Vol. 870 No. 1
115. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the extent to which she continues to have dialogue with the teaching unions with a view to resolution of any outstanding issue relative to the junior certificate examinations; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8824/15]
My question seeks to ascertain the extent to which the Minister is engaged in ongoing dialogue with the teaching unions with a view to resolution of the dispute on the junior cycle and whether she expects progress to be made.
The full text of Dr. Travers's proposal document is available on my Department's website. Both sides were asked to confirm whether they accepted or rejected it as a basis for agreement. While the proposal put forward by Dr. Travers requires significant further compromise on my part, I have indicated to him that I am prepared to accept it as a basis for agreement. In doing so I acknowledged his considerable effort to achieve a fair and reasonable compromise since he was nominated for the role of independent chair by the two unions. Under the proposal, teachers are no longer asked to assess their own students for the purposes of State certification. This is a very significant measure in addressing a previous core union concern.
In not suspending their industrial action the unions have rejected the Travers proposal. I deeply regret this decision. The effect of their ongoing action is to seek to prevent teachers from participating in the continuing professional development available to give them the knowledge and support they need to do their jobs. I also regret that the unions have taken this decision without balloting their wider members on what is substantially a new proposal. No one group can be allowed to exercise a veto on educational reform. I intend to proceed with implementation of junior cycle reform based on the Travers proposal and will be working with wider education partners in so doing. I remain open to the unions revising their decision.
I congratulate the Minister, the teaching unions and Dr. Travers on the progress and successes achieved thus far. In the Minister's opinion, has sufficient progress been made to ensure the forthcoming examinations will be unaffected by the dispute? Does she expect the educational year to proceed without interruption and does she consider it is likely to be possible to achieve results given the outstanding differences?
With regard to this year's exams I welcome the fact that the unions have not set any further dates for strike action but they have not suspended their industrial action and therefore, we cannot be certain. However, it is my strong hope they will not proceed with any further action and that there will be no disruption this year. The unions will recognise that we are very close to the exams and it would be very important not to disrupt the schools.
I refer to the procedures for the new junior cycle proposals. English is the first subject and the new proposal commenced last September. Therefore, it will be more than a year before any school-based assessments are expected to be undertaken. Within that time period we should be able to address the issues around assessment. In the meantime the teachers have commenced implementation of the reforms in the classroom. Continuing professional development is available for teachers and I hope they will engage in that offer because it is designed to assist them.
I thank the Minister for her further extensive reply. Will a deadline be set for achieving targets on the remaining issues? If so, is a deadline helpful or unhelpful? In her view, will such targets will be met?
My door is open whenever the teacher unions want to reconsider Dr. Travers's proposals. I will be happy to engage with them but, as of now, I have an obligation to proceed with the reforms.
116. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Education and Skills her views on the value-for-money report and policy review of small schools, recently published by her Department; her further views on the report’s recommendations; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8834/15]
My question is to ask the Minister her views on the value-for-money report and policy review of small schools recently published by her Department, her intentions as a result of the publication of that report and mindful of the cuts which this Government has already implemented in small schools over the past four years.
I consider that the report of the value-for-money review of small primary schools provides a solid research basis for future discussions regarding small schools. It outlines the number, type and location of small schools and this information is very useful in considering any reorganisation proposals . In many parts of our country, small schools play a central part in local communities, particularly in the case of remote and isolated communities. I do not agree with the report's recommendations because they do not have sufficient regard to the question of a school's role in community sustainability. Indeed, to aid the sustainability of local communities, I recently announced improvements to the staffing schedule for some small schools as well as a voluntary amalgamation protocol for one-teacher schools with reducing enrolments. My approach is to work collaboratively with any local community that wishes to reorganise provision to achieve greater sustainability. Educational quality for pupils must be the central criterion in any proposal.
The Minister is indicating that she does not agree with many of the proposals in the value-for-money report. However, the actions of her Government over the past four years would indicate a very different view. Over that time there have been systematic cuts to the pupil-teacher thresholds in small schools. One half of the number of small schools have fewer than five teachers. I refer to the very small rowing back on retention numbers which was announced recently. This is a rowing back on a very small proportion of those cuts. Does the Minister acknowledge that those cuts have had a real impact and that they will threaten the future of many schools? Will she go the whole way - as recommended by my party in our pre-budget submission - to ensure that those cuts are reversed?
