I welcome the officials from the Department of Education and Science, Ms Mary McGarry, principal officer in the ICT policy unit, and Mr. Fergal Nolan. I also welcome Mr. Jerome Morrissey and Mr. Tom Lonergan from the National Centre for Technology in Education. Before we begin, I draw the attention of the witnesses to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to them. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
Computerisation Programme: Presentation.
Ms Mary McGarry
The provision of broadband to schools is an essential element in the Department's strategy of integrating ICT into teaching and learning. The Internet is an important resource for education because it provides a vast range of information and an increasingly rich source of educational content, much of which is interactive and multimedia in nature. Use of the Internet in the classroom has the potential to make learning exciting, participative and collaborative and to facilitate inter-school communications, both nationally and internationally. While all schools have Internet connectivity, the most recent school survey from 2002 revealed that only 7% of post-primary and fewer than 1% of primary schools had broadband access. In terms of those schools with dial-up connections, 80% of post-primary and 27% of primary schools had ISDN connections. The provision of broadband access to schools is a fundamental requirement if they are to fully exploit the potential of ICT in teaching and learning. In keeping with the Lisbon Agenda for Europe to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, the action plan e-Europe 2005 envisages all schools and universities having broadband connectivity by the end of 2005.
Against this background, in January 2003 the Department engaged Datanet International, an independent telecommunications consultancy, to undertake a study into the provision of broadband Internet connectivity to schools. This was to be in the light of evolving market capability and developments in technology and infrastructure, while having regard to school size and location. Datanet reported in July 2003 and recommended that schools be provided with a minimum bandwidth of 512 kbps. This minimum level of bandwidth would apply to small primary schools and would be increased to 1 mbps in the case of larger primary schools and small post-primary schools. The bandwidth would be further increased to 2 mbps for larger post-primary schools. Datanet recommended that the schools broadband provision be managed through a centrally managed schools network that would provide a range of network functions including Internet access, security, content filtering, e-mail and virus control.
While recommending that the optimum mode of connection for any school, as between fixed line, either DSL or leased line, wireless or satellite, would be determined by the response of the market. Datanet argued for the technology used to be scaleable in order to increase bandwidths as usage increases. Datanet ranked the technologies in the order in which each service would be selected for an individual school, assuming that it was physically available in that area and that the cost was comparable with the other available services.
Following the completion of the Datanet report, an industry-Government working group was established to explore a possible partnership approach to funding broadband connectivity to schools. Membership of the group included the Departments of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and Education and Science and the National Centre for Technology in Education on the Government side, and the Telecommunications and Internet Federation, TIF, and ICT Ireland on the industry side. Discussions took place over several months and culminated in an agreement, in principle, in February 2004 on the establishment of an €18 million joint IBEC-TIF and Government fund to resource the provision of broadband connectivity to all primary and post-primary schools over a three-year period. It was decided that industry would contribute €15 million to the fund, with the remaining €3 million coming from the Exchequer.
In February 2004, the Government authorised the Ministers for Education and Science and Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to enter into the agreement with the telecommunications industry. Government approval was also given to establish a centrally managed national broadband network for schools and a national service desk.
The agreement between the Ministers and IBEC-TIF of June 2004 is to provide broadband access to schools at speeds of 512 kbps or higher and is for a period of three years, commencing with the initial billable service provision. The initiative is being overseen by a joint steering group, comprising representatives of the two Departments and IBEC-TIF. It also comprises an expert advisory group, with broader IBEC-TIF representation and representation from the two Departments, the National Centre for Technology in Education and HEAnet. The agreement also provides for a programme evaluator to be appointed to independently evaluate progress on the deployment of broadband access to schools and the impact of such deployment. The agreement covers the supply of access and rental of all elements of a transmission system for broadband access to schools. It does not cover the provision of equipment, networks and services in schools. The agreement provides for an independent, competitive, technology neutral, central procurement process for the provision of local connectivity for schools.
