Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jul 2013

Vol. 809 No. 3

Priority Questions

Special Educational Needs Services Provision

Charlie McConalogue

Question:

1. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Education and Skills his views on whether children qualifying for a special needs assistant this coming September will experience reductions in their allocated special needs assistant hours due to the continuance of the cap on numbers at a time when the number of students qualifying for special needs assistant support has increased by 10%; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32544/13]

Contrary to the Deputy's public expressions in recent days, I can confirm that there has been no reduction to the overall number of SNA posts for the coming school year.

This provision remains at 10,575 posts - the exact same amount as last year. Let me be very clear - children who qualify for access to SNA support for the coming school year will receive access to this support on precisely the same criteria as they did last year. There has been no change in the method or criteria on which SNAs are allocated. As a result, there is no cut and no changed policy decision on SNA allocations for me to reverse as Minister for Education and Skills.

It is important to note however, that the level of SNAs required to support children with special educational needs changes from year to year in line with the enrolment of different children with different care needs. The care needs of individual children can also change from year to year. The NCSE takes these factors into account when allocating SNAs to schools. It is therefore not accurate to say a change in a school's SNA allocation has anything to do with budget cutbacks or policy changes.

In June 2012 the NCSE reported that the number of children requiring support for the 2012-13 school year was in the order of 20,000 and the most up-to-date current figures show that for December 2012, there were 21,972 accessing SNA support. This is the 10% increase being cited by Deputy McConalogue but the education system seems to have operated perfectly well and has coped with these demands over the past six months.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

Indeed, the NCSE has advised me that while it has had to work within the cap introduced by the previous Government in 2010 for three years, it has always had surplus capacity at the end of each academic year. I am confident that the system will be sufficiently resourced in order to be able to meet the demands placed upon it in the coming school year.

I call Deputy McConalogue, who has one minute.

I thank the Minister for his response. This is an issue we discussed on Private Members' business last week. At the outset I express my disappointment that neither the Minister nor a Minister of State from the Department of Education and Skills was present for the second day of that debate. In my experience that is unprecedented in the conduct of Private Members' motions. Parents of children with special needs were present in the Visitors Gallery. There was a protest just outside the gates in which parents of children with special needs came to express their dissatisfaction with the Minister's approach to the issue. The combined groups of parents involved issued a statement afterwards outlining how the policy the Minister is pursuing of keeping the cap the same at a time when there is a 10% increase in demand is leading to cuts.

The Deputy is wrong.

The cap is remaining the same and there is a 10% increase in demand. Those are two facts. That means there is a reduction in hours available to individual children who need to avail of an SNA-----

-----because they now have to share those SNAs with more children, meaning there are fewer hours available to them.

I am disappointed the Minister is not acknowledging that is the impact it is having on the ground - it is leading to a cut for many children. I ask him to acknowledge that and apply the same-----

-----treatment to SNAs as he did to the issue of resource teachers-----

------where he actually increased the number of teachers available there.

The Minister has one minute to reply.

I ask the Acting Chairman to clarify the times for Priority Questions.

I think there is more time than that.

I believe for Priority Questions there is more time.

I am going with what I am advised.

I understand that, but I-----

The Minister has two minutes to reply followed by one minute, one minute, one minute and one minute.

Is that for Priority Questions as distinct from ordinary Oral Questions?

For Priority Questions I thought there was more.

They have all changed, yes.

I would be happy to write to the Deputy setting out what is contained in the reply because if I am to obey the Chair, I do not have the time to give him the full reply.

I am happy to indicate there has not been the reduction in supply he suggests because the demand has not increased as he has alleged. It was not brought to my attention by any of the education partners that there was a shortage of SNAs in recent months despite the increase in pupil numbers in the system. I do not know how many times I have to say that to the Deputy. He has taken two statistics, seen a 10% increase and presumed that meant a similar increase in supply was required in order to meet that demand. That has not been manifest in the system and even to this year, the allocation so far from the NCSE is below the 10,575 figure because the reserve has been kept.

In his final reply I ask the Minister to outline why neither he nor one of his Ministers of State was available to be present in the Dáil last Wednesday night for the debate on the Private Members' motion.

I would be pleased if the Minister could provide some evidence to back up his case. So far we have seen nothing in that regard from him other than an assertion that there has been no cut. We had the same assertion from the Minister and the Tánaiste here in the Dáil that there was no cut in resource teachers and we saw the about-turn the Minister did on that when he admitted there was a cut and he brought forward 500 additional teachers. He is still keeping up this pretence without offering any evidence to show it is not having an impact on the ground. I ask him to enlighten the Dáil today as to what the average hours each child, who avails of an SNA, will get in September as opposed to what it was last September. That might clarify whether students are getting fewer hours' access to an SNA as a result of the 10% increase in demand.

