Charlie McConalogue
Question:96. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Education and Skills the resources he is providing for the implementation of the Aistear framework; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50228/13]
Other Questions
Early Child Care Education
The purpose of my question is to ask the Minister the resources he is providing for the implementation of the Aistear framework. As he is aware, the Aistear framework was published in 2009. It was highly praised, and I joined in praising it. It is a curriculum framework for children from birth to six years and provides information for adults to help them plan for and provide enjoyable and challenging learning experiences. I ask the Minister the resources his Department is providing for the implementation and support of the Aistear framework.
My Department is supporting the implementation of Aistear through the Aistear tutor initiative and the Aistear-in-Action initiative. Through the Aistear tutor initiative, Aistear tutors (primary teachers) deliver a suite of workshops to enable junior and senior infant teachers develop their use of play as a teaching and learning methodology. To date, almost 10,000 primary school teachers and principals have participated in Aistear workshops and summer courses.Through the Aistear-in-Action initiative, the NCCA worked with Early Childhood Ireland to support practitioners in using Aistear to enrich their preschool curriculum and to develop online resources for the Aistear toolkit. The €2.75 million that will be available in 2014 for a quality support service for the early years sector means that the early years sector will have access to a professional support service to facilitate the implementation of Aistear. I have asked the NCCA to develop a practice guide incorporating the core elements of Aistear and Síolta to assist with this service.
I thank the Minister for his response. I ask him to differentiate between the curriculum supports his Department is providing in primary schools and the supports it is providing in the preschool setting also because Aistear starts in the preschool setting. It is for children up to six years of age. A serious issue is emerging in the way we are implementing and supporting that curriculum at preschool level and the consistency of its implementation at primary level. What role does the Minister's Department, as the Department of Education and Skills, have in ensuring the Aistear curriculum is happening at preschool level and not only when the child moves to primary school?
I might have to come back to the Deputy on the precise information he sought in his supplementary question because I believe I am correct in saying that the preschool delivery comes under the remit of the Minister, Deputy Frances Fitzerald, and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. There is close co-operation between the two because it overlaps from preschool to the first two or three years in primary school. I do not have the figure for the amount of money in that regard. The figure I have is €2.75 million but additional resources are going into primary schools for the literacy and numeracy strategy, which would be additional to this amount. I will get the figures and revert to the Deputy.
I have serious concerns about the level of joined-up thinking on education between the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, in terms of preschool services, and the Minister's Department in overseeing children up to the age of six in junior and higher infants. We must see much greater co-ordination in that regard because the Aistear curriculum has to be supported in preschools and it is the responsibility of the Department, as the Department of Education and Skills, to ensure that the educational curriculum is happening and being supported in the preschool year.
The preschool sector is quite young, so to speak. My party introduced the first preschool year and there has been much talk about the Government extending it to a second year. The current preschool year must be supported and key to that is the Minister's Department working closely to ensure it provides supports not only at infant and senior infant level in primary school but also at preschool level, which has been neglected to a large extent.
Preschool services have not got the support to implement this curriculum. Will the Minister engage and look at the way it is being done by his Department and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs?
I share Deputy McConalogue's concerns because, as the Minister knows, Aistear has two parts and the first part has 12 principles. It is very similar to the primary school curriculum but there are some notable additions which take place at preschool level. When one moves into the primary school setting, it is done through a curriculum whereas Aistear in the preschool setting is done through a number of themes. It is a question of how we transfer the themes being used at preschool level to a set curriculum in the primary school setting. There is a little more work to be done in how we manage that joined up approach.
I welcome the Deputies' support for this. We all look forward to the time when there will be two preschool years. There is broad agreement that is what we are aiming towards. There is no policy debate on this and it is a matter of when rather than should. It is a joined up programme from year one to year six. There is close interaction and integration and very strong co-operation between the two Departments. I am sure there is also very close co-operation in terms of the Department of Education and Skills and the support it has given to preschool teachers as well as to teachers in junior and senior infant classes. I will get more information for the Deputies and will outline exactly what is happening on the ground because I do not have all the information with me.
