Vol. 783 No. 2
109. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Education and Skills the way he will ensure that the new junior certificate cycle is implemented in a consistent manner and to the same standard across all schools; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [51324/12]
I published the framework for the junior cycle on 4 October. All schools are to develop their junior cycle programme mindful of the principles, key skills and the 24 statements of learning. Subjects, short courses and, where relevant, priority learning units will be developed according to agreed specifications. The framework includes a number of measures to support and quality assure assessment across the three years of the junior cycle.
There will be two particular supports for reporting on student learning achievements and outcomes. New report card templates will be made available. In addition, to support a teacher's evaluation of their students' learning, the specifications will include examples of student work that illustrate the standard of work expected from different kinds of students at different stages of junior cycle. This will be augmented by the resources within the NCCA's assessment and moderation toolkit.
I believe parents will strongly support this system once they see how much additional information they will receive about their child's educational and personal development. Furthermore, I remind the Deputy that we are moving away from the high-stakes exam environment which has been the key driver of rote learning in the current junior certificate examination.
I plan to introduce standardised testing in second year for all schools in English reading, mathematics and science and in Irish reading for Irish medium schools. These new tests will provide a good independent indicator of student progress in the middle of the junior cycle programme.
A comprehensive professional development service will be provided, from the academic year from 2013 to 2014, for teachers, principals and deputy principals. Last week, I announced that Dr. Pádraig Kirk, the former CEO of County Louth VEC, will be the director of this dedicated service.
The way in which the Minister announced his decision on the junior certificate cycle reform has made the start of the project difficult. I disagree with the fact he did not engage adequately in advance with teachers, who will be a key part in delivering it. As a result of the failure to work out a plan in advance of making the announcement, it will take eight years before all subjects will be examined at junior certificate level. There is a need to reform the junior certificate programme but it should not take so long. With more planning and proper consultation in advance it could have been delivered sooner. The Minister does not seem to have given thought to ensuring standards in various schools. In recent weeks Britain has begun to reverse from teachers doing the marking to the introduction of a more uniform approach. The TUI president, Gerry Craughwell, has expressed concerns about how different schools will have different capacities to introduce short courses and those with better resources will provide a different standard of curriculum than that provided by other schools. We need to ensure each student receives the same curriculum and the Minister needs to address this and perhaps undo some of what was done in the haste to make the announcement without proper preparations.
As Deputies are aware, on Thursday afternoon the House will have an opportunity to debate the junior certificate cycle reform in some substance over two hours.
There is also a question further down the Order Paper that addresses some of the questions that have been put in supplementary form by Deputy McConalogue.
Let us step back a little in terms of history. The National Council for Curriculum Assessment has been recommending changes in the junior cycle for over ten years. Some sectors in the education stakeholders' camp confuse negotiations with consultation and confuse consultation with negotiations. It is the responsibility of the Department and the Minister, taking the best advice from the entire array of stakeholders, to digest that advice and to make decisions. Once that decision is made, then all the stakeholders will be fully consulted as to how best to proceed to reach the targets that are set. Deputy McConalogue cited Great Britain, and I specifically mean Great Britain but not necessarily Northern Ireland because it has a different approach to education from Britain. One cannot chop and change the education system overnight. It is too big, too delicate and too sophisticated an entity for that to be done.
What we have done to get it right - it is not a delay but a deliberate decision on my part - is to decide that the first step in the direction of the reform will start in September 2014 and in 2017 the first cohort will sit, under the new regime that I have just described, English as a subject. The following three years will see the roll-out of the remainder of the subjects. During the course of that journey to get from here to there we will be monitoring all of the implementations involved.
The two secondary school unions directly involved in the junior cycle, the TUI and the ASTI, had members on the working party which looked at and came up with the curriculum. Their concern is with the diminution of the junior certificate examination as a high-stakes examination and it becoming a school examination rather than a high-stakes or State examination.
Will the Minister outline the steps he has taken thus far in his engagements with the sector to ensure that there is a standard approach across schools in terms of the quality of the courses to be delivered?
What consultations has the Minister had on ensuring there is uniformity in the marking of examinations? There is grave concern among students and teachers that the approach will not work. Where is the Minister in such engagements?