If the Deputy will not take my word for it, I can only draw his attention to the statement released by the National Parents Council last week which stated: "Parents should have no fears regarding the allocation of SNA support. If a child has been assessed as requiring SNA support then an allocation has been provided for the coming year".

Does the Minister have any explanation as to why he was not present last Wednesday night?

I had other commitments. Unfortunately the Minister of State, Deputy Cannon, was not available because he was sick and the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, was out of the country.

Back to School Costs

Jonathan O'Brien

Question:

2. Deputy Jonathan O'Brien asked the Minister for Education and Skills his plans to implement the recommendations of the Oireachtas Select Committee on Education who have proposed that pupils should not be obliged to wear crested uniforms and schools should end the practice of using work plans and if he will present a timetable for when these measures will be implemented. [32342/13]

My Department will carefully consider the joint committee's report on tackling back-to-school costs which was published last week.

Tackling the costs associated with school is a major priority of mine. I have recently issued guidance on schoolbook rental schemes. I have also raised the matter of school uniforms informally with the National Parents Council at primary level recommending that it and the National Parents Council at post-primary level mobilise parents' associations to raise this issue with school authorities. I agree with the joint committee's view that more must be done at school level to show greater leadership in this regard.

It is important that all schools are sensitive to the financial pressures on parents not only with regard to school uniforms or books but in respect of any matter that has cost implications for parents. Therefore, I join the call to urge individual schools, boards and patrons to ensure that any steps recommended for schools in the report are implemented as soon as possible.

This issue has been raised on numerous occasions in the Chamber. We have been told consistently that the issue of school uniforms is a matter for individual boards of management.

I welcome the fact the Minister said we need leadership on this issue, but I believe we need leadership from the Minister as well. I imagine the Minister is well aware that under the 1998 Act he has the power to issue recommendations on this or any other matter. This was last done in 2008 in respect of school uniforms. The recommendations issued in 2008 were not exactly progressive. One of the recommendations made for the current system was that school uniform policy should be left to schools, as before. However, the Minister has the power, by virtue of being Minister, to issue recommendations to change that. It is unfair to say that it is up to parents to mobilise. I understand that must be part of the process but the first step should involve the Minister issuing recommendations to various boards of management.

The other issue relates to voluntary contributions. The Department's discussion document on enrolment envisages the matter of voluntary contributions being regulated by secondary legislation. Are there any proposals by the Minister or the Department to introduce legislation on this issue?

I am very supportive of the recommendations of the joint committee. As Deputy O'Brien is aware, they were all-party recommendations. I will be studying the report carefully and I will consider whether it is appropriate for me to make a formal recommendation. I have stated repeatedly during the past two years that in the first instance it is a role for parents, who are represented on the boards of management of schools, to move in the direction suggested in the report.

I hope to have the draft enrolment legislation and the statutory instruments ready fairly soon and to publish them. I will deal with that issue in draft form in the publication when it is ready.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Can we get a commitment that if the schools, boards of management and patron bodies do not take on board the recommendations, then the Minister will actively pursue issuing his own recommendations as the powers vested in his office allow? I offer one example of a school in Cork which was recently amalgamated. Prior to the amalgamation there was a consultation process with the parents. One of the outcomes of the consultation process involved a commitment given in respect of school uniforms such that they would be phased in over several years, because of the additional costs. That was agreed but, unfortunately, it has been reneged on. I have before me a letter from one parent who has three children attending the newly amalgamated school. One of them is in sixth class and that student must get a crested uniform, a crested coat and a crested tracksuit at a considerable cost for one year only. A letter was sent out by the board of management stating that if students do not have the full uniform there will be consequences.

I will pass on information to the Minister but there is a lack of recommendations coming from the Department and this is the result. Individual boards of management are taking ludicrous decisions when it comes to school costs and I have no faith in the ability of individual boards of management to take on board the significant financial pressures that parents find themselves under.

All I can say is that since the foundation of the State, and even going back before then, a partnership has existed between the State and school providers and educators. The Department at national level does not micro-manage individual schools. We have endorsed the role of the National Parents Council at primary and post-primary levels.

With all due respect I am not passing the buck but that is the body to which those aggrieved parents should write in the first instance. It is understandable why the people wrote to Deputy O'Brien. I presume they were his constituents. I have met the National Parents Council at primary and post-primary levels and I will certainly take up the issue with them. However, ultimately, all I can do is make a recommendation. It will be for the boards of management, on which the parents are represented, finally to decide.