Student Grant Scheme Eligibility
Charlie McConalogue
Question:97. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Education and Skills if plans to include the family farm in means test assessments for third level support have now been discontinued; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50225/13]
My question is on whether plans to include the family farm in means test assessments for third level support have been discontinued and whether the Minister will comment on that. As the Minister knows, he made very public comments on this in his role as an Opposition education spokesperson and since he came into this Ministry. It is a source of great concern to self-employed people and to farming families. Once and for all, will the Minister tell us whether it is off the table?
Once and for all, it is not off the table. There is not agreement as to how it should be implemented and we are looking for agreement. It is a good time to look for agreement because the agriculture community has never done as well as it is doing currently. That means it needs both capital and more people to go into it. At the Cabinet meeting today, we were briefed by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney, that Ireland is expected to be the fastest growing milk producer when the cap is removed from the dairy sector in 2015. There will be something of the order of a 15% increase in milk yields and the farming community is currently gearing up for that prospect. There is also much increased employment in the sector, which is great news for this country because this is indigenous produce and the sector employs local people throughout the country.
Some people are in a position, because of the wealth of the families, to make a better contribution or do not need the same level of support as was previously the case, or perhaps was ever the case. As the Deputy knows, under the rules of the system drawn up, although not by my party, savings and surplus resources are not part and parcel of the assessment. Before SUSI was established, we got a telephone call from somebody who was assessing an application for a grant where a farm or a small firm had €300,000 in prize bonds. As that €300,000 was not income-based, it could not be taken into account. That kind of money is meaningful. Essential working capital for a small enterprise or a farm is essential to the operation of that enterprise but surplus funds, including savings, stocks and shares or whatever, should be part and parcel of the reckoner. That is my position and that of my party.
Large savings and funds are relevant to people who are not self-employed as well as to those who are. The Minister could do with a reality check in regard to his assessment of how well the farming community is doing. If he wishes, I can bring him around the farming community in County Donegal or in any other county.
They have just come out of the most difficult winter and spring in recent history. Many families are suffering excessive hardship as a result of that. I remind the Minister of what his colleague, the Minister, Deputy Burton, has done over the course of her tenure in the Department of Social Protection. She has removed the 30% income disregard from families on farm assist. This means that every euro a farmer makes on the farm, working hard to do so, is taken straight off his farm assist payment, which is actually the same level as the dole. I think the Minister would be well served to check that out.
When we debated the means assessment for the self-employed and the farming community at committee level, the Minister indicated to me that he did not envisage that the working capital of a business or farm - land or buildings - would be assessed against the businessperson or farmer when a decision on a grant is being made. He also indicated that the normal throughput would not be assessed in such a manner. As he has done again today, the Minister indicated on that occasion that consideration was being given to assessing high levels of savings for these purposes. That is not specific to the farming community or the business community. It is an issue across the board. I ask the Minister to remove the cloud that has been left hanging over those who are self-employed and those in the farming community by making it clear, in line with what he has said today and at committee level, that the possibility of specifically targeting them is no longer on the table.
I have no difficulty in agreeing with the Deputy. All additional moneys should be taken into account. Obviously, working capital has to be kept in reserve for the operation of a business. We are considering a model that looks at verifiable taxed income and nothing else. As long ago as the 1990s, the de Buitléir report recommended that the base of assessment should be wider from the point of view of equity. It is not a question of having something against the self-employed or targeting farmers. It is being presented as such by people who have their own reasons for doing so.
It is being presented as such by the Minister.
Not at all.
That is where this has come from.
In statistical terms, the farming community is much smaller than the self-employed community.
Absolutely.
I have consistently made that point. If it is assessed on a wider measure, rather than simply on salary or income, it can be more equitable. This would mean that more people who cannot afford to go to college will get the grants and the supports to enable them to do so. That is all that is at issue here. This is not some kind of crusade against any sector of Irish society.
I am inclined to agree with the Minister. Many small farmers in this country are in trouble and are finding it difficult to make ends meet. Sadly, the Irish Farmers Association has really only excelled in looking after bigger farmers. If the children of larger farmers who can well afford to pay for third level education are getting assistance, this must be happening at the expense of people from less well-off backgrounds, not nearly enough of whom are gaining access to education. I actually agree with the Minister in this regard.
