various stakeholders including the two associations of subject teachers to which Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan referred.

The leaving certificate applied course has been successful, part of which was due to the resources that went into it, the support for teachers, assessments and their monitoring. These factors need to be borne in mind if we are going down that road with the junior certificate.

If a reformed junior certificate is introduced in 2014, will it be part of the curriculum training for the next intake of higher diploma in education, HDip, students?

The courses offered at the teacher training colleges will go from three to four years while the HDip offered in other education institutions will be extended from a one-year course to a two-year course. The concentration of the extra time and resources will be on pedagogic skills. As the Deputy can testify, and from all the advice I have received, a good teacher is a good deliverer of good outcomes. We must reinforce the good teacher.

Top
Share