School Curriculum

Maureen O'Sullivan

Question:

3. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Education and Skills in view of the serious concerns regarding the subject of history in the proposed reform of the junior certificate, if he will consider including history as a compulsory subject. [32343/13]

Under the new framework for junior cycle, schools will design programmes to reflect not only the key skills and statements of learning of the framework but also to reflect teacher qualifications and the identified needs of students. All junior cycle students will be required to study English, Irish and mathematics. Thereafter, schools will have the flexibility and autonomy to offer short courses and to choose from 18 other subjects, including history.

The vast majority of schools already offer history. More than 90% of students choose history although it is compulsory in only half our schools. Curriculum choice is important in motivating students to learn and to remain in school to completion of senior cycle. Overall, I am in favour of leaving the decision on what is offered at the discretion of each school. I emphasise the fact that 90% of all second level students are taking history.

I thank the Minister for the reply. No doubt there is much alarm and disquiet among those in the History Teachers Association of Ireland, among people who teach history at third level, like Professor Diarmaid Ferriter, and people within the history industry such as Catriona Crowe from the National Archives of Ireland, at the way in which they see history being downgraded under these proposals.

We all believe that history should be taught as a full subject over a substantial period and in a chronological framework and that it should be seen as part of the core curriculum. What the Minister is suggesting as part of the new proposed junior certificate is the same as the way in which history is taught in transition year in a modular way. The Minister stated that each student will value local, national and international heritage. That is part of what happens in transition year. For example, a particular person, a particular event or a particular organisation might be examined. My school has studied the role of women in 1913 and in 1916 in particular.

The History Teachers Association of Ireland met the Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection. A very involved, frank and open discussion took place. Did the officials report back to the Minister? Is the Minister in a position to take on board what was discussed at that meeting?

As it happened I saw some of the debate that took place with the committee in the House. I am sympathetic to the study of history right through to sixth year, as are 90% of students who study the subject. I cannot quite understand why history teachers are so fearful that their subject is suddenly going to be abandoned. As Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan will be aware from her professional background, in the traditional free voluntary sector the subject is compulsory in many schools. However, throughout the entire spectrum of the 723 post-primary schools in the country it is not compulsory, yet 90% of pupils study it. There is clear evidence to suggest that if the curriculum, in terms of what is required to be studied by different students, is too prescriptive and does not allow for different interests to be expressed, then there would be early departures from the system. That would be a negative effect that I have no wish to bring about either. Anyway, I have every conference in the interest that Irish people have in history to ensure that the vast bulk of them will continue to study the subject, but not only as a project in transition year. That is not the intention. What the History Teachers Association of Ireland should do is engage actively with the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment to discuss how their concerns can be addressed within the new curriculum.

The fact that up to now 90% of students have chosen the subject is no guarantee that under the proposed framework that will continue to be the case. We have something that is working, so why try to reinvent it? There is no doubt that the junior certificate history programme needed reform, especially in second year. However, the fear remains that it will not convey all the skills involved with the teaching of history, including literacy, numeracy, analysis, critical thinking and the question of how can we know who we are as a people unless we know where we have come from. It is also important in terms of teaching bias and the role of the media. I do not believe all of that will come across under the new proposal. We have seen the example in England, where changes were introduced. Someone made the point that when Margaret Thatcher died no one from a certain generation knew who she was. Perhaps that is not a bad thing, but nevertheless a certain point was being made.

The whole thrust of the junior cycle reforms serves to bring a holistic approach to teaching at second level, which we do not have at present.

If one meets primary school teachers, they will tell one they are teachers and that they teach children. However, I have heard too many secondary school teachers state they are history, chemistry or science teachers. It is precisely because of this silo concentration manifested by some, not all, teachers that we are trying to have a holistic approach to the curriculum at second level in order that it is similar to that at primary level. In that context, the use of history for a variety of differing learning outcomes will mean it retain its current primary role. The History Teachers Association of Ireland certainly has articulated these concerns and all I would say to those teachers is to engage productively with the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, to work with it and to ensure the core values of an historical education are retained within the new curricular development. While I do not believe there is any conflict there at all, I recognise many teachers are fearful and I wish to address those fears.

While the suggestion of engaging with the NCCA is positive, I note the theme of a recent conference of the History Teachers Association of Ireland was whether school history would survive the Decade of Commemoration. It would be ironic if, in 2022, there were classes of young people who did not know what were those decades. I also wish to make a plea for geography, even though I was not involved in it, as they are two core subjects.

As 92% of all students study geography, for the life of me I do not understand what are the Deputy's fears in this regard. Is it that because the curriculum will be improved, the two most popular subjects which are taken voluntarily - nearly in the main - suddenly will disappear off the curriculum?

