Thomas Byrne
Question:32. Deputy Thomas Byrne asked the Minister for Education and Skills the progress of the schools major capital works plan. [1899/17]
Other Questions
Schools Building Projects
I am looking for a general update on the schools capital programme. A schools capital programme was announced in 2015 with huge fanfare. That fanfare was not the Minister's fault but it only returns capital spending to pre-2011 levels by 2019 so we have a good bit to go. What also concerns me is the cost of projects. While this had gone down during the recession, it seems that it is going up. What, if anything, can be done about this?
I am pleased to advise the Deputy that my Department's capital programme continues to address the challenge posed by a rapidly increasing school population. To meet this demographic challenge, my Department's six-year construction programme for 2016-21 details 310 school projects that are being progressed through the architectural planning process towards tender and construction. The programme will fund the construction of over 62,000 additional school places as well as the completion of large-scale projects that were contained in my Department's five-year plan from 2012 to 2016. I also wish to advise the Deputy that in the four-year period from 2012 to 2016, 178 large-scale projects contained in the programmes were completed, including 50 school projects in 2016. These projects provided 52,062 additional permanent school places and 14,951 replacement school places.
Of the total capital expenditure of €530 million expended on the school building programme in 2016, almost 80% of the expenditure was on the delivery of permanent school places. On 1 January 2017, there were 67 major projects under construction. In addition, there are a further 35 school projects that are expected to proceed to construction in the course of the year. This represents a total of 102 major projects either under construction or progressing to commence construction in 2017.
As the Deputy will appreciate, the success of the schools building programme is predicated on the need to ensure that at any given time, there are sufficient number of school projects available to proceed to construction. If this is not the case, there is the risk that capital monies made available for the purpose of accommodating children at primary and post-primary level cannot be spent and that the State cannot provide for school buildings at maximum capacity. Given that any number of issues can arise at any stage up to construction stage in the process of building schools, it is essential that other projects can be progressed if individual projects are delayed for whatever reason. This can also however have the contrary result that there may be more school projects available to proceed to construction than the available budgetary position will allow.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The action plan for education sets out the Government ambitions for the education system, including the commitment contained in the programme for Government, towards the prioritisation of school educational infrastructure.
My Department will fully engage with the mid-term capital review to be conducted by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform over the coming months. In doing so, my Department will be stressing the increasing costs of providing permanent school accommodation and the opportunities which the school building programme presents for productive capital expenditure in this much needed area of the economy.
I acknowledge that school building is taking place. I suppose it is a long time since the Department was not building schools in some part of the country. My children's school is the subject of major capital works and we are very pleased about that. However, building has stalled in the case of some schools for reasons that are unfathomable in many cases and this is wrong. What happens is that the Minister publishes a list, local announcements are made by Government politicians, everyone is delighted and then there is radio silence and nobody knows what is going on. That is partly the Department's fault. It might be the school's fault in some cases because some people might know what is going on or there is a problem that is not the Department's fault, but nobody knows that publicly enough. Whitecross National School in Julianstown in County Meath has been sitting on a list for the best part of ten years. As recently as two or three years ago, it was promised that it would be built. I understand the Minister of State, Deputy Halligan, responded to a Commencement Matter on the issue in the Seanad recently.
It is just not fair. The parents simply do not know what is happening. While it is not entirely the Department's fault, St. Peter's Church of Ireland school in Dunboyne has just been left hanging there for some time. We want to see real action. I acknowledge there has been some progress. In general the Minister will need to fight to frontload some of this spending in the next year or so. The need is there now and the Minister needs to look for alternative funding sources.
I will give an overview of the additional places. In 2012 just over 3,000 additional places were provided. In 2013 it moved up to 8,000 and for last year it was over 15,000. Therefore, we are steadily increasing the number of schools we are building and places we are providing - that is through new builds. The same is true when it comes to replacing other schools.
I agree we could always use more money. Some 80% of the money is now pre-empted by investment in new capacity. We will be approaching the mid-term capital review that is being conducted by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform with a view to making the case that this is a very high priority area for investment. I am sure other colleagues will be making cases in respect of their capital programmes.
There are numerous sources for the delays, which are frustrating. There have been planning and design delays. There are numerous areas where the system can run into delays. We are spending every penny that is assigned and we are building even more places every year. Last year between the two it was over 20,000 places. We expect something similar this year and that will continue to be the pattern for the coming years.
Is the rising cost in the building sector in general a concern to the Minister? Does he need to alert his Government colleagues about that in terms of funding? Will it impact on the number of schools to be built? Will schools that are on the list not get built because other projects have cost too much? One school in particular was advised by officials that the money had run out on another project and so its one could not be built. This is the type of talk that goes around, but it is based on reality.
