Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 22 May 2018

Vol. 969 No. 4

Priority Questions

Schools Building Projects Status

Thomas Byrne

Question:

35. Deputy Thomas Byrne asked the Minister for Education and Skills the status of plans for the establishment of 42 new schools over the next four years. [22703/18]

This first education question relates to the announcement of the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Richard Bruton, of €500 million in building costs planned for school buildings over the next four years. Half of that is scheduled for September next year. It is urgent that the Minister gives us an update. Parents are wondering where are the schools they were promised. We are now looking at enrolling our children in particular schools and we do not have any information from the Minister about the schools he is planning.

As the Deputy will be aware, I recently announced plans for the establishment of 42 new schools over the next four years, 2019 to 2022. This announcement follows a nationwide demographic exercise carried out by the Department into the future need for primary and post-primary schools across the country. The four year horizon will enable increased lead times for planning and delivery of the necessary infrastructure. Where demographic data indicates that additional provision is required, the delivery of the additional provision is dependent on the particular circumstances of each area and may, depending on the circumstances, be provided through either one, or a combination of, the following: utilising existing unused capacity with a school or schools, extending the capacity of a school or schools; or the provision of a new school or schools.

A patronage process is run after it has been decided, based on the demographic analysis, that a new school is required.  This patronage process is open to all patron bodies and prospective patrons.  Parental preferences for each patron, from parents of children who reside in the school planning area concerned, together with the extent of diversity currently available in these areas, are key to decisions in relation to the outcome of this process.  The patronage process for new schools is overseen by an external independent advisory group, the new schools establishment group, NSEG.  Following its consideration of my Department’s assessment reports, the NSEG submits a report with recommendations to me for consideration and final decision.  The assessment reports and the NSEG recommendations for all such patronage processes are made available on my Department's website.

An online patronage process system, OPPS, is currently being developed by my Department to provide objective information to all parents. That will allow them to make an informed choice about their preferred model of patronage for their child’s education. Parental preferences are currently collected based on direct engagement with patron bodies. An initial phased start-up is envisaged for the new schools, which typically involves the use of interim accommodation. However, this is the first time the requirement for new schools is set out over a four year horizon. This will provide a better lead-in period for the planning and delivery of permanent accommodation solutions.  Following on from the announcement, the locations for all of the schools will be determined as part of the site acquisition process.

That was an extraordinary answer. There was a lot of information and confusion. I am going to have to follow up with some other questions. The Minister spent the majority of the time talking about the patronage process. Frankly, that is the least of our concerns. Our main concerns relate to the premises for the schools. He also seemed to indicate a rowing back on this particular commitment. I would like to clarify that point. He mentioned three options: using existing unused capacity; extending existing capacity; or the provision of a new school. Is that in respect of the 42 schools announced a month ago? Is the Minister announcing an expansion of existing schools and not new schools? Is that what he is saying in that answer?

I can talk about my own constituency until the cows come home. What is the position in Dunshaughlin, in Laytown, in Drogheda, in Duleek and in all of the schools? Parents are wondering where are these schools and what is the update from the Minister. He has not given me an update. He merely set out the patronage process which we know. That will follow on from the most important work of finding the places to put these schools.

The Deputy will have to ask a more precise question. He asked about the status of the plans for the 42 new schools. As a result, I explained that the 42 were selected from 314 areas. In deciding which areas got new schools, we looked at where there was capacity in existing schools to expand. That is how the figure of 42 was reached. A patron selection process will now be initiated. We will be inviting patrons to submit their application to run these schools, where they are identified. The planning areas, which are geographically determined, are the areas within which parents will be assessed. The precise location will be identified with the local authority, as we do in all such cases. At this stage we are identifying areas where we need new schools. We are initiating that planning process and we are developing the various elements required to be completed in order to decide the patron, the parents' views, the decision of the establishment group and then the site issue.

My question was extremely precise. We want an update on plans for the 42 new schools. It can be assumed that I want to know how many sites have been acquired and how schools have been established. In his reply, the Minister said that areas that need new schools are being identified. We all thought that these areas had been identified. I want to know what is the status of plans. The Minister's announcement on 13 April looks like it was a public relations puff piece. There is no substance to it whatsoever. He cannot provide any update in respect of any site or any particular school.