I welcome the Deputy's support. I will be quite happy to debate this matter further at some future stage. We are trying, in the interests of fairness and equity, to see whether people can afford to make a contribution towards the education of their children - young adults in third level education - that is proportionate to what they have in total. We are taking account of the necessity for working capital in small businesses and in farms.
State Examinations
Patrick O'Donovan
Question:98. Deputy Patrick O'Donovan asked the Minister for Education and Skills in view of the increased numbers taking up higher level maths for examination at leaving certificate as a result of the reintroduction of bonus points, if he will consider a similar initiative for those students taking up applied math, physics and chemistry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50117/13]
This question relates to the success of the Department in increasing the uptake of higher level mathematics in the leaving certificate examination, which has been welcomed by employers and people working in education. I am concerned that the uptake of certain other subjects at higher level in the leaving certificate is still quite low, however, particularly in the cases of applied mathematics and physics. Given that it can be difficult for people who do not have those subjects to make the transition into university courses in areas like science and engineering, will the Department or the State Examinations Commission consider extending this initiative to those subjects?
All third level institutions collectively decided to operate a bonus points scheme for higher level mathematics for a four-year trial period from 2012 to 2015, with a review in 2014. I would like to pay tribute to the former Minister, Mary Coughlan, who led this initiative. As Deputy O'Donovan will be aware, CAO points are matters for third level institutions in the first instance. The Department has no role in calculating or awarding them.
The introduction of the new leaving certificate project maths syllabus and the provision of bonus points, has led to a welcome increase in the number of candidates presenting at higher level in the examination, up from 15.8% in 2011 to 25.6% in 2013. The target participation rate, as set out in my literacy and numeracy strategy, is 30% by 2020. I believe this target is quite achievable.
This situation will be monitored in the context of the broader work that the Department is carrying out on transitions. The issue of transition from second level to third level is a complex one. The Department is working with the HEA, the NCCA and other key stakeholders to develop a strategic, systemic response. The group is focussing on three key themes: predictability and grade banding in the leaving certificate, and broadening entry routes to third level.
It is not appropriate, at this time, to look at individual subjects, as the Deputy suggests, but rather to initially identify systemic solutions.
I appreciate that the third level institutions are responsible for the points system. However, the difficulty does not just stem from the leaving certificate and the low uptake. For instance, in 2011 only 1,000 people or thereabouts took applied maths. As I have pointed out to the Minister previously, the difficulty relates to the number of third level students dropping out between first year science to second year. The same third level institutes are accepting students into engineering and science courses with ordinary-level leaving certificate maths and biology. These students are having major difficulty and it is grossly unfair to them.
We need to recognise the level of difficulty associated with studying physics in particular. The results speak for themselves. In 2011 only 8.8% of those who did the leaving certificate examinations did higher-level physics, which was down from 10.2% in 2006. They are still tiny figures of the overall cohort. Some 1,200 jobs are being created a week, many of them in the high technology sector. If we cannot encourage people to take higher-level leaving certificate physics, applied maths and chemistry, we will have a serious problem in filling the places on third level courses, not to mention retaining them to the point at which they are conferred with the appropriate degree. While I appreciate the Minister's answer, the HEA, the Department and the third level institutes need to review this. Given that it has worked for higher-level maths and that Engineers Ireland and others, including me, regard it as a good idea, the Minister should consider introducing it across the science spectrum.
I thank the Deputy for his comments. I agree broadly with his analysis and recommendations. Young people doing leaving certificate examinations are pretty smart at navigating their way to maximise the points they believe they can get. They will take the subject choice they feel most comfortable with to get the points they are capable of getting. Good luck to them and I am thankful that we have people who can do that. The problem is for us to change the marking system and to incentivise. We know that incentivisation works as the basis of Project Maths. In terms of teaching people maths, perhaps we should be looking at the entry for primary school teachers coming into teacher colleges. It is predominantly a female profession, notwithstanding the Deputy's presence in the room as a teacher. Some young women who have done higher level maths in the junior certificate then drop to a lower level doing their leaving certificate examinations because they do not need anything higher than that. We need to get good mathematics teachers into the primary school system and the secondary school system. It is a continuum and we need to work together to do it. The evidence from the bonus points for Project Maths is great evidence on which to build.