I am not convinced it will improve.

Student Grant Scheme Administration

Charlie McConalogue

Question:

4. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Education and Skills the number of Student Universal Support Ireland applications for 2012-13 still to receive a final answer; the number of appeals outstanding; the steps he has taken to ensure students are not refused access to examination results due to not having a final answer on their grant application; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32545/13]

I understand from Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, that there are 133 cases in which a decision on an application has not yet been made. A number of difficult and complex cases arise every year in the course of administering the scheme. I am assured by SUSI that communication with applicants in these cases is being afforded priority to ensure they are brought to conclusion expeditiously. A total of 492 or 6% of appeals remain to be decided in the SUSI appeals process. I understand from SUSI that these cases are within the 30-day limit prescribed by legislation and are being afforded the highest priority.

As for the payment of fees, where a student has informed the institution that a decision is awaited from the grants system, I understand that SUSI has in place a facility allowing institutions to liaise with it directly to confirm the status of an individual application in order that students can access their examination results.

At the outset, I wish to recap precisely what the experience with SUSI has been. In the past year, more than half or approximately 20,000 students did not get paid their first grant instalment until the new year. Parents and families have experienced exceptional hardship in a difficult time with the single biggest cause of hardship being the mishandling by the Minister and his Department of the nationalisation and centralisation of the system for administering grants. In addition, the Government has claimed repeatedly throughout that process that the students were at fault by not providing documentation. This was the standard response to which they were obliged to listen whenever they came up against the wall of not getting an answer regarding their grant applications.

The current position, after examinations are finished, is that almost 500 students remain within the appeals system and 133 students still await a decision. In many such cases, these students are having difficulty in accessing the examination results. I will provide the Minister with one particular example, in which a postgraduate student was not able to access either the examination result or the college facilities to complete the dissertation. This is the type of grief students have been obliged to experience this year as a result of the difficult situation they have encountered.

I thank Deputy McConalogue.

As for the remaining cases, can the Minister clarify further what precisely is the position with regard to them getting their examination results? Can the Minister give Members a deadline as to when they all will be cleared and will have final answers?

In respect of the case the Deputy has just cited about a postgraduate student not being able to access the results, that postgraduate student would never have been a client of SUSI. Consequently, SUSI has nothing to do with the difficulties in which that person finds him or herself because SUSI only addressed first-year students who applied for the first time. SUSI only came into operation for undergraduates last year for the first time. The rest of those students were dealing with 66 separate bodies that were brought together. Incidentally, they were not nationalised. The Deputy's County Donegal colleague brought in the legislation to combine all the separate 66 individual grant-aiding bodies. In many cases, the actual performance was worse than the average outcome. There is a problem with SUSI, which is the reason a special study was made of it and is the reason I am making available additional resources. Three senior staff members are coming in, as well as 23 whole-time equivalent posts to process the material. However, if there are outstanding people who have not received a decision from SUSI but who have completed all the information SUSI needs to make a decision, I will make that inquiry and will revert to the Deputy.

In his response, the Minister has just shown how he has completely failed to handle this issue since he introduced the SUSI system. He has just told me SUSI is not responsible for handling postgraduate students when it is responsible and has been dealing with it since last September. This is the very body the Minister set up but one year later, he stands here still not understanding exactly with what it must deal. SUSI has been dealing with maintenance grants for undergraduate students and has been dealing with fee grants for postgraduate students.

Sorry, the Deputy is correct. I withdraw my comment.

I thank the Minister but in his response, the Minister has displayed his lack of a handle on this issue since the outset. He has shown he does not understand there could be a postgraduate student who only got sorted out in the last couple of days. In the case I cited to the Minister, a postgraduate student has not been able to access that individual's college facilities to complete the requisite dissertation as a result of the way these issues have been handled. The Minister was unaware that SUSI even dealt with such issues.

I had temporarily forgotten.

Can the Minister give Members a final deadline as to when those students who already have completed their examinations and whose examinations already have been corrected will finally receive an answer from SUSI, the body the Minister has established and of which he has made a mess? Can he give Members an answer as to when the students will get an answer on whether they qualify for a grant?