I refer to the Minister's proposals on voluntary amalgamation of schools. It would seem this Government is attempting to starve schools of funding while saying to them that if they amalgamate the funding will not be a problem. The Minister is trying to starve them into submission and forcing them to amalgamate. This is in line with her policy on small schools thus far. I ask her to comment on the underlying Government policy in this regard.
There is a difference between isolated small schools and small schools in general. This is the reason we have made a particular provision for small schools that are more than 8 km from another school. I note the importance of this provision for the communities in question.
With regard to other small schools, the approach taken in the report is dictatorial, with a requirement that they amalgamate and do other things. I am approaching the matter in a different way, the objective being to have an agreed protocol worked out between the INTO, the management bodies and the Department. It is about having a mechanism by which schools can come together where they consider, because of the size of a school and so on, that doing so would be better for their communities and offer a better service for children. The aim is to have a facility whereby local communities can begin considering, when pupil numbers fall below 25, what their options are and what is best for them. That is a better approach than forcing certain actions on communities.
The reality is that the Government is seeking the closure and amalgamation of many small schools. That is what the Department's policy has been designed to achieve. The Minister may talk about a voluntary protocol, but the protocol the Government has followed has involved cuts to pupil-teacher thresholds such that half of primary schools which have four or fewer teachers have seen posts lost and there has been no reinstatement of these posts where student numbers have increased. Alongside this, we have seen a failure to pay essential grants to these schools, grants which are even more important for smaller schools than for larger ones. That is what the Government has delivered.
The Minister talks about a conversation, communication and agreeing voluntary protocols. At the same time, however, she is saying that if the decision is made to close and amalgamate, funding will not be a problem. That is the first time any of these schools has heard this from the Minister or her predecessor. Only if they decide to close or amalgamate will funding not be a problem. In the meantime, it will be a big problem and they will be starved of resources and teachers. That is the reality. The Minister claims she is not implementing the recommendations made in the review, but, in fact, her intention is to do just as it recommends, namely, deliver the closure and amalgamation of small schools. We need a reversal of the approach which has been the hallmark of the Government in education for the past four years.
The first point to make is that we will not force any small school to close. Second, one of the reasons for the cutbacks across all Departments in recent years was the damage caused by the Deputy's party to the economy before we took office. All Departments had to cut expenditure and my Department was no exception. We have since restored some of the grants to which the Deputy referred. The minor works grant, for example, which gives a set amount to all schools, plus some more depending on the number of students, has been restored to schools, as have several other funding streams.
With regard to funding for amalgamations, if there are specific aspects whereby amalgamation requires extra funding, whether it be where there are two principals or any of the number of issues that can arise when two schools come together, it is perfectly feasible that the Department would assist in that regard.
117. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Education and Skills the status of ongoing discussions between her Department and the Data Protection Commissioner on data protection issues relating to the primary online database; and her plans to remove funding to schools for pupils whose parents do not wish to include their details in the primary online database. [8835/15]
This question refers to ongoing discussions between the Department and the Data Protection Commissioner on data protection issues relating to the new primary online database. Will the Minister elaborate on her plans to remove funding from schools for pupils whose parents do not wish to include their children's details in the database? There is much concern about how schools will be treated in terms of funding and teacher numbers where parents decline to provide the information. It behoves the Minister to do her best to clarify this issue today because there are many questions and a great deal of confusion surrounding it.
The Department has received a number of comments on and queries about certain aspects of the primary online database, POD, including the retention period for POD data and other data protection concerns. The Department is taking this feedback very seriously and considering the submissions received from parents and other stakeholders. The Department is consulting the Data Protection Commissioner's office and once this evaluation is complete, we will issue an updated circular on the POD.
From the 2016-17 academic year, it is intended that teacher allocations and capitation grants will be made on the basis of POD data. The previous basis for allocations, the national annual school census, will cease operation from that point. The Department will endeavour to work with schools and parents to help to avoid the loss of funding or resources. However, there is no mechanism for separate payment and allocation to schools for pupils that are not in the primary online database. From a practical point of view, it is difficult to see how such a system could work in practice.
