I welcome officials from the social inclusion unit of the Department of Education and Science to the meeting. They are Mr. Séamus McLoughlin, principal officer, Mr. Jim O'Donovan, assistant principal officer and Ms Caitriona O'Brien, assistant principal officer. Before I begin, I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that while members of the joint committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. McLoughlin to make a presentation on behalf of the Department.
Educational Disadvantage: Presentation.
Mr. Séamus McLoughlin
The Department was asked to make a presentation on the classification of schools as disadvantaged and additional funding schemes available to schools. The presentation circulated to the joint committee includes overhead slides, which I will discuss in detail, and a summary document which provides an overall view of the new delivering equality of opportunity in schools — DEIS — action plan launched by the Minister in May.
The first slide provides a broad overview of existing education inclusion measures for children and young people aged up to 18 years. It homes in on the main schools-based programmes because the request to the Department was focused primarily on schools. I will discuss the DEIS action plan and the arrangements used to target schools participating in schools based programmes.
This is the first time the Department has drawn up an overall action plan addressing educational disadvantage across the pre-school, primary and second levels in a holistic and integrated manner. It is, therefore, an important development. The purpose of the DEIS action plan is to build on what has been done in the past and integrate measures already in place. As I discuss the various measures, members will note that there is a significant number of them. The next step is to pull them together.
I will first give an outline of the scope and rationale for the DEIS action plan, after which I will discuss the standardised system for identifying levels of disadvantage being introduced as part of the plan. I will then outline the main elements of the action plan, the DEIS identification process and the key actions involved in it.
The purpose of the second slide is to give members a feel for the broader picture. I do not propose to cover all the educational inclusion measures operated by the Department for children and young people up to the age of 18 years. These include a wide range of targeted supports for schools. The Early Start programme, Giving Children an Even Break, the home-school-community liaison scheme and the school completion programme fall into this category. They are already in place and I will refer to how schools were selected to participate in them. Additional supports exist for vulnerable groups, such as Traveller students or students whose first language is not English or Gaeilge. Members will probably be aware of these.
The National Educational Welfare Board is the key national body with responsibility for school attendance. There is also provision for early school leavers through the Youthreach programme, and also through senior Traveller training centres and other programmes. There are also targeted youth work measures, including special projects for disadvantaged youths. Measures also exist to address the issues of curricular reform and professional development for teachers. Curricular reform extends across programmes such as the junior certificate school programme and the leaving certificate applied programme. There are also many measures to promote access to third level colleges. Expenditure on education inclusion measures for the target group in question will have amounted to approximately €120 million at the end of 2005.
The Early Start pre-school programme has been in operation since 1994 and there are 40 schools involved. There are 16 full units and 24 half units. There are 56 teachers and 56 child care workers employed to operate the programme. The investment in the programme for 2005 will be approximately €5.5 million, which covers both the pay and non-pay aspects.
The Giving Children an Even Break programme commenced in 2001-02. It incorporated two pre-existing schemes — the disadvantaged areas scheme and Breaking the Cycle. I have given the members an outline of what was involved in these pre-existing schemes because they still exist under the umbrella of Giving Children an Even Break. The additional annual investment pertaining to Giving Children an Even Break amounts to approximately €21.5 million for 2005-06. There are over 2,300 schools receiving supports, including teaching and non-pay supports, at varying levels. Supports were given to schools according to the level of disadvantage therein. Given that there are 3,300 primary schools in total, the programme covers a large percentage of them, even though quite a few are receiving only a small cash grant. It is at the top end that staffing measures are in place.
There are two models of support targeting urban and rural schools with the highest concentrations of disadvantage. There are 210 urban schools with maximum pupil-teacher ratios of 20:1 and 27:1, and additional teaching posts are given to those schools. Over 450 rural schools are eligible for teacher co-ordinator services. The idea is that a teacher would work with a cluster of schools in developing links with parents and developing literacy and other measures. The rural schools are generally very small and therefore one could not justify the establishment of full teaching posts therein.