When the system is completed and students take between eight and ten subjects, the examinations on those ultimately will be marked by the teachers in question. Those examinations will account for 60% of the marks for a particular subject and the balance of 40% will be made up from project work the students do in second and third years. The schools and the subject teachers will be sent templates and examples of what standards to expect so that they can look at the work of a weak student, an average student and a good student. There is much experience in the Department in this regard.
Regarding their overall results in the examinations, schools will be notified subject by subject. While it is still evolving, this is the intention. Schools will be notified, after the examinations and after the results have been collected, collated and examined, of an average performance, a good performance and a poor performance. For example, they will be notified of the spectrum in history and whether the school was either above or below a particular level in its marking. It will evolve so that they will know what is the national norm, what the median variation could be and whether they fit within that spectrum. If that raises issues, then there would be discussions with the inspectors.
110. Deputy John Browne asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he has received the report from the Higher Education Authority on proposed funding options for the third level sector; if he has considered the report; when he expects to publish same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [51295/12]
The reality of the economic situation and the public expenditure corrections which must be made in the coming years present challenges across all areas of public expenditure. It must be acknowledged that the sector has accommodated significant increases in student numbers at a time when both funding and staff numbers have reduced.
As the Deputy will be aware, the Higher Education Authority, HEA, is undertaking a study on the sustainability of the current funding system for higher education. This study was initiated at my request and an initial report was published last year. This report makes it clear that immediate work is required to prepare for a longer term approach to a system that can be maintained through a sustainable funding base which will be able to address the continual expansion of the sector while protecting quality of education. The HEA is continuing its work in this area and I will be advised further as this work progresses.
I thank the Minister for his reply. The future of third level funding is something we will have to grasp in the coming period. In recent years third level colleges have made it clear that, without additional funds, they cannot continue to provide a quality of education for the numbers of students that are likely to enter the system in future. So far, the Minister's response to the need for additional third level funding has been, unfortunately, to raise the registration fee against what he had promised during the last general election campaign. In many ways, that puts extreme pressure on families who are already finding it difficult to send their children to college. They are doing their best to cope with the expense of raising a family and running a household and many of them are outside the grant threshold.
The Hunt report makes it clear that we will need €500 million per year over the next ten years. When therefore can we expect clarity from the Minister on how he will fund the sector in future?
First, I want to pay tribute to the third level sector because, despite declining current account support from the Department of Education and Skills, which will continue through this year, the number of students entering the college system is increasing. By and large, outcomes are still good and there has not been a marked deterioration in standards.
The Deputy will be aware that the HEA recently published a series of documents, which were posted on the website last Friday, including the landscape document. They also include the response the institutions are making to that document and some other international studies, as well as a longitudinal study undertaken by the ESRI. I will address the heads of universities, institutes of technology and others on Thursday morning on this topic, outlining my response to where the HEA currently is and what has to happen at a later stage.
At some stage we will have to address the issue of the long-term financial sustainability of our third level education system. At the moment, however, I do not know the level of course duplication between the 14 institutes of technology, the seven universities and other third level colleges. I want to see what room there is for economies, the discontinuance of duplicate courses and other means to reduce costs. It is not that I want to take money out of the system, I want that money to be better used. When we have those figures - it will take at least a year to begin to count them - we will know what is the real gap in sustainable funding. We will then address the question of how best to close that gap.
It is crucial that we address this issue. The Hunt report outlined an increase from 160,000 to 250,000 in third level students. That is the student body we need to see entering our third level colleges in the coming years. Unfortunately, however, if we do not have the correct structures in place many of those students will not be able to engage at third level and we will not reach that threshold. Many seeking third level education will not get that opportunity in life and, as a country, we will be the poorer for it. When can we expect a clear response from the Minister concerning the options in the landscape document?
As I said, I will outline my approach to the documents that have now entered the public domain to the main stakeholders at a meeting on Thursday. The Higher Education Authority will have until the beginning of March 2013 to finalise its response to the submissions it has received and the documentation that has already come in. In addition, I will confirm and elaborate on the national policy on Thursday.