The estimated cost of the overall schools broadband access programme, incorporating the local connectivity at school level, the national schools broadband network and the service desk, including the initial set-up and ongoing costs over the next three years, is approximately €30 million. These cost estimates include the €18 million for connectivity, €2 million for routers, €8 million for the network and €2 million for the service desk.
Schools connectivity is being routed to the Internet through a national broadband network that was developed by HEAnet. Each school is being connected to the network via a high-speed broadband router, provided to the school and housed therein, and a broadband access link. Several different broadband access technologies are being used to connect the schools. The network provides centrally managed services for schools such as security, anti-spam, anti-virus and content filtering.
The national network has been in development since last autumn. HEAnet has put in place a network operations centre to channel and control the broadband access to schools. The network provides central security cover for schools guarding against viruses and spam attaching from outside the network. It also provides content filtering cover to ensure control of the range of materials that can be accessed at individual school level. In addition, HEAnet has completed contract negotiations for the provision of an e-mail facility to schools and this service will be piloted shortly with an expectation of being fully available from March April 2006. The network will also provide a web hosting facility for schools and this is likely to become available during the first half of 2006.
A national service desk has also been established to interface between the network, broadband service access providers and schools in the roll-out phase and thereafter to provide schools with ongoing advice and assistance. The service desk is managed by the National Centre for Technology in Education.
In July 2004, a competitive public procurement tender process was put in place for the provision of broadband access to 3,955 primary and post-primary schools. The additional 74 schools that were excluded are operating within the Hermes and advanced deployment programmes. The request for tender sought tenders for the provision of connectivity from schools to the HEAnet backbone, lot 1, and standardised terminal equipment routers at each school, lot 2, to facilitate central management of the network by HEAnet. Respondents could bid for either or both lots. The bandwidths and service specifications sought were in line with those set out in the Datanet report, namely, a minimum bandwidth of 512 kbps for small primary schools and up to 2 mbps for larger post-primary schools, with provision for scale, symmetric bandwidth where feasible, low contention, latency, etc. Respondents were required to specify the roll number, name and location of the schools for which they were tendering and to provide a separate unit cost for each school tendered.
In the request for tender, broadband for schools was defined as 512 kbps or higher. This was a minimum figure, as the Department intended to use its available budget to provide school connections for every school at as high a bandwidth as possible. The request for tender, therefore, requested pricing for a range of bandwidths for every school. Respondents were also asked to provide pricing for bandwidths above 2 mbps at any school where it is believed such connectivity could be cost-effectively offered.
Some 20 responses were received, involving 104 lot 1 services and 85 lot 2 options. These were evaluated by a team comprising officers of the two Departments, the NCTE, HEAnet and Datanet. Mason, Hayes and Curran Solicitors were appointed legal advisers to the evaluation team. The results of the tender process were announced in January 2005 and, following detailed contract negotiations with the various companies, contracts were finalised — with six companies in respect of the provision of access connectivity to the schools and with Eircom for the provision of a broadband router at school level, where appropriate — by June 2005. BT Ireland will supply routers to three schools. In that regard, the satellite provision for 530 schools contains the necessary functionality and does not require the provision of a separate router.
The companies selected for the provision of local access connectivity are Digiweb, Smart Telecom, Irish Broadband, BT Ireland, Last Mile and HS Data. The number of schools awarded was 3,925, 30 less than the figure included in the RFT. The latter reflects school closures, amalgamations and so on. The range of technologies involved includes fixed line at 841 schools, 22%, wireless at 1,507 schools, 38%, and satellite at 1,577 schools, 40%.
Datanet have been engaged as roll-out manager for the project and they co-ordinate the activities of the service desk, the network and the contracted providers. There is a project board comprising NCTE, HEAnet and Datanet that meets weekly and a steering group comprising the two Departments, which meets fortnightly.
The general chronology of installation is that connectivity, or lot 1, providers must arrange to connect their service to the HEAnet. Local connectivity may then be installed and tested, at which point a bill can be raised for the service. Then the router, lot 2, is installed and the connectivity tested end to end, at which stage router invoices may be raised. Providers have signed up to run rates, which set out the pace at which they will install the equipment in schools. Each selects the individual order in which its schools will be installed, arranges an appointment with school authorities and informs the service desk of that detail. The run rates are based on a company's potential regarding its installation teams to organise and deliver school installations.