Some of these schools are programmed to be established in September 2019. It is common for children and parents in fifth class to tour around secondary schools to decide what schools they might like to go to in particular parts of the country. That is ongoing now. It has already started. Six weeks after the announcement, the Minister will not give me any update on the schools he is establishing in September 2019. How are parents supposed to know that there may be an opportunity to attend schools? It is similar with new primary schools. There is no information for people. The patronage process will follow on very easily and quickly once the sites have been established. The challenge for the Minister is to put substance on his announcement. He failed to do that today.

The Deputy does not understand the way this works. Scores of areas had ambitions to have new schools. The Department undertook a demographic exercise looking at the enrolment in existing schools, at birth and at housing developments identified by local authorities. It picked the 42 areas based on that information where it believed the demographic need would have to be met by establishing a new school. That is the process that was completed and the results announced. It was not a site acquisition plan. That was not what was announced and that was clear at the time. The issue of identifying the site is one that the Department works on - as Deputy Byrne knows - with local authorities. In some cases, local authorities designate sites as part of their planning process. That has been the case in a number of areas of Dublin; in others, it has not. We have to work with local authorities and others to identify sites. What I have seen in many cases is that these schools start in temporary accommodation and a site is then identified for their development. That is the way it has been. It works well.

I was not looking for a commentary. What is the Minister, Deputy Bruton, doing in respect of his own announcement?

Disability Support Services Provision

Kathleen Funchion

Question:

36. Deputy Kathleen Funchion asked the Minister for Education and Skills the rationale for the July provision being provided at a school's discretion; the steps he plans to take in cases in which a school is not willing to provide same (details supplied); and if he will meet parents of children that avail of the July provision in order to gain an understanding of the importance of this provision to the children. [22654/18]

The question speaks for itself. I am looking for the rationale for the July provision being provided at a school's discretion and the steps that the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Bruton, plans to take in a case where a school is not willing to provide the provision. This refers, in particular, to the Enable Ireland school in Sandymount. Will the Minister meet with parents from that school who avail of this provision in order to understand how important this is to them and their children?

I thank Deputy Funchion for raising this matter. The July provision grant scheme provides funding for an extended school year for children with severe-profound general learning disabilities or children with autism spectrum disorders, ASD. Under this scheme, the school year of participating schools is extended by four weeks in July. Only special schools or mainstream schools that have special classes for autism and-or severe and profound learning disability are eligible to participate in the programme.

Each year eligible schools are invited to participate in the programme. Participation in the programme is voluntary and subject to the availability of suitably qualified personnel in July. Approximately 507 schools are eligible for this programme and approximately 219 take part, which is just over 40%.

Where school-based provision is not feasible, eligible students may be granted 40 hours of home-based tuition, which provides ten hours for each of the four weeks. Where an eligible school is not participating in the school based programme, it is open to parents to apply for the home-based July provision grant scheme. Approximately 3,400 children are in schools and 6,100 are availing of home based provision. The majority of children under the July provision are catered for at home.

The National Council for Special Education, NCSE, undertook a review of this, along with other aspects of autism spectrum supports, last year. The review recommends that, as an alternative to the existing scheme, stakeholders should discuss the development of a national day activity scheme that provides a structured, safe, social environment for all students with complex special educational needs for one month of the summer holidays. My Department has convened an implementation group to ensure that the report’s recommendations are considered. While that work is underway, there are no plans to change the existing July provision scheme.

The last point the Minister made is exactly the suggestion I was going to make. If there is a new scheme such as the national day scheme being considered the Minister should look to extend the current scheme. The school I referred to, the Enable Ireland Sandymount school programme, was funded by the parents of the children, with a reduced capacity when funding was withdrawn in 2010. It was so important to the parents and their children that they raised the funds for that themselves. When funding was re-introduced in 2013 it was announced that it would only apply to children with a severe impairment, intellectual disability or a diagnosis of autism. However, these children have very complex physical needs and there is really no reason for them to be excluded.