Effectively, from March until the end of 2013, I envisage all those institutions will consider the recommendations for greater collaboration, regional clusters and possible comings together in a manner that would enhance and improve the educational infrastructure. My unashamed preference is to see voluntary co-operation and collaboration at a local level, rather than a talking-down from the top telling institution X to merge with institution Y. I do not believe any Member would recommend such a process. However, if at the end of next year, what comes back is unsatisfactory, I then will have no option but to start to take a more direct hand in guiding and cajoling institutions to cease duplication of courses or to co-operate more effectively. When that point is reached, one will then the real cost of providing quality third level education and the gap in funding. Thereafter, we must address how that will be funded.
111. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will outline the savings he has achieved in the third level sector in terms of reform of academic contracts and improved efficiencies since taking office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [51298/12]
Reforms in the higher education area include academic staff delivering an additional hour per week resulting in more than 100,000 additional lecturing hours which, if they had to be paid for, would amount to an estimated €8 million annually. Since the Croke Park agreement, the student-to-staff ratio in higher education institutions has increased by 18%. The employment control framework has resulted in the reduction of core staff numbers by approximately 9% from 2008 to the end of 2011. In the context of reducing staff numbers, full-time student numbers increased by 17,000, or approximately 12%, between December 2008 and December 2011. In addition, institutions are continually engaging in shared services and procurement initiatives to effect savings. The Higher Education Authority has emphasised the need for all higher education institutions to review the full range of services they provide and their associated cost structures with a view to reducing or eliminating unnecessary or unsustainable costs, particularly in the area of unnecessary programme duplication.
I also draw the Deputy's attention to the recent decision by the Government to amend the Universities Act 1997 to oblige universities to comply with Government pay policy. This legislation will put an end to the era of unauthorised allowances being paid to senior members of staff, which was tolerated by the previous Government.
I thank the Minister for his reply. As referred to in the previous exchange, there undoubtedly are real funding challenges within the third level sector. In advance of the last general election, the Minister made a very strong play regarding what he would achieve in respect of academic contracts and the savings to be made therefrom. The Minister should provide Members with an overall figure on what has been achieved thus far. While the Minister has outlined the reduction in employment, what has been achieved in respect of productivity savings in the third level sector since the Minister took office?
If the Deputy will bear with me, I have to hand a note which hopefully will provide him with the information he seeks. The anticipated question was on what savings have been achieved under the employment control framework, which came in just before the present Government took office but which is within approximately the same time period. Under the employment control framework, core staff numbers were reduced by 7.3% between December 2008 and December 2010, which was significantly in excess of the 6% reduction that had been required. As this happened under the previous Administration, I claim no credit for it. Core staff numbers were reduced further in 2011, bringing the total reduction against 2008 up to approximately 9%, which is an increase of just under 2% by the end of December 2011. It is to be noted that over the same period, overall public sector numbers decreased by 7.2%. As further reductions are required in the sector in 2012, it is anticipated that core staff numbers will have been reduced in total by a minimum of approximately 10% by the end of December 2012. In the context of reducing staff numbers as outlined above, full-time student numbers increased, as I noted earlier, by 17,000 or 12%. Furthermore, institutions continue to engage proactively with sectoral labour market initiatives such as Springboard.
The Minister has outlined that the percentage of staff number reductions has almost reached 11% and this figure pertains to staff who have left the third level system. Does the Minister have to hand a figure for productivity savings made in respect of existing staff or changes in the manner in which universities work and operate?
Is there a figure for increased productivity in the third level sector?
I will attempt to get the figures rather than hazard a guess across the floor. A huge increase in productivity is evident when one matches the reduction in funding with the increase of student numbers. That has possibly resulted in the deterioration in quality of some services, although that has not been brought to my attention. It certainly shows there is an extraordinary capacity to absorb increased numbers. We do not know if quality is maintained.
The purpose of the exercise I described in a previous question comes from the fact that in some areas, the Department of Education and Skills and the Higher Education Authority do not know these answers. We had 19 separate providers in the educational teaching and training sector and we are now proposing to reduce those to six. We do not know how many engineering courses are being delivered across the entire spectrum, and we must find that out concisely. We could hazard a guess but we cannot give precise descriptions of those engineering courses.