Roll-out commenced in June 2005. As of 14 December 2005, the number of schools that had their basic connectivity service installed was 2,716 and the number of schools that had their router installed, either separately or as part of the basic connectivity service, was 2,036. The latter figure includes 373 of the 530 satellite schools not requiring separate routers. It is expected that the roll-out will be fully completed by March 2006.
It was acknowledged from the outset that the successful application of DSL, wireless, and satellite technologies was contingent on appropriate conditions, which would only become apparent for any individual school when appropriate tests were carried out. It would be necessary in some cases to fall back to a second-choice technology. The contractual arrangements allow for the re-award of such schools within the process, and the Department is currently re-awarding 345 schools in that context. There is also provision in the contractual arrangements to scale up the bandwidth available to schools, having regard to their usage and requirements, and for the inclusion of new schools opening during the contract period.
The successful completion of the roll-out and the associated development of the national schools broadband network represents a major enhancement to the Department's ICT in schools programme. It facilitates high-speed and multi-user Internet to rich multimedia content, including video and audio. The provision of permanent, "always on" access addresses school concerns regarding the cost of usage and the provision of the centrally managed services addresses school security and safety concerns.
I now call on Mr. Jerome Morrissey, the director of the National Centre for Technology in Education, to make his presentation.
The NCTE provides support and advice to schools regarding a range of areas to do with ICT infrastructure, in this specific case regarding the broadband roll out. The NCTE is responsible for implementing the schools ICT programme of the Department of Education and Science. As members have heard, we worked very closely with the Department in the roll-out of that initiative. Throughout the year, we provide ongoing support and advice to school principals and ICT co-ordinating teachers regarding all aspects of infrastructural development, the deployment of ICT facilities and the use of ICT in teaching and learning. That support has been provided through regional seminars, workshops, written and on-line information, guidance packs and on-line advice and support published on the NCTE website. The NCTE also meets managerial groups, principals, associations and teacher representative groups. The regional ICT advisory service provides more targeted advice and support to local schools.
Regarding NCTE's support for the schools broadband programme to date, in the past 16 months it has assisted schools in preparing for broadband connectivity. Advice and support were provided to schools on broadband connectivity issues, school networking and related technological and infrastructural issues. In autumn 2004, the NCTE, through the national network of education centres, ran a nationwide series of broadband seminars for principals. Feedback from those seminars helped the NCTE identify more sharply the supports required by schools to help them prepare for broadband. An accompanying overview document, "The Schools Broadband Programme: information and guidance for schools", was distributed to all schools subsequently.
Regarding advice and support services to schools in respect of the introduction of broadband connectivity and service, the NCTE provides information and support to schools through its website, the national broadband service desk and the regional ICT advisory service. In April 2005, the NCTE set up the service desk to support the introduction and roll-out of broadband connectivity to schools. The NCTE directs and manages the work of the service desk to provide broadband-related information, guidance, roll-out supports, co-ordination and technical supports to schools, service-providers and the other stakeholders in the initiative.
The NCTE provides schools with regular information on the status of the broadband schools programme. This primarily involves providing information to schools via the service desk through the NCTE website, guidelines and correspondence, both electronic and written. The NCTE advises on the building of in-school networked computer facilities and on connection to the schools broadband programme. The NCTE promotes the development of in-school networking by providing networking advice, guidance, co-ordination and support to schools. The Department provided €20 million for school networking since December 2004.
The NCTE collaborates with the HEAnet and telecommunications companies in the roll-out of the new national ICT network programme for schools. It works closely with its partners to ensure that the programme's objectives are clearly set out. That includes activities on the specifications, procurement and implementation of the programme. The NCTE was represented on the broadband working group and on the steering committee. It focused on the areas of broadband access, security services for the schools broadband network, a service desk and e-mail services. It worked with the other broadband partners to build a set of detailed requirement specifications for the overall network and associated services. Regarding the involvement with the public procurement tendering process, members will have heard Ms McGarry mention all the detailed elements.