Home support from tutors is really not a one-size-fits-all solution for students. For many parents, there is such a difficulty in accessing any sort of respite care that the July provision can be a help. If it is not available they will not get any respite at all. The Minister should meet with the parents of the children from this school so that they can explain exactly how important the July break is for them. If a new scheme is being considered that is fair enough, but we all know that new schemes can take years to come in and the children are left in limbo during that wait.

I understand what the Deputy is saying, but we are talking about a voluntary scheme. Each school makes the decision to participate or not, based on its own staffing and capacity to extend the school year for another month. They get a capitation rate, but the implementation of the scheme depends on whether staff are willing to work for the extra month. If the staff work the extra month they get paid for it.

Different schools have had a tradition of organising it. We invite schools to participate each year, but there is no element of compulsion in this scheme. The extension of the scheme would have to be considered in the context of a budget. The scheme is focused on children with particularly high levels of need. There are approximately 10,000 children getting support from this scheme. Overall, there are some 50,000 children with special needs if all of those getting support are counted. This scheme applies to a group within that group which has the need for it. We will certainly look at revisions to the scheme, but I will not consider making it compulsory at this point.

The difficulty is that this is a voluntary scheme and while I am reluctant to say that schools should be compelled to provide it, there should be a back-up plan in place where a school is not participating so that parents are not left in limbo. It is almost June; the scheme is supposed to start at the start of July and the affected parents have no provision in place for this year. What does the Minister say to those parents in that school in Sandymount? Will the Minister meet with those parents to discuss options?

Home support can be great for certain students, particularly those in their teenage years. However, that also presents a difficulty because parents have to source the home tutor themselves. Recently I have seen cases where, if the people sourced by the parents are not registered with the Teaching Council they are made to register. Currently the Teaching Council has said that it will be 10 July or later before these people are registered. If the scheme is supposed to start at the beginning of July the students will be disadvantaged by ten to 14 days. There are many difficulties around the administration of this voluntary scheme. We cannot really make this a compulsory scheme, but there should definitely be some sort of comprehensive back-up plan when it is not in place. It is not good enough to say that families can get a home support tutor if they go off and do all the work themselves.

I will ask the NCSE if there is any way it can better support parents, but over 6,000 children are availing of that back-up scheme under the home-based July provision scheme, providing ten hours per week over four weeks. Those 6,000 people are spread throughout the country, so it is difficult to co-ordinate that centrally and provide a clearing house for that provision. I will ask the NCSE if there are ways in which parents can be supported where there has been a change in the arrangements.

Special Educational Needs

Thomas Byrne

Question:

37. Deputy Thomas Byrne asked the Minister for Education and Skills his views on whether in the case of a proposed expulsion or suspension of a child with special needs, the section 29 procedure is inappropriate; and his plans for reform in the area. [22704/18]

The forced overuse of the section 29 procedure by parents of children with special needs is a scandal in Irish education. Section 29 is the appeals procedure for refusals to enrol and suspensions and expulsions. Figures I received in answer to parliamentary questions earlier this year show that special needs children are hugely disproportionately represented among those who have to go through the section 29 procedure.

The code of behaviour each school is required to develop has to set out the procedures, particularly procedures relating to the suspension of children with special needs. The guidelines set out the approach that should be taken in taking account of the particular needs of children with special needs, including that the school meets with parents, makes sure that the child understands the possible consequences of his or her behaviour, ensures that all possible alternatives have been explored and that the assistance of support agencies is sought where possible.

I share the Deputy’s concerns, but I want to make sure that we do not run into difficulty where parents find it difficult to find another school for their child. While continuing to have the section 29 appeal in place, which includes a facilitation process in advance of an adjudication process and hearing, we are also giving the NCSE the power to designate a place for such a child via legislation. I hope that parents will have a choice of either going down the section 29 appeal route or alternatively that they can seek a designation of another school from the NCSE. I am seeking to progress that.