The disadvantaged areas scheme was started in 1984, and there were 310 participating schools by 1994. The scheme was expanded at various times up to and including 1994. The supports provided under the scheme include concessionary teaching posts and participation in the home-school-community liaison scheme. There was a link between the disadvantaged areas scheme and the home-school-community liaison scheme — if one was in one, one was in the other. There are supplementary capitation grants paid to schools under the disadvantaged areas scheme and the cost of the scheme for the current school year amounts to approximately €19 million.
Breaking the Cycle began in 1996 and there are 32 urban schools participating. They benefit from maximum class sizes of 15:1 in junior classes and 27:1 in senior classes. The scheme benefits from an additional investment of approximately €4 million in the current school year.
The important home-school-community liaison scheme was established in 1990. There are 370 home-school-community liaison co-ordinators in about 500 schools. The scheme spans both primary and secondary levels. As I stated, it is interlinked with disadvantaged designation, although we propose to change this under the delivering equality of opportunity in schools programme. Some €21 million is invested in the scheme annually. Given that young people spend 85% of their waking lives from birth to 16 in the home and community rather than in school, the idea is to provide a home-school-community liaison co-ordinator in the schools in question whose job is to work with parents and promote partnership with the home and community in promoting the educational interests of children. The co-ordinator supports parents' education and growth and their involvement in their children's education. The scheme also focuses on issues in the community that impinge on learning.
The second-level disadvantaged areas scheme was established in 1990 and there are approximately 200 participating schools. As with the primary school scheme, the supports include concessionary teaching posts, participation in the home-school-community liaison scheme, which is linked to disadvantage designation, and supplementary capitation grants. The cost is an incremental €7 million in the current school year.
The school completion programme commenced in 2002 and is based on experience and best practice established regarding two preceding pilot programmes. It covers youths between four and 18 and complements the home-school-community liaison scheme. While the major focus of the home-school-community liaison scheme is on the parents and community, the major focus of the school completion programme is on the children. There are different categories of supports available to the participating students under the programme. There are supports provided within the school, supports provided before and after school hours, holiday time supports and out-of-school supports. The rationale is that it is not sufficient to focus solely on what is happening within the school. There are 82 local co-ordinators employed under the scheme and they work with children on a year-round basis. They provide many supports pertaining to sports-related and arts-related activities. Homework clubs and other initiatives also operate under the scheme.
It is really a matter for the communities in question to decide on spending priorities under the school completion scheme. There are 82 project clusters spanning both primary and secondary levels. The bringing together of the two levels into clusters is an important dimension. The staff responsible within these clusters have the autonomy to work out for themselves what they consider to be the most appropriate supports for children at risk within their school communities.
As I mentioned the schemes, I did not refer to how we target schools to participate therein. I will consider the schemes as a unit in this regard as it is more meaningful to do so. A comprehensive survey was carried out on our behalf in 2000 by the educational research centre based in Saint Patrick's College in Drumcondra. The survey required principals of schools to estimate the number of children in those schools from families with medical card holdings, the number with unemployed family members and the number living in local authority housing. The survey also gleaned information on Travellers. Giving Children an Even Break was based on the results of this survey and it was responsible for establishing the means of selecting schools for priority support. The primary and second level disadvantaged areas schemes involved a slightly different process in that schools applied to participate in them. The schools completed a questionnaire and again provided information on issues such as medical card holdings, unemployment and local authority housing.
As I mentioned, the Early Start programme involves 40 schools. These schools were selected on the basis that they were already in the disadvantaged areas scheme and that they possessed the highest levels of disadvantage under that scheme. An additional condition was that they had to have classroom accommodation to accommodate pre-school facilities.