The on-line content-filtering system is an integral part of the schools broadband programme and involves allowing on-line access to certain categories of web pages and content, based on the policy levels selected by each school, while blocking on-line access to certain other categories of web pages and content. Levels of content filtering ranging from the very restricted to more open access will be available to choose from. Illegal and harmful websites will always be blocked. The schools network security service performs certain functions regarding on-line content delivered through the network, namely, allowing on-line access to websites based on the policy level selected by the school and blocking viruses and other malware from being sent to schools from external, internet and e-mail sources.
On-line access by schools to the Internet is filtered using a content filtering system. The filtering service provides Internet filtering based on Fortinet services. Fortinet maintains and updates a database of approximately 28 million websites. Currently the content filtering service offers two levels of filtering. If, having opted for one level, a school finds that it allows access to too many or too few websites, it can change to other levels by signing and returning a form to the NCTE service desk.
The service desk is a single point of contact for all schools regarding all aspects of the programme. It is contactable through a single telephone number, by e-mail or via the broadband section of the NCTE website. The service desk supports broadband for schools throughout the entire timeframe up to and beyond the point at which the school is fully connected and successfully accessing the Internet. This also includes post-installation support.
In summary, the main steps in connecting a school to the network are the following. First, the broadband connection is installed and tested by the service provider. The service desk remotely tests each connection while the service provider is at the school. Then a router is installed and tested in each school by the service provider. The service desk remotely tests that each router is operating correctly while the service provider is at the school.
Finally, schools receive a letter from the NCTE, informing them of the next steps in the process, as follows. Before being connected to the Internet, each school has to confirm in writing that it has an acceptable usage policy, AUP, in place. A signed "confirmation of AUP" form is sent back to the NCTE service desk, is checked to ensure it is completed correctly and the broadband database is updated to reflect this. Before being allowed to connect to the Internet, each school has to confirm in writing what content filtering option it has chosen. A signed content filtering form is sent back to the service desk, is checked to ensure it is completed correctly and the broadband database is updated to reflect this.
Assistance is available to enable schools to connect and configure their computer networks, LANs, to work with the new broadband router and network. In most cases schools employ the services of the local ICT persons who already support their school network. The service desk works closely with the school to ensure that any difficulties that arise are resolved.
In delivering broadband, supporting networking throughout the school is a key related priority, as this will distribute it to the classrooms and other learning areas. NCTE has produced guidelines to assist schools in the following areas: detailed specifications for cabling and networking, and guidelines on how to request quotes from potential suppliers; how to identify a suitable local IT supplier — a detailed directory of suppliers was published on the NCTE website; indicative costings for networking — these give schools a good idea of what they can expect to pay for cabling and networking.
The NCTE provides guidelines and advice to all schools on the development and maintenance of an ICT policy, which includes the acceptable use of the Internet, and AUP. It is important that such a policy is in place in all schools and explicit confirmation of such is required before a school is connected to the broadband network.
"Webwise" is the Internet safety initiative of the NCTE. The objectives of this initiative are to promote the safe use of the Internet among school children, aged four to 18, their parents and teachers; to make students, teachers and parents aware of the Internet risks and to educate them to minimise these risks; to transform actual dangers into risks that they can master as autonomous responsible users; and to provide input to the Internet acceptable use policy of the school.
The NCTE has developed a website and interactive learning resources and classroom materials that will help students to develop the skills to make good decisions about their online practices. The site has parent, teacher and student sections. Some of the key topics covered include the SurfWise section, which promotes safe browsing practices and addresses the issues of source criticism and inappropriate content while on PCs, mobile phones or gaming devices; the ChatWise section, which deals with the issues of privacy, bullying, stranger danger and spam using technologies such as e-mail, sms messaging, message boards etc.; the ShareWise section, which deals with viruses and copyright using technologies such as blogs, mob-blogs, P2P, MMS; and the GameWise section, which deals with the issues that relate to online gaming, multi-player games, portable games consoles and promotional games.