I thank the Minister for her response. This issue has been poorly handled by the Department of Education and Skills from the outset. It appears as though it went about seeking this information without first clarifying and seeking authority from the Data Protection Commissioner in terms of assurances that what the Department was doing actually complied properly with the Acts. Is it correct that it is now the Department's intention to revise the circular it already has sent to schools in this regard? Yesterday, a solicitor and outspoken critic of the Department's approach, Mr. Simon McGarr, received a refusal to his FOI request on this issue because he was informed it is now the Department's intention to revise the circular it provided to schools as to how this issue could be dealt with. From the Minister's response today, am I to take it that those schools that are concerned their teacher numbers or funding may be cut because they cannot get full information from parents, who are concerned about providing this information, are correct? Am I to take it that the funding and teacher numbers of those schools could be cut if parents continue to have concerns about providing this information? In addition, the Minister should clarify what information is essential and must be provided by parents for a school to be able to get the full funding and teacher numbers it requires.
As this information will be used in the 2016-17 academic year, we have a period of time in which to address these issues. I questioned the reason the information requested under FOI was not given and I understand it was because it is normal, when deliberations are ongoing, that FOI requests are not granted. In other words, this matter remains under discussion, is not a final and set policy, if one likes, and this, therefore, is the reason the information was not forthcoming.
In general, the gathering of this information is not for any nefarious purpose but is for genuine planning purposes in the education system. We have had a POD in place at post-primary level for years and it provides useful information such as, for example, the retention figures at school. This kind of information comes out of the POD and is very useful in terms of planning and so on. People need to understand this has already been in place at all other levels, apart from further education, and that is the only purpose for which the Department of Education and Skills seeks the information.
Over time, people are becoming increasingly concerned and protective as to how personal information is provided and regarding the purpose for which it is used. Parents are aware that information gathered under the POD system, to which schools also will have access, will be retained by the Department until the child is 30 years of age. That behoves the Department to ensure the way it goes about establishing this system is done correctly. Unfortunately, what I appear to be hearing from the Minister and what Members appear to be gathering is that the circular provided to schools, on which they were asked to collect this information from parents, is now being revised because the Department of Education and Skills did not get it correct in the first place. If this is the case, it is a matter of concern. Can the Minister clarify whether this is the case? Does the Minister intend to issue another circular revising the terms and conditions for the POD and for which schools have been asked to collect this information from parents? If this is the case, why has the Minister not asked for a pause in respect of the collection of this information? It is important that this point be clarified and that reassurance be given to the many people who have concerns as to the type of information that is being gathered and how it will be kept for a significant number of years.
To answer the Deputy directly, the Department is consulting with the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner and once this evaluation is complete, the Department will issue an updated circular on the POD. I already have stated publicly I would reconsider one issue, namely, the length of time the data are held. It is one of the issues under consideration.
118. Deputy Patrick O'Donovan asked the Minister for Education and Skills in view of her reply on the carrying out of whole-school evaluations, WSE, and specifically on the physical infrastructure and conditions within schools, if she is satisfied the WSE format adequately reflects the ability of teachers to properly deliver the curriculum at primary and secondary level in view of the physical condition of the school or classroom; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8739/15]
This question relates to the carrying out of whole-school evaluations and the inspection of school buildings as part of the evaluation. The inspection is supposed to examine the teaching and learning experience. In many cases the physical conditions of many of our classrooms is a deterrent to teaching and learning.
I am conscious that the physical environments of the classroom and the school play an important role in ensuring good quality teaching and learning can take place in schools. That is why my Department is investing in building new schools and improving existing buildings.
Almost €2 billion in funding is being invested under our five-year capital plan. Almost 320 major school and over 830 small school projects have been approved to replace inadequate infrastructure and provide much needed additional capacity. Since 2012, new classroom accommodation has been delivered for more than 75,000 pupils across the country. Under the minor works grant scheme, over €28 million was approved in December to enable primary schools to undertake repair and improvement works. In addition, over 770 schools have benefited from the funding of over €70 million invested in the 2014 summer works scheme.