Breaking the Cycle involved another questionnaire for urban schools already in the disadvantaged areas scheme. It was an updated questionnaire and considered criteria and variables beyond those considered for the disadvantaged areas scheme. The school completion programme was based on an analysis of retention data available to the Department through its post-primary pupils database such that there would be a comprehensive database of information on the extent of early school leaving in second level schools. All second level schools with a retention rate of 70% or below, to leaving certificate were selected for inclusion in the school completion programme. That is how the schools were classified as disadvantaged in the different schemes.
Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools, DEIS, is a new programme. Its overall aim is to meet the educational needs of children and young people from disadvantaged communities, covering the pre-school through second level age group, the three to 18 year olds. DEIS is also a key part of a wider continuum which includes second chance education, training and access measures for adults and provision for students with special needs. DEIS complements but does not focus on these.
Our objective is to integrate and build extensively on a range of the existing measures I have outlined. We recognise that this is a multifaceted problem requiring a multifaceted response. One-dimensional initiatives have had only limited success. We are trying to address the issue with a more integrated approach which is challenging but the right way for the future.
Educational Research Centre surveys of disadvantaged schools, undertaken on our behalf, show that early school leaving and educational under-achievement are major concerns. The committee has highlighted the concerns and gaps in provision in regard to identifying educational disadvantage. We need to develop early childhood education. There are targeted measures for literacy and numeracy which we want to develop.
We need to pay more attention to measuring progress and outcomes, as well as integration of services, and professional development for teachers and other staff involved in these programmes. There is no quick fix for this problem which requires a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach.
DEIS will better identify disadvantage in schools and provide a new integrated school support programme, bringing together supports at a concentrated level of disadvantage to include and build upon ten existing schemes and initiatives, many of which I outlined earlier in my presentation. The indicative, but not exact, number of schools to be included is 600 primary and 150 second level, which amounts to approximately 20% of schools in each of those categories.
Supports will also continue for more dispersed disadvantage. There is an ambitious plan with a large work programme to be implemented on a phased basis over five years. This will require an additional annual investment of approximately €40 million including the cost of 300 additional posts on full implementation, marking a 33% increase on the €120 million spent on the current school year.
In the past there were different identification processes for different points in time, for the schemes in place. In DEIS we are trying to introduce a standardised system, to be managed on our behalf by the Educational Research Centre, which has long experience in this area.
A comprehensive survey was conducted in primary schools last May and an advisory committee has supported our work in this area. The committee includes representatives of the INTO and the Irish Primary Principals Network who helped us by ensuring we phrased the questions realistically, and that we were not bothering principals with a large administrative task but still getting the information we need for this scheme. We received an encouraging response rate of 97%. The support of the partners in this was crucial because they advertised the survey in their newsletters and encouraged principals to co-operate with it. The Education Research Centre continues to analyse this for the list of schools to participate in DEIS.
We have a post-primary pupil database and will return to that. We will also take data from the State examination system which includes an indicator for medical card holders thus providing a socio-economic indicator. It is important to record this with the exam result and retention data. Information from the school books grant scheme forms completed by principals is also being fed into the process. We expect to notify the participating schools by the end of the year and phase one measures will begin shortly thereafter.
The key actions include targeted early childhood education provision in 150 school communities. Rather than following the model of Early Start the Department will work in partnership with other Departments and agencies to complement and add value to existing child care provision in disadvantaged communities. There is a great deal of provision available. When we have identified the 150 school communities in the greatest need we will look at the situation and work with other Departments and agencies to try to build an education element into that rather than create another set of stand alone centres or provision. That will be a better approach and give a better service to parents too.
There will be targeted class size reductions in urban primary schools. The 150 schools of greatest need will have 20:1 in junior classes and 24:1 in senior classes. This is a reduction from the 27:1 that prevailed under Giving Children an Even Break. There will be access to teacher co-ordinator support for all the 300 rural primary schools in the school support programme. Additional financial support will be included, amounting to €2.5 million in 2005-06.