I welcome change in this area, but it really needs to be highlighted because this is an issue affecting both mainstream and special schools. The idea that a child with special needs would be expelled from a special school is a cause for shame for our society. The difficulty with section 29 is that it is not the correct system. Schools are put in difficult positions and adversarial relationships are created. Lawyers are appointed by schools in many cases, and it is not often possible for parents to follow suit. I have come across a case, which I raised with the Minister's officials recently, where a child with severe special needs was left with no education whatsoever because of expulsion. That is not right. Children are suspended at first and then expelled. In this particular case the child has effectively been deprived of his or her education for the last year.

In 2014 there were 225 appeals under section 29, and 58 involved children with special needs.

In 2015 there were 231 appeals, of which 64 involved children with special needs. In 2016, out of 218 section 29 appeals, 65 of the applicants indicated that the child had special educational needs. It is a disgrace to our society that those families and those children are put through this, whether it is because of a refusal to enrol, a suspension or an expulsion. It is just not the way we should be treating children with special educational needs. This is a small number of children in the overall scheme of things. The devastation it causes families is absolutely horrendous.

I can appreciate what the Deputy is saying. That is why two changes are being made in the legislation. One change gives the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, a right to make a submission to the section 29 hearing. The second gives the NCSE a separate power to designate a school as suitable. While it is certainly very unfortunate that a section 29 procedure would be used, bearing in mind the guidelines and facilitation that are being put there to try to ensure such a breakdown does not arise, I am also ensuring that if it has to go to hearing, there is an alternative, namely, that the NCSE can designate a suitable alternative. Moreover, if it goes the section 29 route, the NCSE itself can be a part of that process.

At the end of the day, if the matter comes to the point of an institution saying that it cannot continue, it has to be adjudicated in some way that is fair to all sides. Section 29 is a long stop that has to be there but I hope these measures will offer alternatives to parents who are facing the sort of situation the Deputy describes.

I welcome the changes that are coming in the Education (Admission to Schools) Bill 2016. That Bill will hopefully be before the Dáil next week. We have pushed for it to be passed for quite some time and I really hope that it offers some of these families what they need, which is an entitlement to an education without having to go through bureaucratic hula hoops. It is outrageous. We look forward to change in this area but in the case of children with special educational needs, it is not a question of having to be fair to both sides. The child is entitled to a free primary education under the Constitution. As such, there is no issue of fairness to the school. The State has an obligation to educate that child, and in cases of which I am aware, the child is effectively being refused their constitutional right to education because of these procedures. I will certainly work with the Minister to change this but I want to see the changes make a difference in practice. Rather than trying to be fair to both sides, the State needs to protect the constitutional right to primary education, which for a lot of children with special needs applies up to the age of 18. We need to protect, defend and vindicate that right by giving these children their education.

The purpose of section 29 is that it looks at the whole case de novo. It is not part of a bureaucratic process whereby the parents may feel they have been through the board and the principal only to get the same response. This is an entirely fresh look at the issues by fresh eyes. Those making the decision have access to the NCSE evidence and look at whether the decision of the school was justified given the circumstances. They bear in mind the guidelines that are supposed to be applied sensitively for children with special needs and we now have this alternative. I am happy to discuss this and if there are improvements we can make, I am more than pleased to make them. I think the improvements that are outlined here will make it easier for parents.

Special Educational Needs

Kathleen Funchion

Question:

38. Deputy Kathleen Funchion asked the Minister for Education and Skills the reason guidance in special schools is not included in the career guidance review announced in January 2018 despite assurances from representatives of the Department of Education and Skills that it would be included. [22389/18]

This question concerns career guidance in special schools. I wish to ask why it is not included in the review announced in January 2018, despite assurances from representatives of the Department of Education and Skills that it would be included.

The purpose of the review of career guidance is to ensure that high-quality, relevant career guidance information is provided to students from post–primary level up to further and higher education. The review will examine the quality of information available to students and adults concerning career guidance, the sources of this information and how the system is organised to support students and adults in this area.

The review is being carried out by independent consultants and will be guided and informed by a steering group. As an integral part of the consultants' proposed methodological approach to the review, my Department has invited submissions from all interested stakeholders to assist in shaping the review by highlighting key issues to be considered in the course of carrying it out.