Could the Government use the European Fund for Strategic Investments, the Junker plan, to access funding for school building? I am thinking of it as an alternative source of funding because we need more buildings than the budget currently allows for.
I am open to considering any possibilities in the PPP area, Junker funding or elsewhere. As the Deputy knows, the European Investment Bank opened a Dublin office for the first time and there are opportunities to look at funding in education as an area where that could be delivered.
The Deputy is right in saying that costs have risen. When we started to tender in the depths of the recession, costs were very competitive and they are becoming more expensive. We have had to factor that into our planning process. We are using up-to-date costs and we are very careful - sometimes to the frustration of schools - to get value for money on projects coming in.
School Transport Eligibility
Charlie McConalogue
Question:33. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will reverse a decision regarding school transport whereby children living in Urris, County Donegal, and who attend or will be attending a school (details supplied) have been advised that their nearest school is now in Buncrana as Bus Éireann used a route over Mamore Gap when calculating the nearest school; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1812/17]
Will the Minister reverse a decision which has meant that many children from the Urris area of Clonmady, County Donegal, have to pay for school transport in order to go to the secondary school they have always attended and which is the school nearest to them in a practical sense?
I spoke to the Deputy on the issue briefly before he came into the Chamber. This has been a consistent and continuing issue since before my time with the previous Minister. It is an issue that has been brought to my attention by a number of Deputies.
Changes to the eligibility criteria for the Department's school transport scheme were announced in December 2010 by the then Government as part of measures contained in budget 2011 and derived from recommendations contained in the value-for-money review of the scheme. This resulted in changes for eligibility in some areas such as the area in Donegal.
Any child who had eligibility under the old rules retained this eligibility provided there was no change in their circumstances. Under the new rules children are eligible for post-primary school transport where they reside not less than 4.8 km from and are attending their nearest education centre as determined by the Department or Bus Éireann, having regard to ethos and language.
Bus Éireann determines distance eligibility by measuring the shortest traversable route, which may be either pedestrian or vehicular, from the family home to the nearest education centre and it is not necessarily the route that the school bus takes. This was set in rules and regulations. Therefore, the Mamore Gap is used when determining school transport eligibility for children resident in that particular area.
The purpose of this measurement is to assess if children meet the distance eligibility criterion for school transport. In the interests of equity, this is applied on a consistent standard basis across the country irrespective of any local circumstances that may impact on travel conditions on particular routes during parts of the year.
The terms of the post-primary school transport scheme are applied equitably on a national basis.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. As we experienced in the last year since the Minister of State, Deputy Halligan, came into office and under the previous Government, I am afraid the response is entirely unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
We know what the scheme is and how it is applied. I focused specifically on Urris in this parliamentary question in order to get the Minister of State to deal with the detail of the implication of how this rule is applied to real communities and real people on the ground.
I know civil servants may be saying we need black-and-white rules and that we cannot be changing things. Civil servants like black-and-white rules, but it is the job of politicians to represent the people who elect them and to ensure that the laws of this State properly cater for the public and are sensible and equitable. This is patently not sensible and a poor use of funds. By using a mountain gap that is not passable by a bus the Department is suggesting that these students should go to a school in Buncrana instead of the school they have always attended in Carndonagh. By doing so their school bus journey would be 16 miles if they were to go to Buncrana instead of the 12 miles at present.
In addition the Government would have to provide another bus to take that route which would be very expensive and would mean the students were travelling further. It is pure nonsense.
Since they are no longer regarded as eligible, in order for these students to continue to go to Carndonagh community school using the current bus that goes past their door, they have to pay the concessionary fare. That fare is €350 per student up to a maximum of €650 if there are two or more students in a family.
This specifically affects students who previously had been eligible and did not have to pay the fare. Therefore, their parents were medical card holders because if they did not have a medical card they would previously have had to pay the fare even if they were eligible. A family with two parents and two children would have to be under the income threshold of €340 per week to qualify for the medical card. That means such a family would have to use up two weeks of their income to pay for their two children to go to secondary school. How can that be equitable and fair? We cannot stand over it and we have to deal with the issue.
I will go through a few points and then make a recommendation to the Deputy. Sometimes we are asked why we do not use the bus routes to determine eligibility rather than the shortest traversable route. The bus route is designed based on the home address of the children who are eligible for school transport. Given that new children apply for transport each school year, it follows that the bus route may change to reflect the location of the homes of eligible children. People might ask why mountain passes, which may be impassable during winter months, must be measured when determining eligibility. Distance is measured using the shortest traversable route.
