Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Jan 2012

Vol. 752 No. 2

Priority Questions

School Staffing

Brendan Smith

Question:

1Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he is committed to reversing in full the decision taken in Budget 2012 to cut 428 DEIS posts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3109/12]

Seán Crowe

Question:

2Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Education and Skills in view of his public statement in relation to Budget 2012, and its negative impact on DEIS band schools, if he will clarify the terms of reference of the review he intends to carry out; and the implications this review will have on the 428 legacy teaching posts that predate DEIS. [3233/12]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.

I announced in the House on 11 January that my Department will be reporting to me within four weeks on the impact of the withdrawal of certain posts allocated under previous disadvantaged schemes in DEIS Band 1 and Band 2 primary schools, following concerns raised with me by some schools that will be adversely affected by these budget measures.

This report will detail the facts for each individual school affected by this measure, applying the most up-to-date enrolments for September 2011. In addition, the report will take account of the net effect of a range of factors on teacher allocations in these schools, for example, increasing and decreasing enrolments and reforms to the existing teacher allocations process, all of which will determine the staffing requirement for these schools for the 2012-2013 school year.

It is only when this report is made available to me that I will be in a position to make a decision on the final outcome for the individual schools involved.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I am glad that last week he admitted that the wrong option had been taken on DEIS. I am not making a meal of it; I do not believe in such commentary. We get on with the business.

There is evidence, from the Educational Research Centre and from speaking to parents and teachers, that DEIS has been very successful. In a comparison of the same pupils' achievements on two occasions in the three years covered by the education research review, the measurement of their achievements in second class in 2007 and fifth class in 2010 showed significant improvements.

My understanding is that the Department offered the dramatic reduction in DEIS as one of the spending options to the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, in September last. Surely there was an onus to undertake a proper and detailed analysis on the implications of reducing DEIS posts. The Minister, Deputy Quinn, has correctly spoken about the need to improve numeracy and literacy and all of us in this House have agreed with him in all our discussions, through parliamentary questions, Private Members' business or whatever, in this House. There is evidence that numeracy and literacy has been improved due to DEIS and the different allocations of extra support available for those schools in disadvantaged areas.

Is the Minister indicating that only certain posts will be restored? There is a view out there that the proposals announced on the implications of the budget for the DEIS scheme would be reversed and the Minister is saying today that they will not be reversed in total.

There never was any intention to remove any of the DEIS Band 1 and Band 2 allocations to those schools. What was proposed with the introduction of DEIS in the mid-2000s was that in schools located in DEIS areas which, prior to the introduction of DEIS, had received disadvantaged status of a particular kind and had received, as a consequence, some posts - a much smaller number than those of DEIS and not based on the same overall criteria as that of DEIS - which were left intact in those schools, those posts would be removed. For reasons that I do not know or do not understand, those existing posts were left intact before DEIS was rolled out and when DEIS was rolled out, those posts were left intact. Therefore, one could have two DEIS schools side by side, with one that had posts from previous disadvantaged scheme with the same profile of disadvantage having more resources than another DEIS school that came into the system in the first instance. What was proposed was that we would remove those extra posts in real terms as part and parcel of the overall necessary reduction.

I merely want to clarify that there is nothing in the intentions in the past or in the future that would diminish the status of DEIS schools as DEIS schools. What is proposed is to look at the examination. There is also the possibility if enrolment numbers have dropped, given the general allocation model, GAM, that is now obliged to alter because circumstances change, there is also a necessity for us to look at the impact of the new allocation of resources or GAM which may bring about changes in that school that would have nothing to do with its disadvantage status but would have everything to do with its enrolment.

I have just come from the INTO rally at Marlborough House where the common theme was that people were confused about the review and what exactly is involved in it.

I listened to what the Minister stated about the 428 legacy posts. Some of those legacy posts came to schools due to Breaking the Cycle. There was an acceptance that there was disadvantage in certain schools but in some of those schools the disadvantage was even more extreme. The Minister's predecessor looked at that and some schools were assigned a 15:1 allocation for specific problems within them.

I have a couple of questions, on the review itself but, first, on the 428 legacy posts. We all know the possible removal of those posts is the crux of the matter of concern. I do not believe anyone has a difficulty where there are falling enrolments. That is not coming into the equation with anyone on the matter of losing teacher posts in schools. The concern was that some of the schools would lose up to a third or a quarter of their teachers, perhaps ten teachers, which is not sustainable.

The Minister met his party's Members and gave assurances that he would look at schools individually. Will the review be done on an individual school basis? Will it be done purely on a number-crunching basis? Will the Department look at the issues in each school? The Minister stated it would be a four-week review. When he gets the review back, what then will be the timescale?

I thank the Deputy.

If possible, if the Minister does not have time today, he should get that information out there. There is considerable confusion right across the board, not only among principals but among parents and children, and it is not helping the situation in education.