Drawing on the results of the consultation and further consideration by the steering group, the question of the specific role and objectives of career guidance in supporting students in special schools will be assessed further. It is therefore not the case that guidance in special schools is excluded from review. Rather, as is the case with several aspects of the review, further consideration of the detailed design and precise content of the review is required in light of the submissions received, to ensure that the review meets the objectives set for it. My Department will therefore keep the Deputy updated in respect of the issue raised in her question.

The Deputy may wish to note that the closing date for receipt of submissions is Friday, 25 May 2018.

The Minister says that special schools were not excluded but there was a promise that they would be included in the terms of reference and that was certainly not the case. As it currently stands, there is no provision for guidance in special schools that teach the primary school curriculum. However, this completely ignores the fact that students up to the age of 18 attend these schools. It was the National Disability Authority that advised that these schools should be included in the terms of reference of the review and as far as I understand, representatives of the Department of Education and Skills provided assurances that they would be. This has not happened. As the submissions are closing this Friday, I ask the Minister to extend that time and clarify why special schools were given an assurance that they would be included and then were not.

To return to the point about students up to the age of 18, it really is unacceptable that there is no career guidance module or system for students just because they are attending a special school. If there is a review of that system it is the perfect opportunity to include special schools and to be inclusive about these things. I do not think we should let that opportunity pass.

There was certainly no intention to exclude any school in any way. I can give the Deputy the assurance that the needs of special schools will be included in this review. I do not know from where the idea that they were excluded arose but if there is a particular group that needs to make a submission, and it believes it will not be able to make it by 25 May, I will make sure that the submission is accommodated.

I thank the Minister. I welcome that statement and will come back to his officials in that regard. I wish to stress the point again that this is a chance for us to be inclusive, particularly in the aftermath of Ireland ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. All Members know there is a high level of unemployment among people with a disability. Access to good education and a good career guidance system will be one way of combatting that problem in the future, though certainly not the only way, as there are lots of barriers. This is an opportunity for us to look at that. I certainly will get back to those groups and ensure that submissions are made on this issue.

Post-Leaving Certificate Courses Availability

Joan Burton

Question:

39. Deputy Joan Burton asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will agree to the reopening of further education and training being provided by second level schools (details supplied) in Dublin 15; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22498/18]

The constituency of Dublin West, including Dublin 15, Blanchardstown, Castleknock, Mulhuddart and Clonsilla, has a population well in excess of 100,000, making it far bigger than the cities of Waterford or Limerick. It is one of the largest centres of urban population in Ireland. It does not have a single dedicated post-leaving certificate, PLC, facility. I have repeatedly raised this with both the Minister of State, Deputy Halligan, and the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Bruton. I note there are between 3,500 and 4,500 local authority houses in the area, as well as a great deal of renting but in the face of a skills shortage in Ireland, there are significant numbers of people whose talents still are not being developed or utilised through employment. The missing link is the development of a dedicated PLC facility for the area. This should start with the reinstatement of the PLC facilities at Blakestown Community School and Riversdale Community College, which is under the aegis of an education and training board, ETB. I keep being told by the Ministers that they cannot expand the numbers. It is an enormous pity for all of the adults who would happily do PLC courses, but who cannot avail of them in their own locality.

I thank Deputy Burton. I spoke to her about this very briefly several weeks ago.

In Dublin 15, further education and training, FET, provision is planned by Dublin and Dún Laoghaire Education and Training Board, DDLETB, to cater for over 21,000 beneficiaries this year, offering a wide range of courses consisting mainly of part-time and community adult education, some of which is delivered on the site of one of the two schools referred to by Deputy Burton in the information she supplied.

Higher level full-time FET provision is concentrated in post-leaving certificate colleges and the training centre network. Generally, we have found that full-time learners are willing to travel further to these locations. On offer through the City of Dublin Education and Training Board, CDETB, is a full range of full and part-time further education and training courses up to and including level 6, details of which are available on www.fetchcourse.ie. Provision this year is planned to meet the needs of around 50,000 beneficiaries in the greater Dublin area.