This means that mountain passes, pedestrian bridges, one-way streets and so forth are factors when measuring the shortest traversable routes. A variety of methods may be used to calculate this measurement, including the Geographic Information System, GIS. This allows for the equitable measuring of distances.
There are other passes in the country about which there is also an issue but this particular case is very difficult. I have read the information on it very carefully and a number of other Deputies have also raised it with me. I invite Deputy McConalogue to meet me and an official from the Department next week so that we can go through this again. I can see that some of the points the Deputy is making are relevant. I am being honest and upfront with the Deputy when I say that these are the rules and regulations with which I must deal, as they are laid out. The Deputy spoke about common sense, in which I am a great believer. I ask the Deputy to sit down next week with me and a departmental official to talk about the issue. Another Deputy from Sinn Féin representing Deputy McConalogue's constituency also has a problem with regard to the pass. Perhaps both Deputies could come in to the Department next week to discuss it.
I urge everyone to be conscious of the clock.
I thank the Minister of State for the offer which I will certainly take up. I look forward to sitting down with him and teasing out this issue. It is unfortunate that this issue was not dealt with last summer, with a new Minister and a fresh approach. This should have been sorted out before now. The Minister of State initiated a review of school transport provision but that review did not take place until after the summer when students were already back at school. It is crucial that we sort out this issue for the next school year. We need to make sure that common sense is blended in with the rules. I accept that the rules must be equitable and fair but they must also be sensible and our job as politicians is to ensure that this is so. I believe an accommodation can be reached which caters for the students involved and ensures that they can continue to attend the school they have always attended while also saving money for the State. Such an accommodation must ensure that the families of the students in question are not left in a situation where they must spend two week's income to pay for school transport. I look forward to the opportunity to meet the Minister of State and emphasise the importance of sorting out this matter once and for all.
In view of the fact that this is an important question nationally and not just an issue for Donegal, as was suggested, I will provide 20 seconds to Deputy Thomas Byrne to ask a supplementary question. I stress that I am complying with Standing Orders and I am not displaying any favouritism.
I welcome what the Minister of State has just said. There are also cases like this in Deputy Bobby Aylward's constituency. As the Minister of State said himself, the pass in question may be impassable for considerable periods of time. The Minister of State makes the rules and I hope he can change them following engagement with Deputy McConalogue and others. If a pass is impassable for substantial periods of the school year, it must be dealt with.
We should discuss this further next week. I would make the point that there is an independent school transport appeals board. This case went to the appeals board and the original decision was upheld. That said, I am willing to meet the Deputies next week to see if we can work something out. I hope that is reasonable and acceptable.
School Staff
Mick Wallace
Question:34. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Education and Skills his views on whether the criteria for appeals by one-teacher mainland schools to obtain an additional teacher with regard to the staffing schedule circular 0007/2016 and the provisions in budget 2017 are overly burdensome on the schools in question, in view of the fact that in order to make an application a school must have at least 15 students across at least six class groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1819/17]
One of the consequences of the staffing reductions in 2012 has been an increase in the number of one-teacher schools. There were eight such schools in the country in 2008 but thanks to moves by the Fine Gael-Labour Party Government, there are now 24 such schools. It goes without saying that the appointment of a second teacher to a small school or the loss of a school's second teacher is a critical issue in determining whether the school will survive.
The Minister will be familiar with St. Brendan's national school in St. Mullins on the Carlow-Kilkenny-Wexford border, which recently applied for a second teacher but found the going tough. Does the Minister agree that the criteria for appeals by one-teacher mainland schools on applications for an additional teacher are unfair?
Following a review of the staffing allocation for small primary schools, budget 2017 announced two adjustments relating to one-teacher schools. Where the school is the sole primary school on an island, it will be able to appoint a second teacher. Single-teacher schools more generally with an enrolment of 15 or more pupils can apply to the staffing appeals board for a second post where the single teacher has pupils across six or more class groups. This new measure is in recognition of the challenges faced by teachers having to teach six class groups or more.
These arrangements will be effective from September 2017 and will be set out in the staffing schedule circular for the 2017-18 school year which will be available on my Department's website in the coming weeks. These two measures are important improvements in the staffing for small rural schools. They demonstrate the Government's commitment to rural Ireland within the small increase in resources that the Department has been able to secure.
These new measures build on the previous improvements to the staffing of small schools in the 2015-16 school year, where improved retention thresholds were introduced for the second, third and fourth classroom teacher and also the improved appointment and retention thresholds for one-teacher schools situated 8 km or more from the nearest school of the same type of patronage and-or language of instruction. This reduced the enrolment requirement for these one-teacher schools from 20 to 15.