In summary, the schools broadband programme will deliver high-speed broadband connectivity and services to schools, which will significantly improve access to the Internet within an improved communication infrastructure. Central content filtering, appropriate to each school's requirements, the Webwise Internet safety initiative and an up-to-date AUP in each school provide a safer and more secure Internet environment.
The availability of broadband to schools provides access to vast amounts of content which potentially will provide valuable learning and teaching resources. The key task is to provide easy and speedy access to specific content which links directly to curricular objectives. Sourcing and delivering relevant content to schools is a key activity of the NCTE. A number of strategies are employed by NCTE in this activity. These include the continued development and expansion of Scoilnet as the portal for education; the development of content through professional development activity; development of specific content through partnership projects with partners, third level institutions and inter-agency collaborations; schools websites; and exchange projects between schools nationally and internationally.
Teachers and students use Scoilnet as the central focal point in searching for content which they can use effectively in their classrooms. Scoilnet contains direct links to approximately 6,000 reviewed websites which provide curriculum relevant content.
In 2006 the implementation of a revisedcontent strategy will include the acquisition of online databases such as encyclopaedias, reference books and dictionaries. This content will be made available to schools through the broadband network. The NCTE will work with the NCCA on applying an agreed systemised tagging system to the curriculum. Content can then be aligned to the different curricular topics and to the learning objectives identified for that topic. The NCTE is also working with the EUN — an EU-based educational online content agency — to ensure that inter-operability standards apply in order to allow Ireland access to European and worldwide teaching and learning content. From a teacher viewpoint, the key objective is to ensure that a search for specific content quickly provides access to relevant content which meets the particular teaching and learning objective in question. In addition, the NCTE has developed a number of satellite sites under partnership agreements which are targeted at specific curriculum areas, for example www.Iamanartist.ie, www.scoilnet.ie/hist, www.french.ie.
The NCTE encourages and promotes the development of school websites. This activity is expected to gain greater momentum when broadband is accessible across the school.
Several ICT courses are aligned with broadband initiatives. These include technical courses on school networking and software issues, school website development for learning and Internet and e-mail for learning. The use of the Internet is central to all new and revised courses in the use of ICT for learning and teaching. All ICT courses are available nationally through the education centres.
The witnesses are very welcome. I thought I might need a translator at one stage at the start. It seems that the roll-out of broadband is fairly well progressed and that it will be finished in March. I might deal a little more with content and matters such as that.
I have two questions. One is on the filtering issue. What type of advice is given to schools regarding what they should block? Some teachers will be more familiar with Internet usage than others. I wonder how teachers may decide what is suitable and what is not. I am aware that Mr. Morrissey said it could be changed, but perhaps he could clarify that.
In terms of the acceptable use policies in schools, once broadband has been connected is there a monitoring mechanism to ensure that these policies are in place and that they are suitable? Is there a standard type of policy that is adaptable? In terms of the ICT sector in general within the schools system, a policy was in place until the end of 2003, I believe. Will it be replaced by another policy or programme? There was a dedicated period of about three years until the end of 2003 and that has ended. What has been done in the meantime, given the emergence of broadband? I strongly believe that this should always be kept to the forefront of policy. What was in place up to 2003 was quite good. Nothing appears to have replaced it and it is important that something should. I have questioned the Minister on this several times. Something was to have been done, but I do not believe it has happened as yet.
In terms of 2006 and the Estimates announced recently, do the amounts allocated to ICT expenditure cover broadband as well or is there a separate budget for this?
I welcome both groups. I am not very knowledgeable about technical matters, so I will not ask anything about them. I agree with Deputy Enright that it appears the project is running to plan. Perhaps it can be confirmed whether the timescale is as anticipated.