More work is needed in the area of literacy and numeracy. One recommendation from several studies was to establish an advisory service at primary level to support teachers in schools serving disadvantaged communities in teaching literacy and numeracy. The aim is to build up a core of expertise within the primary curriculum support programme which can give hands-on support to teachers in that area. We will also increase access to initiatives such as reading recovery and maths recovery, focused on early intervention with individual children, to address difficulties before they become embedded.
At second level we intend to provide more funding for measures under the junior certificate school programme and a targeted extension of a library project which has been quite successful in 11 schools. We will extend it in phases up to 50 schools. We will also put in place a family literacy project. To ensure that schools in the support programme have all the measures they need, commensurate with their level of disadvantage, we will fill the gaps in access to the home-school community liaison scheme and school completion programme.
There will be additional provision for guidance counselling for targeted second level schools and measures to support the recruitment and retention of school staff by reducing the thresholds for appointment of administrative principals. This will be implemented for 300 urban primary schools over a two-year period and will help principals in small primary schools, serving disadvantaged communities where we do not have the time to do the necessary planning, target setting and literacy support. We will enhance professional development supports for teachers and our objective is to implement a new scheme of sabbatical leave from 2006-07. This will be confined initially to those working at the highest levels of disadvantage.
A key part of this work is to put in place better planning, target setting and measurement of progress and outcomes. We will work with the relevant education partners to arrive at an agreement on how to track progress in a range of areas. It is envisaged that we will issue a planning template through the existing school development planning initiatives.
We do not want to create another parallel-type process. We will seek to build on what is already there. A common set of indicators will then be developed on a partnership basis to facilitate progress reporting on the implementation of the schools' action plans. The area of integrated services and partnership working also needs to be further developed, internally in the Department and also between the Department and other agencies and Departments.
Thank you. The committee would welcome co-ordination in this area because there have been so many different schemes, sometimes overlapping. The general principle is welcomed by all.
I welcome the three representatives from the Department. I liked the presentation which outlined what was there before, and what changed under DEIS, delivering equality of opportunity in schools. However, I had always assumed that when the review of disadvantage is to be done we would look at what works and what does not work, remove the latter, and increase what works. Following the second part of the Department presentation, I am not quite clear. The need for better evaluation was noted. My biggest criticism is that we do not really know what is working well and what is not working, in terms of disadvantage. Perhaps the representatives know, and can tell me.
For example, we have not improved to any great extent the literacy and numeracy levels of people emerging at the end of the education system. We have not tackled the drop-out rate at primary or post-primary level. That means that some of what has been there has not worked. We are going forward with DEIS, but are we making any changes to the existing schemes in order to improve numeracy and literacy rates and cut the drop-out rates? We have the National Educational and Welfare Board, but it would claim it is insufficiently funded, and I agree.
The Minister for Education and Science has talked about home-school liaison and suggested that some of the roles overlap, so that the NEWB does not necessarily need all the staff it says it does. Why then have the NEWB if the home-school liaison job is being done? We need more clarity in terms of who is responsible for what. Co-ordination is the key, but sometimes there may be a necessary overlapping. I do not know if the people on the ground are quite clear as to what is their job and what is the job of others.
What level of co-ordination is there between the co-ordinators? When do they meet? For example, what process is there for the education and welfare officer from Offaly to meet the home-school person from that county? How do they inter-mingle to ensure they are targeting the right places?
Looking at the early start pre-school initiative, 40 schools were involved from 1994, and that number has not increased since then. If it works, why do we not have it in other areas and why has it not expanded? I would like some clarity on that. The representative also mentioned Youthreach. If Youthreach works, why is it still a pilot programme after 18 years? Why has it not been put on a proper statutory footing?
I ask the Department representatives to respond principally on the issue of evaluation. That is crucial. In terms of the identification process, the representatives talked about medical cards. What else is taken into account in classifying disadvantage?