In addition, budget 2016 introduced a one point improvement, from 28:1 to 27:1, to the primary staffing schedule which has been implemented for the current school year and it should be noted that the current staffing schedule of 27:1 for primary schools has restored it to the position prior to the fiscal crisis. As resources become available, we are trying to make it easier for these small schools.
In 2012, the threshold for qualifying for two teachers was 12 pupils but now, unless the nearest school is over 8 km away, the threshold is 19. The particular school to which I refer is already disadvantaged, with 41% of pupils in lone-parent families. In the past, the school would have been entitled to Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools, DEIS, status and the supports that come with that but, unfortunately, the Government blocked new entrants to the DEIS scheme.
When I wrote to the Minister for Education and Skills about this matter, he made the point that the staffing appeals board is an independent body but the board operates according to the criteria set down by the Department. Furthermore, the new budget 2017 proposal does not guarantee that St. Brendan's national school will be granted another teacher because it simply states that one-teacher mainland schools will have the "capacity to apply" to the staffing appeals board for an extra teacher. Schools already have that right and capacity at the moment.
Will the Minister consider this issue again? The future for the school to which I refer is pretty bright. The numbers enrolled are expected to increase and it is totally unfair not to grant it a second teacher.
In response to Deputy Wallace's points, the change to which I referred gives the staffing appeals board discretion so that it is not just rigidly adhering to some view. The change will allow the board to assess the situation. From what Deputy Wallace has said, it sounds as if the school will have a good chance of meeting the criteria by September 2017. Those criteria are ones that are budgeted for this year and are not for the coming school year. They will have to be budgeted this year for a third of the year and next year for the full school year. I cannot bring forward the date because there is funding attached to these relaxed arrangements.
As in every other area, as resources become available we are able to make adjustments in various parts of the education system to make things easier. I will be making adjustments to the DEIS scheme. We will be opening DEIS to new schools. No new schools have applied for DEIS status since 2009. We are making progress with the resources available to improve the position of schools, particularly disadvantaged schools.
I am glad to hear that the moratorium on DEIS applications is being lifted. The particular school to which I refer expects to have 18 pupils enrolled which is almost over the line for a second teacher. I do not understand how the system works. I know that the staffing schedule circular for 2017-18 is due in mid-January. Will it be announced then as to whether this school will get another teacher? The school will have less chance of attracting more pupils if parents cannot plan ahead. St. Brendan's could have 22 pupils in 2018, especially if it has a second teacher. It expects to have 26 pupils in 2019 but obviously those additional pupils are unlikely to materialise in the absence of a positive sign from the Department, at an early stage, that it will facilitate the appointment of a second teacher.
What I read out is the new provision that will be interpreted based on the enrolment numbers schools submit and whether they span the six classes. The conditions are set out as to what is there. If the school meets the criteria it has the chance to go to the appeals board and get the additional resource. I cannot anticipate the application of these rules, but the rules are clear and the school will be able to assess its position against these rules and make its application on the basis of its belief it is meeting the criteria. We have relaxed the criteria to try to deal with schools with the problem of teaching multiple classes, including six classes, in these environments.
Schools Building Projects Status
Clare Daly
Question:35. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Education and Skills the reason for the delay in the construction of phase 2 of a school (details supplied); the likely construction date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1296/17]
I have to say it is an affront I have even had to table the question, which is about phase 2 of the construction of Lusk community college. I tabled this question 18 months ago, when the construction should have been completed. Now, 18 months on, which is 30% of the educational lifetime of the students, it has not even started. I want to know the reason for the delay and when will construction be delivered.
The project raised by the Deputy was authorised to proceed to tender in October 2016. This project is the second phase of accommodation for the school in question and will cater for an additional 650 pupils. Phase 2 of the project will also provide a special needs unit, a sports hall with a fitness suite and changing facilities and ancillary accommodation, including a school library. Once this phase is completed it will bring the capacity of the school up to 1,000 pupils.
An incomplete stage 2(b) submission from the design team was received in my Department in July 2016, leading to a request for further information. A fully compliant stage 2(b) submission was received in September 2016. The stage 2(b) submission was approved and the project was approved to proceed to tender in October. However, as the pre-qualification of contractors had first been conducted by the design team in April 2015, the design team, concerned about the possibility of legal challenges, asked the Office of Government Procurement for advice on this matter. The advice was that it would be prudent to run the pre-qualification again.
The design team has recently rerun the pre-qualification of suitable contractors and is finalising a shortlist of up to ten contractors who will be requested to tender for the project. Subject to no issues arising, it is anticipated that construction will commence in the summer of 2017 and the project is scheduled to take approximately 18 months to complete.