WSE is a robust and fair model of inspection. I am satisfied it accurately reflects the work done in schools to deliver the curriculum at primary and secondary levels. When inspectors identify serious shortcomings in school facilities, these matters are raised directly with the school authorities and brought to the attention of the Department's planning and building unit.
I know from a previous parliamentary question on this matter that three issues were raised with the Department’s building unit in respect of WSE visits which I find remarkable. While the schools building work the Department is doing is welcome, there are cases in some classrooms where five children have to move to allow one to go to the toilet. The delivery of the curriculum has to be paramount but the physical infrastructure of a school is important to do so. Many schools built multi-purpose halls several years ago. However, as their enrolment numbers have increased, they have been told by the Department to convert these rooms into classrooms by partitioning them. This impacts on the delivery of the curriculum.
The one arm of the WSE does not know what the arm of curriculum development is doing. In the course of the past 18 months, three serious issues were detected in this regard. While I accept funding is a problem, in my part of County Limerick, which the Minister knows, I can identify three issues in my parish which need to be addressed.
The main issue the Deputy has raised is the physical structure of the school buildings. A new five-year capital programme will be announced in the middle of this year. In advance of that, I will be considering the condition of school buildings around the country. I want to secure the most funding I can for this capital programme. Despite the economic difficulties, the Deputy will acknowledge that over the past five years much progress has been made with school buildings such as the replacement of prefabs, etc. This was largely under my predecessor’s watch, and I have continued.
Inspectors have, albeit only in a small number of cases, referred issues specifically to the building unit in the Department. The inspectorate’s primary purpose is around the education, learning and teaching in schools, however. That has to be its primary focus.
I agree with the Minister that the inspectorate’s main role is to evaluate teaching and learning. It still beggars belief, however, that the Department’s inspectors can close their eyes to the physical environment where children are literally wedged into classrooms. If a fire officer went into some of these classrooms in question, he or she would condemn them. In any other aspect of the public sector, I do not believe the unions would have their members working in some of these environments. While I acknowledge the work done by the Department in this regard, some school buildings are still absolutely appalling.
It behoves us as Members of the Dáil to ensure that the Minister gets the maximum amount of capital money to ensure there is a capital programme in place.
There is no point in us developing a curriculum through the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment if it is only a box-ticking, window-dressing exercise which cannot be delivered. There are schools all over the country that do not and will not have multi-purpose halls, and children are expected to do physical education, social, personal and health education, SPHE, music, drama - you name it. It is not physically possible to deliver this, yet WSEs are being carried out all over the country and for some reason the inspectors seem to think there is no problem. I agree that the teaching and learning aspect is where they are coming from but how could schools be passing WSEs all over the country when the physical infrastructure is wholly inadequate? That is where this is falling down, and if the inspectorate were empowered to do more and had a freer hand it would strengthen the Minister's hand with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.
They are not stopped from suggesting there might be physical infrastructure problems but it is not a core part of their function to examine the physical infrastructure. A lot of the money that was in the last five-year plan was allocated to address demographic factors and therefore to schools for children in areas of growing population. I understand we will have more funding in the next plan for existing schools where there is overcrowding, etc. I visit schools all time and regularly go into classrooms where I am told and can see that there is not enough space for the children. We want to focus on those areas in our next building programme.
119. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Education and Skills the reason there is no consistent policy regarding individual education plans in operation in schools for children with special needs as per the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8776/15]
There are no consistent policies regarding individual education plans operating in schools as per the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004, EPSEN. Might the Minister indicate when she is going to ensure that individual education plans become standardised and fully operational in schools?
At present, all schools are encouraged to use education plans. The departmental inspectorate's advice is that the majority of schools are now using some form of individual education planning for children with special needs. In line with circular 30 of 2014, schools are required to put in place a personal pupil plan including a care plan for all pupils availing of SNA support.