With regard to improving efficiencies, some concern has been expressed by senior lecturers in UCD about the frequency with which firms like Arthur Cox have been employed. I note that legal services are listed as non-priority under EU public procurement directives, meaning many public bodies excuse themselves from running competitive tendering processes for legal services. Will a legally binding requirement be introduced regarding competitive tendering for legal services contracts rather than the current guidelines applying to public bodies by way of circular issued from the Minister? One of the recommendations of the Competition Authority report was to reduce cost by identifying legal services purchased by the State where competitive tendering would be an appropriate form of procurement.
The Minister put his finger on the issue when he said we do not know some of the issues we need to. It is very hard to evaluate whether quality has dropped given the rise in students and it is a challenge for the Department to precisely evaluate that. We can go on from there.
The Minister mentioned an amendment to the Universities Act. When the heads were published there was much media commentary but will the Minister give an indication of when they will come before the committee or even be finalised?
The documents were put on the website on Friday evening and the hard copies can be downloaded. The committee can decide if they want to discuss them with the Higher Education Authority. I share Deputy Wallace's concerns, and there is a sense in many smaller legal firms, which would be well able to provide legal service or collaborate with others, that the big five seem to have been enabled to have an exclusive crack at many of these contracts. It is unsatisfactory and I have had informal discussions with the Minister for Justice and Equality on the matter. We are considering the procurement issue to ensure smaller firms can tender for this kind of work.
112. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for Education and Skills the discussions he has had with bodies representing second level teachers in relation to the implementation of the new junior certificate cycle; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [51315/12]
The new framework for junior cycle is based on advice given to me by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA. Teacher organisations are represented on both the NCCA council and the NCCA's junior cycle review committee. In addition, I have established a group of education partners to discuss and support implementation of the new junior cycle. Bodies representing second level teachers are members of this group. It is intended that the group will continue to meet regularly over the eight-year phasing in period of the revised junior cycle.
We have covered the issue in previous questions. It is disappointing there was not more engagement with the teaching unions in advance of the announcement, which would have facilitated progress in junior cycle reform and engagement following the announcement. I take on board the fact that people from a second level teaching background were on the NCCA.
Nevertheless, the Minister should have engaged more with teachers given that they will be required to implement the reform.
After the Minister's announcement, the president of the Association of Secondary Teachers of Ireland, Mr. Gerry Breslin, stated the following:
Key components of the Minister’s reform plans were unknown to teachers until two weeks ago. Teachers learned about major reforms, which will impact significantly on them and their students, via the media. There is a lot of anger in schools that the views and experiences of teachers were not sought before these reforms were announced.
This was an unfortunate start to the reform process. In a short time, the proposed changes to the English curriculum will take effect and the full co-operation of teachers will be required. Has the Minister discussed his plans with representatives of the teaching unions in the period since he announced his reforms?
Let us be clear about this issue. Every organisation across the education spectrum welcomed the proposed changes in the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA. The objection raised by teachers was not to the content of the new curriculum but to the decision by me to stand down a State examination, the junior certificate examination, because I no longer considered it relevant. I made this decision because in the past we had been unable to get curriculum reforms into the classroom owing to opposition from various sectors. Both teacher unions stated specifically, with good reason and with an historical background to explain their position, that teachers would not examine their pupils on behalf of the State for a State examination. I listened carefully to their views and pondered the issue for some time. Given that Finland, Scotland and New Zealand do not have high stakes state examinations other than at the end of the six-year, second level period, I asked what purpose the junior certificate State examination was serving in this day and age. Notwithstanding that none of us wants our children to leave school at the age of 15 years, they continue to sit a State examination at that age.
I listened to the views of the two teacher unions, neither of which had an argument with the curriculum content. They argued that teachers should not examine their own pupils in the new course curriculum to which we provided a straightforward reflected response in deciding there would no longer be a State examination in the junior cycle. The only change is that teachers would be asked to do in third year what they currently do in second and fifth year of the secondary school system. The teaching unions were not consulted in advance of the announcement because they had made clear that they were not prepared to do as I have described. However, in respect of everything else they were fully engaged with the process and their representatives continue to meet my officials. I met Mr. Gerry Breslin at a function and have since received a request for a formal meeting. A preliminary meeting with the two second level teacher unions will take place soon and I expect and intend to meet them again subsequently.