I am sure the Minister appreciates the entire debacle has been a devastating blow to the community, which has waited 30 years for its own secondary school in one of the most rapidly expanding urban parts of Dublin. I wants to know who is at fault. When I tabled the question 18 months ago, I was told the tender documentation and the architectural planning was at an advanced stage. The Minister now tells me that eight months later there was a fault in that, which meant another tendering process had to kick in. Who is on the design team? To whom are they answerable? Who pays? At present, the people paying are the students in Lusk who are not getting the same calibre of education as their peers because they are in overcrowded classrooms. We know there is an overreliance on prefabs, a high density of students congregating in the one communal area and insufficient class sizes for specialised subjects. A year ago, the Department stated the laboratory facilities were inadequate for the number of classes. The number of classes is now even greater. It is not much solace that it will probably be delivered in 2018 when people thought and were assured it should have been developed in 2016. To whom is the design team answerable and who is at fault for the incomplete documentation submitted in July 2016?
It is my understanding the design team was appointed by the Dublin and Dún Laoghaire Education and Training Board. To be fair, I have seen delays occur in many school projects and the question of looking for a fault or ascribing fault is not always the route to go. There may have been some unanticipated problems that cropped up such as planning issues. It is not my business to try to ascribe fault. The Department has been fair. We try to make sure we use our resources to the very best effect. We would not be thanked if it proceeded to tender and there was a legal challenge and next thing we were in the courts fighting a case about an aggrieved person who felt he or she should have got the tender. Processes are in place to protect the taxpayer and the school and they have been applied in this case. I will not get into the business of trying to ascribe fault because I do not know the full record of how this proceeded. I have explained the situation that there was an incomplete submission and this was corrected and it has been approved. On legal advice a fresh tender process has been undertaken.
I appreciate the Minister cannot comment or would not have the level of detail, and I am not interested in fault for the sake of it, but I am interested in lessons being learned and problems not reoccurring. The simple fact of the matter is that in September 2015, when the project should have been completed, I was told by the Minister's predecessor that issues were at an advanced stage awaiting tender documentation. The Minister has told me this documentation, which was handed in nine months later, in July 2016, was incomplete. How could this be and who are the design team? I assume they are private contractors and that they are on a departmental panel. Is this something they have done in other areas, because if they are doing this job one would think they would have that level of expertise. The people paying the price for this are the students now in the facility, who are not being given access. They have only one chance at an education and they have already lost 30% of their educational life when we delayed previously. Now the Minister is telling me there will be another 30% wait until it is completed. Neither myself nor the parents can take great solace from this because we were told this before and it was not delivered. Will the Minister go back and have a look at this, or ask his departmental officials to look at why the documents were incomplete in the nine-month period, given that when I asked the question the project should have already been completed.
I will ask the departmental officials to examine whether there are lessons to be learned from this experience. I just do not know that. Obviously, in the first instance a design team is accountable to the school, in this case the ETB. I do not know whether it was an oversight, a mistake or what it was, but I will ask officials to have a look at what was the source of delay and whether there are lessons to be learned.
School Transport Data
Thomas Byrne
Question:36. Deputy Thomas Byrne asked the Minister for Education and Skills the number of school bus routes in operation in each of the years from 2011 to 2016; and if his Department's policy objective is to reduce the number of children availing of school transport on a concessionary basis. [1895/17]
The question is very simple. A number of us are trying to get to the bottom of school transport policy. It appears there has been a reduction in the number of routes and I would like the Minister of State to set out the number of bus routes operating in each of the years from 2011 to 2016.
The number of bus routes rose from 5,001 in 2011 to 5,256 in 2016. In 2011, the number of taxi routes was 796. I could go through them all but I will send the details to the Deputy. The number of taxi routes increased from 796 in 2011 to 1,159 in 2016. The cost of school transport in the period rose from €171 million to approximately €182 million, and much of the increase relates to the provision of transport for children with special educational needs.
Does the Minister of State have the figures without special educational needs transport provision? Has there been a reduction if special educational needs transport is not included?
There has not, because we are speaking about 114,000 children. There are now 25,000 pupils who travel on a concessionary basis, which is a dramatic increase.
The financial costs for 2012 were €58 million and for 2016 they were €73 million. The big increase has been in concessionary transport, which has gone up dramatically this year to €25,000.
That is fine.