In light of the very difficult economic situation and the significant costs involved in fully implementing the EPSEN Act, the previous Government deferred the full implementation of the Act. A number of sections of the Act have been commenced, including those establishing the National Council for Special Education and those promoting an inclusive approach to education of children. However, the Act's provisions concerning individual education plans have not yet been commenced. It is intended to bring into effect many of the good ideas contained in the Act, on a non-statutory basis initially, through policy developments across a range of areas, in conjunction with the NCSE policy advice.
We have been told in this Chamber on many occasions that the Government has not cut resources in this area but, as the Minister knows well, demand has risen dramatically. The children who are now suffering the most are the new ones coming into schools. They are already starting off on a weak footing, given that there is no SNA support for children in the preschool year. Not only are they at a disadvantage at the ages of three and four, they are falling further behind because the Government is not prepared to put SNA support into the free preschool year. It beggars belief that those who most need the Minister's help are getting the least of it at this stage. We all know what early investment means and how vital it is. It would be a bit like the Government coming up with a housing policy and building some social houses but deciding to put the homeless at the bottom of the list and let them wait the longest.
On the preschool year again, there is a cross-departmental group established by the Minister, Deputy Reilly, who has responsibility for the funding of the free preschool year. My responsibility is for the educational content of the early years and I have a number of measures in that regard, which I outlined in answer to an earlier question.
There are no special needs assistants in preschool. Certain supports are provided by the HSE at that level but it is not directly under the Department of Education and Skills. It would not be within our power to establish special needs assistants in preschools.
However, in a recent circular, we indicated clearly that children who have special needs assistants must have individual care plans but it is in the school system and I think the Deputy's question was more about the preschool system.
A big problem is that the Minister is leaving much of it to individual schools and this can lead to patchy outcomes and a lack of proper planning and accountability. There is no mandatory obligation on schools to implement the recommendations of the report, as the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act has not been implemented in full and special educational needs organisers do not even attend the individual education plan, IEP, process for that reason. There is no mandatory requirement on schools to provide IEPs and many do not provide them.
A more hands-on approach is needed, as is a more centralised policy. Firmer guidance must be put in place by Government. Some schools will come up trumps, while others will not. Unless the Government is prepared to implement the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act in full, then children will continue to be left short. The Minister knows that if the money was allocated to this, it would make a massive difference to these children because they are the most vulnerable of all. They keep falling behind because the Minister argues she does not have the money to look after them.
On the question of money, in the last budget, for example, there was a considerable increase in the number of resource teachers and special needs assistants. That has been the case for a number of years and I am sure it will be the case again next year.
As the Deputy knows, the National Council for Special Education has put forward a proposed new model of allocation of resources. We will not implement that next September because we do not have all the data we require to do it properly. However, we will introduce a pilot scheme and I think that will provide us with an opportunity to evaluate the effect on individual children of the way in which the current system is implemented.
Between the general allocation model and the specific allocations that come through the National Council for Special Education, there has been a considerable yearly increase in the resources available in this area. However, I acknowledge more work needs to be done. When we have a debate on the implementation of the new model, that will allow us to take a more comprehensive approach to children with special educational needs in schools. That is what the Deputy is looking to achieve.
I agree completely with Deputy Wallace. The other issue is the number of National Educational Psychological Service, NEPS, psychologists available. I recognise the number has increased under this Government. I think it has gone back up to the 2011 number. However, when NEPS psychologists go on maternity leave or are out sick, they are not replaced. Therefore, we never have a full allocation of NEPS psychologists available and that is having an impact on the number of assessments, which lead to IEPs being put in place, that can be carried out. That area needs to be addressed.
I am glad the Deputy acknowledged we brought the numbers back up. When explaining that we would not introduce the new model this year, I announced that we would have a sort of one-stop-shop in regard to these kinds of supports. Therefore, the NEPS, the National Council for Special Education and other supports available will all be in the one area and people will not have to move around different sections of the Department to gain the support and the information they need. One of the things that struck me when consulting parents in regard to special educational needs allocations was that sometimes there is a lack of knowledge because until a parent has a child with special needs, he or she will have no reason to know this information. We need to improve the information we give to parents.
120. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Education and Skills if an analysis has been conducted to assess the impact of the reduction in the number of teachers and special needs assistants on education standards; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8830/15]
Has an audit been done on the impact of austerity on education and on the hundreds of teachers and special needs assistants taken out of schools over the past number of years by the previous Government and by this one? Will the Minister make a statement on that?