I am more interested in the adaptation of the broadband and in the use of the materials we now have and the access we will have. Is there a five-year or ten-year plan on the educational benefit facilitated by the access to broadband? Is there consultation with interested parties, such as schools, parents and perhaps even industry? I am thinking of examples such as the Digital Hub. There is a programme in Maynooth called Teachnet. Are interest groups such as these being consulted? Someone told me that ten times as much money is spent per student on this area in Northern Ireland than here in the Republic. Eastern European countries are heavily investing in information and communications technology for schools. Is there a need for further investment, especially in the training of teachers, the curriculum and so on?
The witnesses mentioned the collaboration with the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. Is there a need for more development in making the maximum use educationally of the technology we will acquire? Do the two bodies have different responsibilities in this area? What are the different areas of responsibility of the Department and the National Centre for Technology in Education, NCTE, in future development? Is there a need for improvement in Irish generated content that is available to schools?
I welcome the contributors. It seems to me that this roll-out is like giving jewels to the emperor who otherwise is running around bollock naked. Department officials obviously cannot comment on certain issues. I understand the original aim was to have this broadband programme rolled out by the beginning of 2005, but for various reasons that did not happen. By July 2005, we had 80 schools connected. Mr. Lonergan was quoted in a media outlet as stating that 50% of schools would be connected by Christmas. Is that the case? Has this 50% revised target been met or is there still some slippage? How does this relate to the March 2006 revised target?
The investment of €18 million has mainly come from industry and IBEC subsidiaries, while another €18 million has come from the Department of Education and Science for equipment. Did the Department officials believe in all honesty that this figure was sufficient? In 1996, €45 million was provided, while in 1997, approximately €82 million was provided. The investment today seems to be a little less. How does broadband fit into the ICT strategy in general? What is the ICT initiative locally? Deputy O'Sullivan said that expenditure in Northern Ireland was ten times greater than here. Is there a five or ten-year plan in Ireland? In Northern Ireland, there is a ten-year plan to give all students access to individual computers, e-mail and broadband. Is there anything similar here?
At the moment, the average primary school tends to have a room with a mix of old and newer computers donated or purchased, but not a coherent set. It is very difficult for teachers to use ICT in the classroom on a student by student basis. They bring students out to the computer room and back in. Is there a plan to ensure that the ICT curriculum takes advantage of the broadband technology? How could that be the case if each child in the classroom does not have a computer?
The former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Noel Dempsey, now in his new portfolio, possibly stepped on the toes of the current Minister when he said that the methods of teaching and class management must change to take advantage of the new technology. Is there a long-term programme to change the curriculum, such as the way mathematics is taught? Is there a plan that in five years every child will do a module of maths using the Internet? Will this be done in the classroom rather than in one computer room to which children must be brought?
The latest figures show that the gap between students from disadvantaged areas and other students in reaching third level has not been breached. Given that many people are now investing money in private education at second level and that some areas are wealthier than others, is it not the case that the gap in access to opportunities will widen? Wealthier schools with well-to-do parents can afford to install the computer ware. While the broadband roll-out is to be welcomed, be it DSL, satellite, wireless or whatever, the corresponding hardware investment must be made. In addition to the welcome announcement in the budget on fourth — PhD — level education, there needs to be a serious programme to provide hardware in schools to match the broadband investments.
I welcome the delegations. I do not have a metaphor as illuminating as that used by Deputy Gogarty. Suffice to say that I am more satisfied with the level of investment in education in Ireland in recent years than he is.
The latest big thing is the ability to make phone calls over the Internet, which is threatening the fixed line providers, especially Eircom. Fixed lines represent just 22% of the mode of connection for this new roll-out. Was there any difficulty with Eircom in providing the NCTE with broadband with its assistance? Eircom has come in for considerable criticism because it is resisting investment in improvement in fixed lines. It knows that this is the most popular and easiest mode of connection for broadband and that broadband will eventually take over from telephony.
Is there any comparison between the wireless connectivity of broadband and mobile phone radio wave connectivity? People have a concern about having telephone masts in the vicinity of any school. Development plans generally restrict the erection of mobile phone masts or bases in the vicinity of a school. Is there any similar danger regarding wireless technology in schools? The note refers to "filtering appropriate to each school requirement". Does this refer to a central approach? Will some schools require more filtering than others? From where is the policy coming and who makes the decision? Will school principals decide?