Is there any kind of rapid response section in the Department? I know of a school built for 250 students and which currently only has 69 students. It is not classified as disadvantaged because at the time, the parents in the town did not want the school classified as such. Now, five schools within three miles of that town have had extensions built because so many children are attending them. That clearly represents bad value for money from the perspective of the Department. Currently, the school I mentioned is at a crucial stage, with all 69 children there seriously disadvantaged. There is nevertheless no extra help available to them. Perhaps they will fall under the scheme outlined, but there should be a section in the Department which could identify such problems arising. That would be a lot cheaper than building five school extensions.
I apologise for being late and I welcome the delegation. I tried to read the presentation as quickly as possible and I am familiar with some of its elements from before. I agree with the Vice Chairman on integration between Departments. That is a very important message going out from this committee. Among the different committees of which we are members, we see that in other areas of politics the lack of co-ordination is a real problem.
There seems to have been a gap over the past couple of years regarding the transition from primary to secondary education. Has the Department identified some ways of ensuring that where resource teachers are provided at primary level, a smooth transition occurs when the student goes on to secondary school, so that no new applications need to be made or new forms filled out? That would recognise that no great change has occurred in the person's life except the move to a different school.
The representatives might also say more about pre-school education. What additional programmes and resources is the Department proposing to direct towards pre-school education under the heading of social inclusion? Can they identify increases in funding in this area? I am not trying to be political but they might spell out the pattern of funding as it has increased in the area of social inclusion in primary and secondary school over the past few years, perhaps ten years. The officials might also identify the pattern of early school leaving — is it increasing or decreasing? I understand it is a major concern, but are we making positive strides in the area or going backwards? Could the officials also give some figures on the pattern of people going into third level education compared to those going into it ten years ago?
One issue already raised relates to whether we are getting value for money as expenditure increases. Can the officials predict what we could get by putting extra money into the area? No doubt there have been great changes in the past couple of years because there is more money in the country to spend in this area. What do we need to spend to get real results, to make a difference? For every sum of money we spend, what do we get for it? Is the expenditure worthwhile?
I am familiar with some of the programmes mentioned and the changes on the way. To tackle educational disadvantage properly, we need to work more with the overall family, and with parents. Not enough mention has been made of that in the presentation. To finally break the cycle of educational disadvantage, parents and families must be convinced of the importance of breaking it. They must be brought on board. Those people will then encourage their children and neighbours to avail of the opportunities we now want to provide. People are often held back because parents feel awkward or do not encourage their children. Even in families which are not disadvantaged, parents in their 40s and 50s may not have gone to third level and may not encourage their children to go. They simply assume the children will go down the road of apprenticeship. These people are not socially disadvantaged.
We are not working enough on the parents. That issue is not sufficiently regarded in this report. Perhaps it is not highly relevant here, but more reference should be made to it.
I am disappointed in the level of resources allocated. There was so much talk about educational disadvantage over the past few years, but €40 million annually is quite a small amount of money. The scheme is to be phased in. Is the €40 million going in next year and every year over the period?
Regarding the targeted class size reductions, 150 schools are supposed to have class/teacher sizes of 20:1 in junior classes and 24:1 in senior classes. That is not a significant reduction in class sizes when it comes to assisting seriously disadvantaged schools. I would have hoped that it might have been better. The 20:1 ratio for junior classes is in the programme for Government. I know that I am being political, but I feel very strongly about such issues regarding all schools for under-nines. This is only for the most targeted ones in the most disadvantaged areas. I recently visited a school in Dublin where every parent was disadvantaged in some way. There was a great deal of drug dependence and no tradition of going on at school beyond the age of 14 or 15 years.
Such schools require great assistance. I know that 150 are being targeted specifically, but I would have hoped for even more focus on them. There are relatively few, but they are extremely disadvantaged. The same is true of early childhood education provision. I welcome the fact that there has been some progress in the area, but there too I would have hoped for more.