The bonus points system for maths is an exercise in entrenching inequality in the education system. This year, 12,500 of the more than 50,000 students who sat maths in the leaving certificate examinations got an extra 25 points. Many of them just got a grade D and they are getting into courses for which they might not necessarily be equipped. That only 7% of Irish ten year olds are learning a foreign language as opposed to 75% in Britain is a stark statistic. Did the fact that Google raised this issue have more to do with this than the overall quality of education in Ireland? Does the Minister accept students coming out of the system have a very poor level of English?
We are told that the extra points for mathematics raises the standard and encourages more people in that direction, but does society benefit? In light of the report published today, which reveals that the courses with high points are almost exclusively dominated by fee-paying schools, is it not the case that people who can opt for maths, and maybe extra tuition, use that advantage? Gaelscoileanna also feature. Are we not handing over access to university for these courses, which qualify for extra points, to these schools? Does the Minister agree that the standard of maths at higher level has been dumbed down?
I do not accept the Deputy's last point, that the standard in maths has been dumbed down. It is certainly different and some of the third level teachers of mathematics who expect somebody ready to go into a very narrow channel of mathematics such as physics or engineering see a different kind of leaving certificate pupil. We run the system between the NCCA and the Department to ensure people coming out of second level education are equipped for the rest of their lives. There is a debate in that area and we could go into it at some length.
There is a mismatch, as there was for quite some time, between the graduates coming into the system in areas for ICT and what was being produced. Part of the problem was identified as a low level of uptake for higher level maths. That was identified by Engineers Ireland and a group of other employers approximately seven or eight years ago. In response, the bonus points were suggested, a decision taken and implemented by the then Minister, Mary Coughlan. There has been a dramatic increase in the uptake. It has some distorting effects, as every change in a system does. It is too early to say whether it is unjust. Young people make rational choices to maximise their points and we should understand that in the way in which some subjects are perceived to be easier than others although they get the same mark.
Summer Works Scheme Expenditure
Thomas P. Broughan
Question:99. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will provide details of the works that will be completed to schools in Dublin 5, 13 and 17 under the school works scheme, the funding for which was recently announced for 2014. [50101/13]
I welcome the restoration of the summer works scheme, the €40 million allocated to it and the €28 million allocated to the minor works scheme. If my figures are correct, I estimated at budget time that this Minister has cut the education budget by almost €1 billion over the three budgets since this Government has been in power. While this announcement is welcome, as my own trade union, the Association of Secondary Teachers of Ireland, ASTI, has said, it is to be hoped it is a return to providing the best possible resources for our children.
The Deputy will be aware of my announcement on 7 November of an additional €70 million for school improvement works. This comprises a once-off payment of more than €28 million to primary schools as part of the minor works scheme and a further €40 million to facilitate the re-introduction of the summer works scheme for 2014. The summer works scheme funding will facilitate schools carrying out small and medium-scale building works that will improve and upgrade existing school buildings. Commensurate with the level of funding set aside for the scheme, applications will be assessed in accordance with the prioritisation criteria outlined in the circular accompanying the scheme. Details are available on my Department's website www.education.ie. As the closing date for receipt of applications is 10 December next, it is not possible to provide the information sought by the Deputy. My Department expects to be in a position to notify successful applicants towards the end of February or early March 2014.
The Minister's last comments answered some of the key points about the payment. Even small works require technical expertise and, as I understand it, consultants' fees cannot be recouped, or could not be recouped previously under the scheme. Is that still the case?
To follow up on comments made by Deputies in the Technical Group about the figures for schools published today in The Irish Times, I note that the highest transfer to third level education is from the 17 fee-paying schools on the south side of Dublin. Can we be certain there will be a fair geographical spread of this funding across the north and west sides of Dublin and the whole country to ensure everybody receives a reasonable share of this allocation?