I agree with the Deputy Crowe analysis of the perception out there.

An existing DEIS school that does not have any legacy posts could be scheduled to lose a post because numbers have fallen under the general allocation model. That number projected to possibly come out of the system was presented by some of the schools' advocates to Members of the Oireachtas as part and parcel of the specific reduction of this measure. That is confusing. I was confronted with a serious of calculations presented to Members such as Deputy Crowe and his constituency colleagues that was totally at variance with what I understood to be the impact of the measure.

What I have done is say: "Hold on, let us compare the figures that are coming from the schools themselves with what we had intended to propose". This measure was supposed to be implemented over a period of three years and it is conceivable, and for reasons that we all understand, that somebody stated that the net impact of this decision, knowing that maybe their school had lost numbers, was their school would lose X number of teachers whereas the information that the Department had was that it would be a different number. I decided that we get clarity on the facts, agree them and then decide what action must be taken.

As I have stated elsewhere, whatever savings I must find will have to come from within the primary school section of the overall budget because of the totality of the sums that I have to achieve. The budget is over and it has been voted on. I have to find alternative savings within that framework.

As we all know, 30 September is the important date for school enrolments. Surely when the Department presented possible options to the Minister for making savings and reducing expenditure, his decision should have been based on the most up date information on school enrolments. We have access to modern technology and we pride ourselves on quick access to information. There is no reason that a school could not be obliged to supply the relevant data to the Department by early October. Either enrolment is a certain figure on 30 September or it is not. It is wrong to base decisions on outdated enrolments. As the Minister will be aware from speaking to parents, teachers and his Department's inspectors, DEIS has been very successful.

Nobody is disputing that.

I implore him to complete the review at the earliest opportunity to ensure the maximum support is provided to these schools. There is concern that the Minister's proposals will spread the 428 legacy posts across the mainstream system. Teachers fear they will be taken from DEIS schools and employed elsewhere. Is the Minister indicating that posts will still be cut at these schools or will he await the completion of the review? Will he be contacting principals and how will the review be carried out?

On Deputy Smith's question, unfortunately my predecessors - his colleagues - did not upgrade the information gathering system and we still use pigeon post to send the data. The census is completed manually by each school at the end of September and then it has to be collated manually.

The exercise is not that big.

It is an enormous exercise considering that 3,200 primary schools must fill in, perhaps, 20 fields of information. The information cannot even be filed electronically. We had the data from the previous year last September. I am hoping to address the issue but the Department's data system is not great and, unlike the Department of Social Protection, the data do not speak to each other.

I agree with the Deputy in regard to DEIS. This is not an attack on DEIS whatsoever, although it suited some people to understand it that way. This is an identification of inequality within the DEIS system, whereby certain schools have retained more resources than the school down the road with the same characteristics of deprivation.

To answer Deputy Crowe's question, I am going to wait until I get up-to-date facts before deciding my options. I am not in a position today to indicate what I will do. I now hope to have the necessary facts within the next three and a half weeks given that last week I indicated a timeframe of four weeks. At the end of the process, and irrespective of what decisions are made, it will go out in a general allocation to all the primary schools. As we have brought back the process by three months, there will be sufficient time for any school to appeal its allocation and provide for the recruitment, retention or deployment of resources for next September.

School Staffing

John Halligan

Question:

3Deputy John Halligan asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will confirm the number of 475 special needs assistants posts which were withheld last September that have been allocated to date; the criteria that was applied to these remaining posts; if and when the remaining posts will be allocated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3232/12]

The Deputy will be aware that the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, is responsible through its network of local special educational needs organisers for allocating special needs assistants, SNAs, to schools to support children with special educational needs. Some 10,297 of the total 10,575 SNA posts available for allocation have now been allocated to schools by the NCSE, leaving 278 posts available for allocation between now and the end of the school year for cases such as emergencies, acquired injuries or new school entrants with care needs. SNA posts are allocated to schools to provide for the care needs of pupils with special educational needs in accordance with the criteria set out in my Department’s circular 07/02 and NCSE circular 01/02/2011. The NCSE has the capacity to continue to make allocations in respect of valid applications arising before the end of the school year.

While I welcome any progress made in the allocation of special needs assistants, the Minister may be aware that 800 applications were made for the aforementioned 475 posts. It was envisaged that 300 of these posts would be filled prior to Christmas. I do not understand the logic of delaying the allocation of posts given that no new SNAs were made available for new children coming into junior infants this year. Why do we not allocate the remaining posts?

In regard to the NCSE and its role in reducing the number of SNAs, will the Minister consider an independent appeals system for parents who are unhappy with how resources and SNAs are allocated? There are differences of opinion and parents perceive a lack of transparency and inconsistency in the allocation of SNAs and the appeals process.