First, I did not make a mess of SUSI and a mess has not been made of SUSI. SUSI was obliged to start from a base in which certain things had to be learned and the body that undertook this project, the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee, encountered start-up difficulties, which I have recognised. As for the questions the Deputy has just raised, I have been assured by the Higher Education Authority, HEA, that all the colleges have special assistance programmes to assist financially and otherwise students who are disadvantaged as a result of not being able to access the grants to which they are entitled. I have been told by the HEA that additional resources were made available to the various colleges where that was necessary. If someone has had the experience the Deputy has described, and I do not doubt the accuracy of what the Deputy is saying, then redress was available for the person at the time. If the Deputy wishes to provide me with the details, I certainly will find out what happened. While I will take the queries the Deputy has raised to SUSI as it currently is and will get specific responses for the Deputy, with more than 60,000 students I cannot give to the Deputy the kind of assurance that each one of these 60,000 cases most definitely will be dealt with expeditiously, when this never was the case when there were 66 different awarding bodies.

Special Educational Needs Services Provision

Catherine Murphy

Question:

5. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Education and Skills how he expects to update the plan for implementation of the Education For Persons with Special Educational Needs, EPSEN, Act to prioritise access for children with special needs to an individual educational plan in view of the reduction in such services in recent years and the increase in demand; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32499/13]

The recently published National Council for Special Education, NCSE, policy advice on supporting children with special educational needs acknowledges the current economic climate makes it unlikely the Government will be able to implement EPSEN in the near future. However, the NCSE report makes recommendations on how changes might be introduced, including in respect of individualised planning for students, which brings EPSEN implementation closer. The report recommends that additional teaching and special needs assistant, SNA, care supports allocated to schools should be deployed on the basis of individualised educational plans, which demonstrate the requirement for this support and the way in which it will be used to benefit the student.

The report makes 28 detailed recommendations which are interesting and significant. They deserve in-depth and detailed examination and exploration. I have asked my Department to review carefully the recommendations, including the recommendation relating to individualised education planning, and to report back to me on them.

I understand from the Inspectorate of my Department that the majority of schools already use individual education planning to support children with special needs and the Department currently supports schools in the use of individualised planning through policy guidance, support, training and inspection.

I wish to advise the Deputy that the level of resources devoted to supporting children with special educational needs has been maintained at €1.3 billion this year. This includes provision for 10,575 special needs assistants, SNAs, and nearly 10,000 learning support and resource teachers. These resources have been protected despite the ongoing severe financial position.

I understood this issue would be one of the key priorities in the programme for Government and it is disappointing to say the least that from what I hear from the Minister it is unlikely to happen within the lifetime of this Government. The SNA is an important aspect of the individual educational plan but it appears that a fragmented approach is being taken to many other areas, and that is not entirely within the Minister's own remit. For example, sometimes children will require speech and language therapy. I am dealing with a school where the Health Service Executive has refused to provide the service within the school, which is a special school, and the children have to be marched down to the health board.

Other ancillary issues arise. For example, the Department of Children and Youth Affairs has provided the early child care preschool year but the children who find it the most difficult to take up that year are those who require an SNA or other supports. A fragmented approach is being taken. Is there a linkage between the HSE and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs regarding those aspects? Are there any prospects of at least pulling them together under one centralised system?

The original Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act was very ambitious in its objectives, as everybody recognised at the time, and when it was commissioned by the previous Government it was not all commissioned at the same time because of resources. My struggle at the moment, as the Deputy and other Deputies in the House are well aware, is trying to minimise the reductions I have to deliver to meet this country's overall budgetary targets while we remain under the supervision of the troika. However, leaving aside that broader view, there is also the internal operational difficulty of the co-operation between the HSE on the one hand and the education providers on the other, which has not been satisfactory and probably never has been satisfactory if truth be told. I can communicate with my colleague, the Minister for Health, on this matter but I know there are difficulties operationally on the ground in that we cannot force the HSE to deliver the speech therapy services in the special needs school to which she refers. All I can do is take details of it from the Deputy and see if we can get the delivery of those services, which is within the skills remit of the HSE and not the Department of Education and Skills, to the point where they are most effectively delivered.

It is often the case that when adults fight with each other the children are the losers in terms of the delivery of these services. I will pass on the information to the Minister on the particular case but it is not the particular case I want to highlight. Very often this is a postcode lottery, so to speak. The National Council for Special Education and the special educational needs organiser, SENO, will only be as good as the resources available in any given area. Where they are deficient in an area or where there is a dispute, that is where children run into difficulty. It is critical that the relationship between the HSE and the Department of Education and Skills is addressed and got right but I agree with the Minister. I do not believe it has ever functioned properly.

I share the Deputy's point. As we know, there is a massive reorganisation going on in the health services but prior to that reorganisation when the HSE was established there was dissatisfaction from many of the people who were trying to access a holistic service for children with special educational needs. Great progress was made by different Administrations in regard to the education side of the equation but it is fair to say that not the same progress was made on those aspects of the service that came from the health sector side.

Top
Share