The adjustments that had to be made in my Department, given my Department and the Departments of Social Protection, Justice and Equality, and Health are the four Departments that are the big spenders, and to make the corrections necessary-----
I do not agree they are corrections or adjustments; they are anything but.
Reductions, cutbacks - whatever the Deputy wants to call them.
They have left the education system struggling.
The Deputy should allow the Minister to respond.
What I have tried to do has been to protect front-line services as far as possible, which in response to Deputies Daly and Broughan, was-----
It is not an either-or.
Order, please.
I am sorry, but I do not like hearing these dead mantras from-----
The Deputy is taking up the Minister's time.
Fee-paying schools have had their pupil-teacher ratio significantly disimproved relative to what it was for the past 20 years. The burden of carrying the adjustment, correction or bailout - whatever the Deputy wants to call it - is, at the end of the day, putting a hand into somebody's pocket to take money out when they can least afford it, in order to regain our economic sovereignty. We have not fully recovered that yet but we are in a better place, as indicated by today's unemployment figures and other figures. Given a growing national population in the education space, we have tried to protect the delivery of front-line services and we will continue to do so.
I too welcome the fact there will be a minor works grant and a summer works scheme this year. The fact the Minister discontinued it last year left a lot of schools in a very difficult situation. The CPSMA, which is the management body for 90% of primary schools, indicated that half of our primary schools are in debt. Fund-raising events are taking place left, right and centre in every parish in the country, whereby families who are the most hard-pressed section of society, and who are trying to put their children through school, are being asked to cough up to make up the deficit. Will the Minister give a commitment that the funding will be here to stay next year and that he will not discontinue it again after this once-off funding which he has indicated he is allocating?
Given we are still in the calendar year for this budget and the next budget is going to kick in later, I am not in a position to make that commitment. I can tell the Deputy the indicators would suggest that any adjustments in the education budget, downwards or otherwise, will probably be less next year than they were this year. However, we will have to wait and see because there are a whole lot of variables that play into that.
The great thing about the parental and community engagement in Irish education, relative to other countries, can be seen in regard to even a small grant. I was in two schools in Cork on Friday where a mainstream grant had been made available rather than a minor works grant or small schools grant. In one case, this allowed for a building extension replacing five prefabs, and the parents were so happy to see this happening that the money leveraged a total sum of which 25% came from the parents and 75% came from the taxpayer. That is because of the relationship in this country between parental and community groups and the local school. This money can, on occasion, work to get children out of prefabs, which were a scandal. We should never have had young people in prefabs for the length of time they were in them. At the height of the Celtic tiger, 20% of all primary school children were in prefabs, which are now surrounded by ghost estates.
School Patronage
Catherine Murphy
Question:100. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he intends to change the status of a school (details supplied) from that of a multidenominational school to that of a Catholic ethos; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the school is not regarded as a denominational school; if his further attention has been drawn to the fact that the school is seen an inclusive school that welcomes all needs, all creeds and none; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that there are no church representatives on the board of management; the role the board of management and the VEC play in changing the ethos of an existing school; in the event that the school is now designated a Catholic school, the knock-on effect this will have on enrolment policy in terms of priority given to children of a particular faith; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50300/13]
Maynooth post-primary school currently has 1,300 pupils. It is a very successful school educationally from the point of view of inclusiveness and it is a unifying force within the town. The decision was made recently that its footprint was too small and it is to move to a new educational campus. The decision was made to create a second school - a community college - but also to change the ethos of the post-primary school from that of a multidenominational school to that of a Catholic school. Who has the power to make that decision? Is it the Department, the board of management, the VEC, the parents or a combination of these?
The school to which the Deputy refers is a non-designated community college under the patronage of the local education and training board, as the VECs are now known. Non-designated community colleges have a multidenominational ethos and cater for pupils of all faiths and belief systems.
The Department is not in receipt of any application from the patron to change either the patronage or the ethos of this school. I understand that while the school historically had the services of a Catholic chaplain provided by the Archdiocese of Dublin, this has not been the case in recent years.
I also understand that the faith background of pupils will not be a factor in any way under the enrolment policies being developed for this school and the new post-primary school being commenced in the area in question.