Would the National Centre for Technology in Education advise a school to go for a fixed line, wireless or satellite system? Would this advice be offered on the basis of cost or suitability? For example, I could understand a satellite system being more suitable for a school in an isolated area. The NCTE states it gives advice to schools. Why are 40% choosing a satellite system? Do they see a satellite and wireless system rather than a fixed line as the way forward? On the Lisbon Agenda, people talk about the situation in the North of Ireland but what is our position in comparison with that of other countries on rolling out the technology?
The NCTE document refers to Hermes advanced deployment programmes. Will the delegates explain these programmes?
Deputy Gogarty has referred to levels of disadvantage and the fact that children in affluent areas have greater access to technology at home. Is there a strategy to target and prioritise specific areas of disadvantage in the context of the roll-out of broadband?
The industry will contribute €15 million. What type of industry is involved? I note the reference to IBEC and the Telecommunications and Internet Federation. Will general industries be involved or just the IT sector? Are benefits available such as grants or tax reimbursements for companies which invest in this process?
I welcome Mr. Jerome Morrissey and his team from the National Centre for Technology in Education and thank them for an interesting presentation. The last NCTE presentation to the committee was also very enlightening.
Investment of €40 million was recently announced by the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, for the replacement of broadband equipment in schools, which is badly needed. Does the NCTE know how soon this investment will take effect in the classroom?
While I was not a computer expert when I worked as a teacher, it is glaringly obvious that pupils are often competent at working on the computer, yet their keyboard skills are very poor. The Department has never placed emphasis on developing the keyboard skills of children at a young age up to teenage years. While most of us get by without keyboard skills, it is a serious disadvantage. Is it the intention of the NCTE to emphasise the importance of such skills and being able to type quickly when using a computer?
What is the aim of the NCTE in the teaching of various subjects, particularly at secondary level? Is the ultimate aim to aspire to the aims of the SIPS project to bring the computer into the classroom and use it for different subjects, which would require the training of teachers? How far have we progressed in this regard? I ask the question in the light of my experience in Nenagh CBS, where the Department of Education and Science was extremely helpful to Tim Brophy in the establishment of the project.
How do we stand in comparison with other EU countries in regard to the availability of broadband and the competency skills of pupils from primary to secondary level?
Ms McGarry
I will begin with questions relating to broadband access and then discuss the wider policy context.
With regard to the figure of €18 million of joint Government and IBEC funding, it is the Telecommunications and Internet Federation, TIF, a sub-group within IBEC, which will provide the funding. Some 11 companies within TIF have signed up and will provide €5 million a year over the three-year period. This is being matched by a €1 million Exchequer contribution — half from the Department of Education and Science and half from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.
With regard to the timescales involved, there may well have been an original target date of 2005. I am at a disadvantage in that I do not know when the original target was set as I have only recently begun work in this area. However, following public procurement and the issuing of the request for tenders in July 2004, a detailed evaluation process took place. I outlined the range of offerings received in regard to Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the programme. The number of responses and the degree of complexity involved meant that the evaluation team only reported in December 2004. This was followed by the ministerial announcement in January this year. Protracted contract negotiations then took place with the various providers, with the final contract only being signed in June. The delay resulted from the complexity of the matter.
We expect the March 2006 deadline will be met and have a tight monitoring arrangement in this regard. When we are concerned about the progress of any individual company, we meet its representatives. The Datanet roll-out managers monitor the process and provide daily reports. I accept that we have had concerns and that there have been hiccups. However, at this stage schools are rapidly coming on-line. We are confident that the March 2006 deadline will be met.