The Department does not allocate resources because this is the responsibility of the council. Given that it is a specialist council which draws on professional inputs, I will not second-guess it as a politician nor will the civil servants in my Department who lack the necessary qualifications second-guess it. I regard the appeals system as independent and the Department has no role in either the allocations or the appeals. I will consider the Deputy's suggestion but I am not convinced that a case can be made for an independent appeals body nor do I think that simply because there is a reserve of SNAs they should be allocated. It is only January and we have six months to go in the school year. Students with special requirements may still enrol in schools and if we had already allocated the SNAs we would not be deploying resources responsibly.

I am reasonably satisfied with the Minister's answer and I trust he will do what needs to be done. From my conversations with other Deputies and people from my constituency, it appears there is staggering inconsistency in the appeals process. The parents perceive the process as not being independent. I welcome that the Minister may consider the matter over a period of six months but I ask him to give a commitment to fill all the available SNA posts.

I will not interfere with the professional assessment of people who are charged with making decisions on allocating resources. The fact that they have provision for 10,575 posts does not mean they have to allocate all of them. If they did so they would be applying different criteria. People who were refused SNA resources six months ago could find that SNAs were allocated in cases where the need was professionally assessed as being less pressing. That would be the essence of unfairness.

Brendan Smith

Question:

4Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Education and Skills his views that following his decision to allow schools to manage guidance provision within their standard allocation that schools are now faced with the situation whereby they either cut career guidance and counselling services or introduce reduced subject choice; if he will confirm if schools are still required to provide an appropriate level of guidance provision; if he will outline what he deems appropriate guidance to be; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3110/12]

Guidance is a whole school activity and under existing arrangements each school is expected to develop a school guidance plan as a means of supporting the needs of its students. These requirements have not changed and my Department's forthcoming circular will make this clear and point schools to the relevant documentation and guidance available to support such work by schools.

The budget measure is a requirement for guidance provision to be managed by schools from within their standard staffing allocation from September 2012. Schools will have autonomy on how best to prioritise their available resources to meet their requirements in terms of guidance and the provision of an appropriate range of subjects to their pupils. Decisions on how this is done are best determined at individual school level. I am confident that schools will act in the best interests of all students when determining how to use the teaching resources available to them.

I thank the Minister for his reply. There is widespread concern, as the Minister is aware from correspondence to himself and to all Members of the Oireachtas, about the difficulties facing this service in schools. As we all know, the career guidance and counselling service does not just offer final year support; it is used throughout second level, whether that is five or six years, and in many instances pre-secondary school as well. That support is absolutely necessary. I recently spoke to a person who had returned to the classroom as the deputy principal of a second level school after working elsewhere for a number of years. That lady said to me that the school did not have a disciplinary problem, but there were a large number of young students bringing family problems with them to school. The first person to speak to in that school about difficult personal or family issues is the career guidance counsellor.

The service has grown incrementally and progressively over the past 25 years in particular. More than 90% of career guidance counsellors have participated in continuous professional development courses, and an excellent service is being provided to our young people at second level and in further education colleges. Does the Minister accept that retention levels at second and third level are very much influenced by the availability of good advice and guidance to young people right through second level and when they go on to further education or third level in regard to course choice? There is empirical evidence available - both nationally, from some of our own institutions such as the ESRI, and from the OECD and others - that it is an extremely important and worthwhile investment.

The people who have been in touch with all of us as Members of the Oireachtas and as public representatives have outlined clear reasons for their concern that the career guidance counselling service will be dramatically downgraded due to the decision to include the teachers involved in the general teacher allocation from 2012.

I have heard the arguments and I have met representatives of the Institute of Guidance Counsellors. I understand the difficulties associated with the modern world in which we all live. Many regular subject teachers have told me that they would probably be the first to notice a difference if a pupil was experiencing external pressures. I am talking about pastoral care rather than career guidance, which deals with course and career choices. If a student is a B+ student in whatever subject the teacher is teaching but his or her performance or behaviour in the class starts to deteriorate, that subject teacher, in many cases, is the first to notice a change. He or she may be the first to ask Jimmy or Rory what is troubling him, and he or she may well refer him to the counsellor at that stage. The school is a totality and, in law and in the corporate spirit of the school, has a pastoral responsibility for the welfare of its pupils. The guidance counsellor certainly has special skills, if he or she has the qualification, but most if not all guidance counsellors start life as secondary school teachers in the same way as those who continue to be subject teachers.

We are, unfortunately, in a position in which I must do more with less, and one of the most efficient ways of doing this - I received advice in this regard - was to allocate the ex-quota component of guidance counsellors into the mainstream secondary school allocation. I am sorry I was not able to be here for yesterday’s debate on this, but I will repeat what I said on Tuesday night: 42% of the 730 secondary schools in the country have no specialist guidance counsellor who is exclusively there for that purpose.