I spoke to the CEO of the VEC in respect of this because a number of parents contacted me who were concerned about what they understood to be a re-designation of the school as Catholic with the new school being a multidenominational school with an intake from a variety of different sources, some of them outlying schools. The only conclusion I could draw from the conversations I had was that there had been a re-designation. The Minister is clearly telling me that this is not the case and that the school will continue to be a multidenominational and inclusive school and that the new school that will stand side by side with it will have pretty much the same ethos. Is this what I am to understand from the Minister's reply? If the ethos is to be changed, who has the power to do this because, obviously, the nature of the school would fundamentally change if it were to cease being a multidenominational school?
The current system pertains to where the Department identifies the need to replace an existing school or build a new school. If the existing patron of an existing school applies for and is granted moneys for the building of a new school, the patronage will stay as it was previously. Where a new school is to be provided because of the growing population, the Department identifies the necessity in absolute terms as to the provision of space. It then invites patron bodies to express an interest in running that school. My role in respect of the new schools establishment group is to ensure the existence of two things: a diversity of choice in respect of the patronage and ethos and manifestation of parental preference. If there are existing schools and if parental choice for a new school of a different patronage is manifested by the patron group, and there are rules and concerns about how that should function, that is only way in which it can be decided. A school cannot unilaterally change its ethos or patronage without getting clearance from the Department of Education and Skills.
I thank the Minister for providing two new 1,000 pupil schools in Maynooth. Is he aware that the agreement reached between the parents in Maynooth and the Minister concerning the common enrolment policy has, in effect, been set aside by the VEC which has produced two separate enrolment policies? Is he aware of the disappointment and anger felt by parents regarding this decision? Will he intervene to ensure his decision stands in both the letter and spirit of that agreement between the Minister and the parents?
I am not aware either officially or informally of such a change. It has been brought to my attention in this House by both Deputies from the constituency. I will make my inquiries. The arrangement that was made in response to a local expression of community interest was the best that could be made that met the desires of the maximum number of people. If both Deputies are telling me that this has been unilaterally changed and that they have received complaints to that effect, I will make inquiries.
School Enrolments
Clare Daly
Question:101. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Education and Skills his views on whether it is appropriate for schools to request payment of a registration fee every year; and the measures he proposes to deal with this situation. [50116/13]
Thomas P. Broughan
Question:127. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the changes that will be made by his Department through legislation and guidelines to admissions policies in primary and post-primary schools here. [50102/13]
I am aware the Minister is bringing in a new enrolment policy to synchronise things across the system. This question relates to where parents are asked to pay money upon registering their children, not necessarily in terms of enrolling them but for subsequent years. Does the Minister have any plans to deal with that?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 101 and 127 together.
Recognised schools in the free education scheme have teaching resources and other funding allocated to them on a different basis from those schools that charge fees. Continued eligibility for such funding arrangements are contingent on a school not requiring mandatory fees or payments from existing pupils or from those seeking admission to the school. Therefore, it is inappropriate and contrary to my Department's requirements that a recognised school, other than a recognised fee-charging school, would require payment of a yearly registration fee as a condition of continued enrolment in that school. This is an issue that is addressed in the recently published draft legislation before the Oireachtas Committee on Education and Social Protection which will regulate these matters in a manner that has not been the case. This framework also seeks to improve the admissions process and ensure the way schools decide on applications is structured, fair and transparent.
I thank the Minister for his response. The statement was very strong. It is the case that a number of a schools are operating quite a skilful approach in a letter which appears to state that parents must register sons and daughters by a certain date and that there is a fee attached in a way that essentially blackmails or compels them to pay the money or where they feel compelled to pay the money. The way the Minister clarified it here can be of benefit to those parents who do not want to go along with that type of approach in these austere times.
Schools are entitled to a voluntary contribution and many parents are happy to pay it if they are in a position to do so. Of the 730 post-primary schools, only 55 are fee charging. There are no proposals to increase this number. In fact, inquiries are being made by some fee-charging schools as to whether they will enter the free education scheme. Under no circumstances can a school in the mainstream, non-fee-charging sector where it receives money from the Department - taxpayers' money, not the Department's money - charge compulsory contributions or fees of whatever kind.