Departmental Budgets
Bernard Durkan
Question:37. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the extent to which he remains satisfied regarding the adequacy of the education budget to meet in full the targets set by his Department for the current year, including the provision of special needs teachers, SNAs, the school building programme and school transport; the extent to which any particular areas have been identified as being likely to come under pressure in the course of the current year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1912/17]
This question seeks to ascertain the extent to which his Department's budget is adequate to meet all likely requirements in the course of the current year, including special needs teaching, SNAs and places for children with autism.
The budgetary increase of €465 million which I secured for my Department in budget 2017 will support implementation of my Department’s goals, set out in the action plan for education. The increased allocation will mean more classroom and resource teachers, more special needs assistants, continued restoration of guidance posts, increases in new entrant teacher pay resulting from agreements with the TUI and INTO, continued progress on curricular reform, support for school leadership, implementation of the forthcoming action plan for disadvantaged schools, an increased allocation for school transport and provision for the first significant investment in higher education in a number of years.
My Department closely monitors all expenditure on an ongoing basis. It is too early in the year to identify definitively any significant budgetary pressures, which typically become manifest in the last quarter of the year following the start of the new academic year. This results from demographic and other demand pressures and the impact of retirements on the superannuation allocation. Funding for school capital was largely determined under the capital investment plan published in September 2015 and the 2017 allocation was confirmed in the most recent budget.
My Department plans to spend in excess of €400 million on the construction of large-scale projects and on the additional accommodation scheme. While my Department continues in the first instance to ensure sufficient school places within the sector, it is intended at the mid-term capital review to seek a higher level of funding to address, in particular, replacement and refurbishment school projects.
To what extent is the Minister satisfied that he can cater for the pressure points that usually occur in the course of the budget? What discussions has he and his Department had with the various school authorities at primary and secondary level in respect of special needs children, including the provision of special schools?
Each year a fresh assessment will be made of the needs of children coming into a school under various headings such school allocations, the PTR, special needs and so on. My Department does its best to anticipate what those school needs are but, as I said in my reply, in September the enrolment figures can put pressure on. However, there is a built-in protection as the allocations for the following September are based on enrolments for this September. When the Department is drawing up its Estimates it has a pretty good idea of the profile of pupils and students entering the system. Pressures can arise but we try to do our best to manage them within the budget and we have been able to do that in the past.
Does the Minister have a system of checking, or second guessing, projections on the basis of past experience? I am thinking of areas where particular problems have arisen in the past in meeting requirements and, in particular, of demographic trends, such as population explosions in some areas which result in extra demands and extra pressure onto the school system. Is the Minister satisfied that he has made adequate provision for such things?
Within the system there is a right to appeal. Allocations are generally made on the basis of last September's enrolments, which gives a fairly food projection. An appeal may be made, however, such as by a school that is developmental and there may be children with special needs that were not anticipated and that will cause pressures for additional resources. The Department seeks to anticipate general trends to the best of its ability, though it might not be able to anticipate specific ones. In the area of special needs, ultimately it is the assessment of groups such as the National Council for Special Education that will determine the resources allocation for SNAs, and that is an independent process for which the Department cannot make complete projections.
Schools Mental Health Strategies
Maureen O'Sullivan
Question:38. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Education and Skills his views on linking community and youth services in with schools in the local area in relation to awareness programmes dealing with the dangers of addiction to drugs, alcohol and gambling. [1814/17]
My question relates to the programmes being run by community organisations and the youth service to raise awareness of addiction to drugs, alcohol and gambling. Is there a role for linking those programmes to schools in local areas?
The well-being in post-primary schools guidelines for mental health promotion and suicide prevention 2013, and the well-being in primary schools guidelines for mental health promotion 2015, acknowledge that schools have a role to play in supporting their students to develop the key skills and knowledge to enable them to make informed choices when faced with a range of difficult issues, including drugs, alcohol and gambling. This is mainly done through the social personal and health education, SPHE, programme, which has a specific module on the use and misuse of a range of substances. SPHE is currently mandatory in all primary schools and in junior cycle. It will also form part of the new mandatory well-being area of learning for the new junior cycle. Schools are also encouraged to deliver the SPHE programme in senior cycle.
Relevant topics in SPHE include student decision-making skills and safety and protection. Students learn how to exercise judgment, weigh up different possibilities, examine the steps and choices that guide them towards considered decision-making, begin to understand their own rights and the rights of others, and explore decision-making. In respect of safety, students’ ability to assess the consequences of risky behaviour is developed.
Current best practice guidelines for the delivery of SPHE indicate that the classroom teacher is the best placed professional to work sensitively and consistently with students and that individual themes such as substance misuse prevention should not be treated in isolation but should be integrated with the other SPHE modules. However, I recognise the value of strong links with the local community in the context of a whole-school approach to SPHE.