While no specific assessment, as referred to by the Deputy - although she did not use the term "austerity" in her question - has been done we measure education standards through published national and international assessment and monitoring of standards. In this regard, I have welcomed the recently published report on the 2014 national assessments of English reading and mathematics, which shows us that literacy standards have improved across the system, in both DEIS and non-DEIS schools. This is also borne out in recent international benchmarks, notwithstanding the fiscal situation. In the context of measuring education standards, the Deputy should note that SNAs are allocated to schools to enable them to support pupils with disabilities who also have significant care needs as distinct from educational needs. Any discussion about the impacts of budget measures has to be considered in the context of the over-riding requirement to stabilise the public finances and move the country onto a pathway of growth. This is the most sustainable way of protecting education standards into the future. It is important to note that additional teaching resources have been provided to schools to cater for increased demographics and also to provide for pupils with special needs. Over the last two years, teacher numbers have increased by approximately 2,300 posts. Budget 2015 includes provision for 1,700 additional teachers and SNAs in our schools in the coming school year. This is a very significant investment at a time of scarce resources. The challenge for all our schools is to maximise what is achieved with the resources that are provided to them.
There have been improvements in reading and mathematics. One principal has sent an e-mail to me asking what the reward for teachers and schools has been. It has been a continuation of cuts that were brought in by Fianna Fáil in the previous Administration, but which were then added to by the current Government, such as a 15% cut in resource teaching hours. The reversal of the cuts has not applied to teaching English as an additional language, which particularly affects areas like my own, where 25% of the population hails from outside Ireland. There has been no reversal of the resource teaching cuts for Travellers, or of cuts to the number of counsellors. While the Minister has said that there has been an increase in the last year, that in no way makes up for the cuts that have taken place since 2009. Is the Minister trying to say we are at pre-crisis levels? The basis for those cuts was that we were in a bailout situation. The Minister is saying we are in a recovery, so when will teaching staff be restored and when will SNAs be restored to pre-recession levels?
In the last two years, teacher numbers increased by 2,300 posts and the number of SNAs and resource teachers increased by 1,700. For the first time, we had an increase in the overall education budget last October. That is an indication of progress. We have gone through very difficult times, but we have turned the corner. Perhaps that indicates that some credit should be given to the Government in terms of the policy that has allowed us to recover our economic sovereignty and start putting money back into areas like education. With regard to the area of special needs, a new model has been proposed. That is under consideration. Areas like the kind of supports to be offered to children with special needs will be part of that. We will introduce it at first on a pilot basis. I will be announcing details of that shortly. It was discussed earlier. The new model will not be introduced, apart from as a pilot programme, by next September.
It is despicable that the previous Government, which brought the troika into this country, particularly targeted children, as the UNICEF report clearly indicated, and gutted the education system with, for example, 100 primary school teachers lost around that time in Dublin West. The present Government has continued to make children and education pay. For example, 98% of second level schools have had to drop subjects. Approximately two teachers have been lost per school. Class sizes are much larger, meaning that there is a mix of levels, and yet the Minister expects teachers to implement a new junior certificate regime. Subjects like accountancy, physics, economics and chemistry, which we keep hearing are essential for foreign direct investment, are the very subjects that are being dropped most in schools when cuts have to be made. Some 30% of schools are losing their guidance counsellors, which seems bizarre in a country with one of the highest levels of youth unemployment. It seems that schools and children are still being made to pay. We heard at the Labour Party conference at the weekend that austerity ended when the troika left. What an insult.
No matter how often the Deputy repeats that mantra, we have had extra teachers and SNAs-----
That is the demographic dividend.
-----and for the first time, we have seen progress in terms of international measures, in mathematics and English in particular. We have reached targets now that we were not supposed to reach until 2020. We have also been improving in terms of retention figures in schools and the number of young people who stay on until the leaving certificate. It is all very well to keep repeating these slogans, but they do no good for anybody. I am giving figures that show improvements with regard to education.
Will the Minister restore all those cuts to teachers now?