The concerns of teachers were wider than presented by the Minister. They were concerned that the announcement was not accompanied by a plan setting out how teachers would be supported in bringing about the significant changes that will be needed as part of junior certificate reform. While there is no doubt about the potential to improve the curriculum, teachers must be a core part of any such change. They believe the proposals were landed on them without sufficient engagement on how the reforms would be introduced and what supports would be provided to them. Naturally, they are also concerned that they will be asked to make these changes without sufficient supports and resources being made available to enable them to do so. The Minister must hold formal meetings with representatives of second level teachers as soon as possible to resolve the outstanding issues.
I intend to do so.
It is accepted by those employed in the education sector that rote learning should be discouraged. For this reason, I welcome the move away from high-stakes State examinations at primary and junior certificate levels. However, the proposed changes must the first element of a broader reform of education. I ask the Minister whether he has considered further reform given that the cohort of students who will benefit from the revised junior certificate under whatever title it will be given will still face a high-stakes State examination by rote learning when they sit the leaving certificate. The current reform should be the first of two elements of a reform package. Will the Minister consider this matter in the overall scheme? Students, like all of us, may have a bad day and the most important examination in their life - the leaving certificate which will determine where they will go - should not be entirely based on rote learning, as is currently the case.
I agree with Deputy O'Donovan. One of the reasons we are reforming the junior cycle is the difficulty with rote learning and how all of the pressure is placed on a single day. However, some of the arguments for this are undermined if we do not also consider the leaving certificate.
Thursday's debate will be welcome, as there is some confusion among parents. They are concerned about what the reforms will mean for their children. As I told the Minister, my daughter is in fifth class and will be one of the first to sit the new revised English curriculum. From speaking with other parents, there is some confusion. Thursday's debate can be the start of the process of reassuring parents.
The Minister's statement today to the effect that he will sit down with the teaching unions is an important step. This initiative has the potential to be very reforming. We welcome the move away from a rote system of learning. The proposed system will have many benefits, but we must get it right and instil confidence as we move along.
If I may, I will address Deputy O'Donovan's comments first. In September 2011, a conference - its website was www.transitions.ie - examined the bridge between second and third levels. Three weaknesses were found. Two were on our side of the equation, as it were, and one was on the universities' side, namely, the 300% increase in offers for courses. Compared with ten years ago, the choices offered by a current CAO form have exploded. This is confusing for a 17 year old or 18 year old. Only 15% of such young people have a clear idea of what they want to do. It is an Aladdin's cave.
Subsequently, the universities undertook to consider simplifying or altering the process. This undertaking has been led by Professor Philip Nolan, president of the National University of Ireland, Maynooth. He hopes to report to me by the end of this calendar year.
On our side of the equation, the State Examinations Commission, SEC, is responsible for the formulation of exams, the questions and the marking system, which was held up as being rigid. Of the 14 different grades, at no stage in any answer is a pupil more than 2.5 points away from the grade above or below. If one mentions the right type of words in one's reply, one has ticked the box. It has come down to this level of artificial precision.
Another issue is the predictability of questions. Some teachers should work for Paddy Power. Using the pattern of past questions, they know that Heaney and Muldoon will come up and that the other eight poets on the list can be forgotten about.
With the universities, we have undertaken to do our part. We will remove the predictability. The matter is still under discussion and the Houses' committee may wish to debate it. I can arrange for someone to discuss it with Deputy O'Donovan. We will reduce the marking grade system from a grade ladder of 14 levels to perhaps seven and see how it works.
Regarding our engagement with teachers, they are a critical part of the education system, but they are not the total and exclusive group involved. Principals and deputy principals have a key role to play, as have the boards of management and the management bodies in terms of organisation and delivery. Parents are also involved at primary and post-primary levels. There must be a dialogue with all of the interested stakeholders.
We are moving cautiously and slowly to ensure that we get it right and in place in time. Some of the Deputies present are primary school teachers and know that it took approximately 20 years to change the old national school primary certificate examination. Most people, including foreigners in this country, accept that we have a top class curriculum for primary school children. They learn by discovery, as Deputy O'Brien knows from his fifth class daughter. Children cry about school these days, but only when they cannot go to school, not when they must go. This is a testimony to the curriculum compared with the old situation. We want to transfer, in so far as we can, the positive elements of this discovery away from rote learning and into the classroom.