My understanding is that en enrolment of 500 pupils entitles a school to a guidance counsellor for 22 hours per week, which is a full-time post. This is graduated downwards for smaller numbers of pupils. If a school has an enrolment of 200, it is entitled to eight hours of career guidance and counselling. My understanding is that service is provided by an appropriately qualified person. Thus, it is incorrect, unless I misunderstood the Minister - I do not want to misrepresent him - to say that in some schools the service is being provided by non-qualified career guidance counsellors.

I may have misled the Deputy. I will obtain clarification on this. The information from the briefing I got, which I placed on the record of the House on Tuesday evening, was that 42% of secondary schools do not have a designated full-time guidance counsellor. That is not to say they did not have people with guidance counselling qualifications who are delivering a portion of that service as well as teaching a subject.

I will get clarification for the Deputy.

Even though-----

I have to move on. There are many Deputies who want to ask questions, and Deputy Crowe is next.

It is my priority question.

The next question is Deputy Crowe's.

I will write to the Deputy on that matter.

We have gone way over time.

Seán Crowe

Question:

5Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Education and Skills the reason he increased class sizes in schools of two, three and four teacher schools in view of the fact that smaller class sizes particularly at infant level would seem to have a positive affect on learning outcomes; and the capital costs that will arise from his decision to pursue a policy that will lead to the amalgamation and closure of small schools. [3234/12]

The staffing schedule at primary level disproportionately benefits small primary schools. It is worth noting that of the 3,200 primary schools across Ireland, more than two thirds have more than 86 pupils and, as a result, have far higher average class sizes than all of the schools affected by this measure. For example, a two-teacher school with 32 pupils has an average class size of 16 pupils, while a typical ten-teacher school with 272 pupils has an average class size of 27.2 pupils.

It is important to retain a sense of perspective and balance when discussing this matter and to realise the exceptionally favourable supports my Department will continue to provide for small schools. For that reason, as part of the budget 2012 decisions, the number of pupils required to gain and retain a classroom teaching post in small primary schools will be gradually increased between September 2012 and September 2014. Even when all of these phased increases are implemented, the threshold for small schools will be still significantly lower than the minimum of 28 pupils that were required for the appointment of a second teacher in schools prior to the mid-1990s.

It was in 1991 that the OECD published a report citing the importance of small schools to rural regeneration. What most people want to know is why the Minister is going down this track. Is it to achieve cost savings? If so, what are those savings? He said in his reply that he is trying to spread the increases across the system. Much of the concern is because such schools are part of their communities' distinct identities. The reports coming back to me, as a public representative, are that the changes announced in the budget will lead to the closure of schools. If the reason for the decision was to try to achieve some sort of rationalisation or amalgamation of schools, changes will be required in the Department. If he is encouraging the amalgamation of small schools, the issue of school sizes needs to be examined. If two schools agree to come together, that is not recognised under the current system. The big concern is that these changes will lead to the closure of more schools. They will also affect rural and Gaeltacht areas that have already suffered due to the closure of Garda stations and post offices. The school is the heart of the community.

I understand what the Deputy is saying; my colleagues in Fine Gael and the Labour Party have articulated similar concerns as conveyed to them. A gradual change in the threshold for a two-teacher school from 12 to 14 pupils, and similar changes for three- and four-teacher schools, is required. The Deputy is correct in stating that if two two-teacher schools were to amalgamate they would be at a disadvantage under the current system. We must examine those anomalies within the system. Nothing will happen quickly on this matter but there is an argument in favour of schools amalgamating if the geography, location and so forth make sense.

I remind Members, as I did on a previous occasion, that we now have 3,200 primary schools. At one time, and I am not referring to the 1800s, there were over 6,000 primary schools in Ireland. Nobody had a motor-car and nobody had a fear of letting their child walk to school whatever the length of that walk. The change must take place. The reason is that this country is in receivership and I must find savings as we cannot afford it.

People are asking that it be done in a planned and coherent manner as there are all types of sensitivities involved. They are asking that the Minister even signal that he would freeze the September date, which would give them 12 months to prepare. The difficulty is that schools will be pushed to closure as a result of this measure. Some schools are on the edge in this regard. It is also down to demographics. We talk about change in society and we must encourage that. One way of doing that is by keeping the local school open.

It is not my intention to force the closure of any school. We have given three years for the schools located in affected areas. Some schools will not be affected by this; in fact, the majority will not be affected in one way or another. However, they need to start talking to each other about co-operation and clustering through the INTO, the patron bodies and the Irish Primary Principals Network, IPPN. There are many models, some of which are working very satisfactorily. If schools wish to talk to us about it, they should do so through their patrons in the context of how best to adapt to the changed circumstances in which we live.

Top
Share