I have tabled parliamentary questions on schools that have lost teachers as a result of the introduction of the weighted system for special educational needs, which would have affected inner-city Dublin, Limerick, the other cities and some rural areas too. Some schools have lost resources as a result, and some of the most disadvantaged have lost teachers. In the answer to a parliamentary question, I was told that the DEIS proposals will address that problem. Perhaps Mr. McLoughlin might tell me specifically of where a school has lost a teacher — I know of one that has lost three — and how precisely the DEIS programme will address specific needs in those areas.
Information on literacy and numeracy, on which some research has been conducted, shows a much higher level of problems in that regard in schools in disadvantaged areas than the proportion of resources that they are given under the weighted system, whereby they get 80:1. The general number is 150:1 for boys' schools. I am not sure of the exact figure, but they are certainly not getting the proportion that the figures regarding literacy and numeracy problems suggest they deserve. I know from having spoken to teachers and principals that some of those schools — the neediest ones — have lost teachers because of the weighted system. DEIS seems to be the only answer to their problems, judging from the responses that I have received from the Department. How will the DEIS proposals assist in that regard?
Both the officials and Deputy Enright mentioned Youthreach. I believe that it was said that €120 million was going into tackling disadvantage. Where does Youthreach fit in? Is it included in that figure? Is the cap on funding for the public service affecting it in any way, or does it affect youth work in general? I assume that it does not affect it, but I wanted to ask the question to be sure. I know that there are other proposals regarding Youthreach and areas not covered by this, but I agree on the need, raised by Deputy English, to co-ordinate all these things, including how we work with parents and programmes that address matters further than early pre-school, primary or second level.
Overall, I was expecting much more from this than what appears to be in it. Will it be ongoing regarding what information one gets on the classification of schools? If it is found that there is much more need than is provided for by the funding earmarked for the purpose, might the Department and the Government put more money into the area?
Mr. McLoughlin
A lot of points have been raised. I will try to cover as many as I can and ask my colleagues to make supplementary comments in specific areas. Deputy Enright raised the issue of the identification process and what is taken into account. It might be useful to begin with that. There was also the notion of a rapid response in the case of schools whose situation may be changing.
Regarding what will be taken into account, a very detailed analysis is being conducted on our behalf by the Educational Research Centre. We do not yet know what variables it will use, since it is examining the correlation between educational outcomes in schools and individual socioeconomic variables to find the best predictors of serious literacy and numeracy difficulties and other such issues. On that basis, they will accord a weighting to different variables and make recommendations to us that we will discuss with the advisory group, after which we will produce a final list of the key indicators that we will use in the process. It has not yet been finally determined.
The kinds of things that I mentioned earlier will obviously come into play. It is between question 6 and question 9 in the questionnaire issued and covers such issues as holding a medical card, unemployment, local authority housing, parental education and other related matters, such as the number of Traveller and non-national children in the school. Those are the kinds of areas involved. That process is ongoing, and I believe that the ERC is doing a very good job on our behalf.
On rapid response, we have been discussing with the advisory group how we deal with the question of matters changing after we have produced a list. We must strike a balance between our having an endless administrative process dealing with applications and addressing the needs of schools where there have been very significant shifts in a short time, for example, the space of a year or two. We intend introducing a process as part of DEIS implementation to address that. Schools where there is a rapidly changing situation can thus be dealt with between rounds. They would fill out a questionnaire, which we would consider to see if they could participate in the programme rather than waiting until it came around again.
The issue of what works and what does not was also raised. What are we building on, and is it the case that we are merely taking everything that we have had previously and adding more? Where we had evaluations, we took full account of them in devising the DEIS actions. For example, the HSCL scheme has been very well evaluated over the years. It was proposed by the OECD in a report produced in 1996. Positive outcomes have been shown for the scheme in the results of surveys and analyses conducted by the ERC on our behalf.