I have recently established a cross-divisional working group on well-being within my Department and linkages with local community and youth services will be considered as part of the work of the group.
The Minister gave me the theory and no one would disagree with that. As somebody who was in a voluntary secondary school and was involved in, and fully committed to, SPHE I know what he is talking about. It is, however, very much hit and miss. I chair a prevention and education subgroup for the drugs task force in the north inner city and we had a roundtable discussion recently with health workers, youth workers and community workers who are involved in such programmes with young people through Youthreach or in the local schools. I came away from the meeting feeling optimistic and hopeful because of the way they were reaching out to the people who needed to be reached out to. They gave accurate information about all the things of which the Minister spoke and they looked at risk factors, competences and skills young people need for those types of addictions. We know that young people will experiment and some of them will stay in drug-taking and the abuse and misuse of alcohol. We have also seen an increase in gambling addiction. It is very hit and miss in schools whereas, at the other end of the scale, with community and youth programmes we would move forward in a better way.
The Deputy's point is well made, in that not every school is equally good at implementing these programmes. However, the junior certificate well-being programme, which we are rolling out from September, gives an opportunity for schools to have a hard look at themselves, a self-evaluation. We are encouraging schools to do that and there is a seven-step process to look at their programmes, examining such things as whether they have done the continuous professional development for the teachers who will front up these programmes. They will need to consider whether they have good links with others who can support them.
I recognise that there is a range of expertise outside the school that should be drawn upon. Clearly, however, such expertise must be of sufficient quality. Teachers must have confidence that whoever they are taking on will deliver a quality programme. It is an issue for schools to ensure that any assistance they take in from the outside is of a high standard. We hope we will be able to give them guidelines to help them make those choices, but they are ultimately choices for the school to make. We must also be conscious that teacher-led is the model we are told is best. It is not a substitute for the teacher, but the teacher ought to be at the heart of the programme. That model is based on experience and we should seek to upskill the teacher and the school to lead this programme effectively.
I cannot agree with the Minister that the teacher is best placed to lead this particular programme because it is too hit and miss. I totally support the SPHE and Wellbeing classes, but they will go quickest when one of the academic subjects needs an extra class. If there is something else going on in the school that will be the class that will suffer. It is not consistent and that is where the problem lies.
I do not like the term "prevention" in education. The term "intervention" would be much better. The whole area is very difficult, however, because what turns one young person onto drugs could be the thing that turns another person off.
We also have a serious issue with the misuse and abuse of alcohol. We had a discussion with the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Zappone, this morning about the young people's facilities and services fund, which was targeting those most at risk of this kind of behaviour. We also discussed the need for constant monitoring which is where it is falling down. I agree that it needs a holistic approach. It cannot just be about giving information. It is about a whole change in lifestyle, but it is also about equipping young people to make informed decisions. I was a teacher and I am very supportive of the programme but we must also examine other models.
At the end of last week I had a workshop in Galway and detected that in schools there is a huge appetite for this programme. School authorities recognise that this is an area in which they need to improve. A lot of pressures are coming on schools with expectations from pupils who are experiencing difficulties and they must respond.
We have developed some excellent tools to support them, including self-evaluation, guidance, continuous professional development and upskilling. The challenge is to roll that out and see that capability is built upon. To that end, we are restoring counselling and some 400 posts have already been committed to for guidance counselling in schools. We are also committed to increasing NEPS, the National Educational Psychological Service, by 25%. We are therefore trying to grow the resource that will help schools to undertake self-evaluation as well as providing techniques and tools that have been developed.
I share the Deputy's view that this is a very important area to work upon. From my experience, there is a huge appetite in schools to make this work. I see the Wellbeing programme at junior cycle in particular as an opportunity to put down some clear self-evaluation markers and improvement processes within the schools in order to deliver this programme to the highest quality.
Question No. 39 replied to with Written Answers.
Special Educational Needs
Mick Wallace
Question:40. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Education and Skills when the sections of the EPSEN Act 2004, which deal with provisions relating to an individual right to assessment and individual education plans, will be implemented; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1818/17]
Thirteen years after the enactment of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act, several key provisions of the legislation remain unimplemented. There does not seem to be a clear policy on the entitlement of children with special educational needs to education. As the Minister knows, Ireland has been criticised by international human rights watchdogs, such as the UN Committee on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights, for our non-implementation of the Act.
In the previous Dáil, the programme for Government included a commitment to publish a plan on implementing the EPSEN Act, but this did not happen. Citing financial constraints, the current Government's aim is to implement some of the ideas in the Act through various policy changes on a non-statutory level.
Does the Minister agree that at present there is no road map for the policy change, which makes it nearly impossible to have a joined-up, systematic approach to the implementation of these policies, which was the whole idea of the Act in the first place?