In the context of the overall annual planning of FET provision, it is a matter for each education and training board to determine how best it should distribute FET programme allocations, including post-leaving certificate, to meet the needs of the area. This year, almost 2,800 post-leaving certificate places were allocated to DDLETB and almost 7,500 post-leaving certificate places were allocated to CDETB.

The Deputy may wish to note that one of the schools referred to, Riversdale community college, is in the management of DDLETB and it would be matter, as the Deputy knows, for it to decide on courses to be offered at that location. The second school is not under ETB management and would need put in place its own quality assurance arrangements before it could seek to offer further full-time FET provision.

My Department has brought the matter raised by the Deputy in her question to the attention of DDLETB in order that it can be taken into account in terms of future planning for FET provision for Dublin 15.

I thank the Minister of State for his answer and for taking an interest. However, I did not hear him state that he can provide badly needed and desired further education and training places, which ideally could be restarted in the two schools I mentioned because they used to do them in significant numbers. I assure the Minister of State that among the several thousand local authority houses and rented houses surrounding each school there would be a very strong take-up of a post-leaving certificate option and other further education and training options. This would be a very strong route to further employment and further education for those students who took up these options.

It is a wasted opportunity on the part of the Government not to make provision in an area where there is a great deal of employment. As we were told recently by the Taoiseach, permits are now being issued to bring in foreign workers as opposed to training the people who are already here in the country. In Dublin 15 we have our own citizens and there are many people who have immigrated to Ireland. The Minister talks about the education and training board for County Dublin having facilities for post-leaving certificate courses, but they are over on the south side, in places such as Sallynoggin. How are people supposed to get from Blanchardstown to Sallynoggin?

If I were to be quite frank with the Deputy, I would say that the area is probably not as well served as other areas in the context of the capital budget. There has been huge investment in schools there. The demand on the budget is significant. The vocational education opportunities scheme, VTOS, was previously on offer to Riversdale community college but due to a decline in demand, believe it or not, it was not possible to form a VTOS class this year or last year so it was not continued. That was in 2016 and 2017. In Dublin, within commuting distance - and the Deputy knows this so I probably do not need to tell her - there are the Liberties, Dublin 11, Dublin 10, Dublin 4, Ballsbridge and Inchicore. SOLAS, which is responsible for the ESRI evaluation, makes recommendations on the geographic distribution of planning and organisational provision and better alignment between supply and demand, and the distribution of post-leaving certificate places between the ETBs will be reviewed in the context of the data, skill needs and employment availability overall.

I spoke to the Deputy a few weeks ago, and I reiterate my view that the area is probably not as well served as others. There is no point in saying something I do not believe. Assessments have found that people within the area are willing to travel to areas where it is provided. An evaluation is being carried out by SOLAS.

I ask speakers to have some control on time because other Members are waiting.

I invite the Minister of State to visit Dublin 15, particularly the two schools and the two areas. He made a suggestion originally that, effectively, people would travel to Dún Laoghaire or Sallynoggin. His follow-up suggestions were the Liberties and Ballsbridge, if I heard him correctly. In terms of transport options in Dublin, the fact is a lot of people who have limited transport themselves are unlikely to go somewhere that is up to two hours away from where they live. Often, there is no public transport option that would take them directly. I invite the Minister of State to visit the two schools in Dublin West because the point about these schools is the staff are working very hard to maximise the opportunities of all of the students who attend them and of the adult population in the area, particularly those who have remained in unemployment over a long period, to give them opportunities to get back into education and to go further in education after their leaving certificate and to qualify. Many people would be interested, for instance, in taking up apprenticeships, particularly people coming through education, but there is work to be done on all of this.

I remind the Deputy that SOLAS is responsible for the allocation of post-leaving certificate places in the overall national provision. Having said that, I would be delighted to take up the Deputy's offer to visit the area. I will re-engage with the Deputy at a later date. This will be my third time stating that I accept the fact that the area is probably not as well served. Perhaps I will visit the area at a time that is convenient to the Deputy.

Top
Share