The position with the school completion programme is that it was introduced only in 2002. It needs a little more time before we make a final judgment. However, when setting up the programme, we took account of the positive outcomes from the two predecessor pilot projects, which had indicated that a cross-community, cross-sectoral approach was much better than an individual school one. It was far better to have schools working together in clusters in the community rather than tackling a problem in isolation. That learning has been conveyed into DEIS and formed part of the rationale behind our expansion of school completion in the programme.
Reading recovery has also been very positively evaluated by our inspectorate. It originated in New Zealand, and a great deal of research and literature is available on it. As with many things, outcomes can vary depending on the environment in which it operates. However, in our environment, it has been very positively evaluated by our inspectorate. On that basis, we have decided to expand it.
Those are some examples of the kinds of things that we have tried to take into account in assembling the DEIS programme. On the NEWB, the HSCL scheme, the overlap of co-ordinators and whether they meet, there are committees at a local level in which the education welfare officer could participate, for example, the committee running a school completion programme. I acknowledge that more work has to be done in that area.
The NEWB and ourselves have done some initial work on developing protocols for integrated working between the various services. There are attendance functions in the roles of others apart from the educational welfare officers. We want to ensure that everyone is working together on that. There are attendance tracking schemes, for example, within the school completion programme, which are valid. It means there can be a same day response where, for example, a child has not turned up for school and somebody can follow up straightaway that morning with the parents. Such initiatives can and will link in with the work of the NEWB as regards the attendance area.
The issue of Early Start was also raised and the fact that it should be expanded if it works. A number of evaluations have been done on Early Start and there are some positive outcomes. On the other hand, the missing dimension is the fact that it is not linked with child care in any way. There have been issues around attendance and such matters that are of some concern because of the limited number of hours for engagement with the child. It was felt that there is a need to expand the number of hours, linking that to child care, rather than leaving it as a stand alone initiative, as happened in the past. However, we intend that the centre for early childhood development and education should look closely at Early Start with us, to see how it should be developed for the future and link in with initiatives that have been taken by other Departments.
The issue of integration between Departments was mentioned as something that is vitally important. We strongly acknowledge and agree with that. We have outlined in the DEIS programme a series of measures we intend to take towards ensuring that there is better integration between ourselves and other Departments. For example, as regards the area of school meals, we intend to work jointly with the Department of Social and Family Affairs in developing that scheme. We have had some contact, too, with the public library service, with which we intend to work more closely in the future, as regards literacy and numeracy efforts. The service is extremely supportive of the type of work that the Department and the schools do in this area and we want to link in with it more effectively.
The issue of transition to secondary from primary level was also raised, whether it is a smooth process and what the Department is doing in that area. Much effort is being made both through the home-school community liaison scheme and the school completion programme and more can be done in the future to build transition programmes for pupils moving from primary to second level. For example, I mentioned the holiday time supports that are provided. Sometimes they include week long transfer programmes so that a child moving from primary to secondary level is given a starter period of a week to get accustomed to the new school. That is one element of our schemes which is in place.
The question was raised about the pattern of funding over the ten-year period, 1995 to date. Expenditure in this area was about €50 million in 1998, the last year I can recall at this point. The figure is €120 million for 2005. The additional investment of €40 million will bring it to €160 million. On the resources to go in each year and the question of the €40 million which the Vice Chairman raised, until the identification process has been completed we do not know which schools will be involved in the programme and what they have already. Therefore, it is not possible to say what the precise breakdown will be between the different sectors.
However, a good deal of the money will be invested upfront over the first two years or so, to bring it to the level, after five years, where the full €40 million extra is being spent annually. We envisage €15 million or so extra next year and perhaps €25 million in 2007. Many of the measures such as reduced class sizes, administrative principals and the additional supports under home school community liaison and school completion programmes will be put in place without delay. This will involve a fair degree of front-loading which means that there will be early increases in expenditure in the areas concerned.