A number of sections of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004 have been commenced, including those establishing the National Council for Special Education and those promoting an inclusive approach to the education of children. In order to ensure that inclusive education can be provided for, very significant investment has been made in the area of special educational needs supports. In 2016, the Department of Education and Skills invested €1.5 billion in special education, almost one fifth of the entire education budget. It reflects our commitment as a Government to help children with special educational needs to fulfil their potential. Total spending on special educational needs has increased from €706 million in 2006 to €1.5 billion in 2016, thus more than doubling in the period.
Under the Programme for a Partnership Government I have committed to consulting with stakeholders on how best to progress aspects of the Act on a non-statutory basis. At present, all schools are encouraged to use education plans. My Department's 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 30/2014, schools are required to put in place a personal pupil plan, including a care plan for all pupils availing of SNA support.
While awaiting the full implementation of the EPSEN Act, the NCSE has published a number of policy advice papers which make recommendations aimed at developing a better or more effective alternative to the current resource allocation model, and which aims to move the system towards ultimate implementation of the EPSEN Act. As the Deputy is aware, I have announced the details of that new model which are being implemented from September this year. That has been piloted successfully and I am confident it will introduce both a better and a fairer way of allocating resources to support children with special needs and ensure that they are able to follow an individual pupil plan within the school. That will be in the context of a whole school and not solely an individualisation approach. Clearly, the whole-school approach is the best model that has been based on the NCSE's experience.
I accept that there have been increases in the last couple of budgets but the cuts were so severe in the previous ones that it has definitely resulted in some poor outcomes for many children with disabilities.
The Minister mentioned individual education plans, which the EPSEN Act called for. Some schools do make them but it is still not a legal requirement as far as I know. The idea is that all professionals involved in the provision of education to a child with special needs would work in a joined up way. It remains aspirational, however. I am not sure if the Minister is saying that the new changes will make it obligatory to operate in this manner.
Parents feel disempowered and find themselves at the mercy of the National Council for Special Education when seeking resources. They are also very much at the mercy of schools. Does the Minister not think that parents should be allowed to have a stronger role in what happens? The parents I know who have children with special needs are involved in a phenomenal amount of work to make it happen. They must struggle to get a fair deal for their children. They should therefore have a bigger stake in the decision-making process.
I wish to correct one point. The figures I quoted were from €706 million in 2006 to €1,500 million in 2016, which covers the period when cutbacks were occurring in education. This area was not subject to cutbacks. Resource teaching has been increased by 41%. We now have 12,500 teachers providing resource or learning support, plus 12,500 special needs assistants. There has therefore been a substantial increase in resources for this area.
The announcement I made today will facilitate schools in approaching the needs of those children in a better way. It will direct more of the resources to children with special needs, which is a reform. It will not require them to have expensive diagnostic assessments that are often difficult for parents to obtain. In addition, it will ensure that the school can use that resource in a more creative manner.
I know that Deputy Wallace lives not too far from Marino College, which is just down the road where I have sometimes met him. It is a great example to hear how that college has successfully applied this new pilot model, thus making it a much more inclusive environment within the school under the new model. That will allow us to move to a stage where we can realistically implement the individual education plan on a universal basis in the context of a school that really values special education as a core part of its mandate.
At the weekends, I also live close to schools in Wexford and Enniscorthy. They have fought tooth and nail to get a fair deal.
The changes are definitely welcome. The Minister referred to resources. Was he suggesting that resources are greater now than in 2012? Will the Minister clarify that point?
I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to another point. Many children with special needs, especially those moving into later teen years, face mental health challenges. Often, schools are not equipped to deal with this problem. Many of these children did not get as much care and attention as they deserved to get in earlier years. The Government should be conscious of these problems in secondary school as the children get older. There may be challenges in this area for the system.
I wish to reassure Deputy Wallace. There has been a 41% increase in the number of resource teachers since 2011, a 23% increase in special needs assistants and a 100% increase in the number of autism spectrum disorder classes in schools. Substantial investment is ongoing. I agree that parents need a better say. That is why we are introducing a parents charter Bill, the heads of which will go to the committee for evaluation. We have instituted an inclusion support service through the National Council for Special Education. This will help schools to implement the new approach.
Deputy Wallace is right to point out that complex challenges arise in the mental health area. Some of the earlier questions dealt with that. We need to enhance our role in this area. The roll-out of the National Educational Psychological Service, the well-being programme in the junior cycle and the restoration of guidance counselling are all part of an approach to try to put greater emphasis on the mental health of young people in schools as well.
Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.