The class size reductions will include reductions to 20:1 and 24:1 from existing ratios. The international literature we drew on in developing the action plan indicated that to go much lower than 20:1 does not yield significantly more in terms of educational outcomes. We did not feel justified, therefore, in looking at that area. However, we want to focus on the senior classes because we knew that particular issues were involved here, from third to sixth classes in primary schools where the 27:1 ratio obtained. We opted to reduce it to the 24:1 in respect of these classes.
We see such initiatives as part of a learning process as well. We must see the results and keep matters under review. Other proposals and investments may arise at a later stage, depending on how the whole issue is tracked and what is the outcome.
Will it be tracked regularly, say, on a yearly basis?
Mr. McLoughlin
We intend to track on the basis of the partnership process producing a set of variables on which the education partners may report to the Department to give us a good sense of the way the initiatives are progressing over the period of the plan.
Mr. Jim O’Donovan
I wish to expand on the points as regards early school leaving. In terms of retention to leaving certificate level, that has been fairly constant, at around 82%, for quite a number of years. The figure on attainment rather than retention, as such, from the Central Statistics Office for people between the ages of 18 and 24 with a qualification other than junior certificate is about 87%. There is a difference in terms of retention and actual attainment. The development of the National Qualifications Framework will further point to the fact that attainment levels are actually higher than pure retention figures. The European Union has set itself a target of not more than 10% early school leavers by 2010. At the moment we are at about 13% and in advance of most other EU countries in that regard.
What about the retention pattern?
Mr. O’Donovan
The retention pattern has been fairly constant in recent years, but there is evidence in terms of actual educational attainment, that this level is increasing.
As regards my question about schools that have lost out relative to the weighted model, these principals tell me they have large numbers of children with high incidences of special needs which are now being dealt with in this way. Can any hope be offered to these principals in terms of getting teachers back, under the scheme as outlined?
Mr. McLoughlin
Although it is not within my direct area of responsibility, but I understand that under the weighted model arrangements have been made with schools experiencing particular hardship in terms of the loss of a number of posts. This is being looked at over a period of years rather than, say, pulling three teachers out at the same time. Up to 300 additional posts are being put into the system, under DEIS, so that those schools with the greatest needs will benefit. They will benefit, potentially, under the reduced class sizes initiative and also through appointments to additional administrative principal posts.
Is there not a need for a level of flexibility as regards individual problems in particular schools rather than putting them into boxes? There are genuine problems in some schools that have to deal with the most needy children.
Mr. McLoughlin
The Vice Chairman mentioned schools at the very top level in terms of severe needs. There must be flexibility, as she says. While rolling out that to which we are committed we will see the results of the identification process and the situation will be kept under review.
Two other issues have just occurred to me. Is the teaching of English as a second language to non-national children being targeted? Has consideration been given to the need for resources for co-ordinating programmes, where there is a concentration of non-national children in particular disadvantaged areas?
The issue of young offenders comes under the concern I have for integration between Departments. Is the Department in contact with the Courts Service, the DPP, and the probation service on young offenders in the education system? How will programmes and resources be targeted to tackle that category of person in disadvantaged areas?
Do the witnesses consider whether Youthreach is a scheme that works? Has any consideration been given to putting it on a more definite footing?
Mr. McLoughlin
There are specific supports for Youthreach. There have been very positive outcomes and reviews from that scheme. It is not in my direct area of responsibility and I can find some more information for the Deputy on plans for the future. There are teaching and non-paid supports in place for non-nationals in schools, based on the number of children who have English as a second language in the school. That scheme is operating and there has been a large increase in the uptake of the scheme in recent years.
We are in close contact with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the area of young offenders. A review is almost completed on the future role of the two Departments on the young offenders centres. We will put an education strategy into that whole process.
On behalf of the committee, I thank the delegation for attending this meeting.
The joint committee adjourned at 12.45 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 17 November 2005.