We are re-awarding contracts in the case of the 345 schools which failed initial installation — we are aware of more failures — the tenders must be formally handed back under the contract before we invite and reaward further tenders. Companies have bid to do the work in these 345 schools. Competence levels have been discussed with the companies involved with regard to whether the work will be done in January. On mopping up, the more difficult, more dispersed schools in the work programme may be left over. We are confident, however, that the work will be done and that we will meet the March 2006 deadline for the initial roll-out. Where there is a building programme or where a project would not be economical, the schools in question will be accommodated separately. However, we are confident the March deadline will be met for the schools targeted in the initial roll-out phase.
Mr. Morrissey will deal with the issues of content filtering and acceptable usage policy.
We have offered schools two options with regard to content filtering. It will be a centralised system. We went to public tender to put a content filtering system in place due to the enormity of the Internet and the amount of content available. While there are well over 300 million pages which could be classified loosely as being of educational value, many have been classified under loose headings such as "objectionable or controversial", "potentially non-productive", "potentially bandwidth consuming" and "potentially violating general interest", within which there are many categories and a myriad of sub-classifications. Essentially, before we can offer greater choice, we offer two options to schools at present. The first option is a wide range of websites which include educational, cultural and general interest websites. The second option is more restricted. Effectively, one may have www.scoilnet as well as 6,000 sites which have been pre-cleared as being both relevant and safe within www.scoilnet, plus additional Irish websites as well as educational content sites etc. Those are the two major options. While schools will decide themselves which option to take, eventually we hope to offer a slightly wider range of options, possibly up to four options.
A site that has caused a great deal of controversy is www.ratemyteachers.ie. Is that filtered?
While it is currently available, some schools have requested that it be kept and others have requested that it be banned.
Mr. Tom Lonergan
To clarify, at present it is allowed on the wider list but is blocked on the more restrictive list.
I thank all the witnesses. Ms McGarry wishes to contribute further.
Ms McGarry
My colleague Mr. Fergal Nolan will deal with the other questions regarding broadband, the mode of connection and whether we had any difficulty with Eircom with regard to DSL, as well as the question pertaining to wireless and mobile telephone technology.
With regard to the mode of connection, the evaluation of the request for tender prompted a number of responses from the market which were evaluated using the criteria of the technology, its attributes and the cost. The low number of fixed line awards is primarily due to the response we received from the market in this respect. While we did not have a problem with the reach of the fixed line market or the range of the costs and products available, we were obliged to evaluate all the services and grade them against one another across the range of criteria applied in the request for tender. The outcome was the mix presented to the joint committee.
As for wireless technology, I understand that while wireless and mobile telephones use the same basic technology, there is a difference in frequency in respect of the signal strength. We were assured by the providers and by all available scientific information that there is no health risk associated with the installation of wireless technology in schools. First, its location is remote from any people, being situated on the roof or high on the wall and second, as far as I am aware, it uses a lower signal strength.
How much lower is it?
I am unsure of the scientific data.
I understand that a wireless signal is no more powerful than an ordinary telephone signal or that received if one raises an aerial on one's radio at home. The signal strength is no stronger than that.
Is the aerial parallel to the telephone mast, or have I taken this up wrongly? Does Mr. Nolan believe the Department should have any concerns in this respect?
A telephone mast could also be installed.
I know. However, they are protected by development plans and planning restrictions. My question is whether the Department should bear this in mind.
We have had discussions with the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources in this regard and are assured that according to all the scientific information available, there is no danger.
Mr. Lonergan
One of the technical differences is that an aerial sitting on top of a school points towards a mast. First, it is located on a high point on the school building and second it points in a particular direction, whereas mobile telephones must radiate in multiple directions to be able to pick up signals from multiple directions.
While the aerial is located at a particular height, is it possible to place it twice as high? I understand that masts' safety increases with height. Should that possibility be examined as a precaution? The onus is on members to ensure that everything is done to guarantee safety. Can this be investigated at some stage?
Mr. Lonergan
Typically, the aerial in a school is located at a high point because it is also in danger of being hit by a basketball, a football or something else.
While in general, aerials are located at the height of the school's roof, I am led to believe that they are much safer at twice that height. That is beyond doubt and this point should be examined.
Mr. Lonergan
A key point when providing broadband to a school is to make sure that it is at a sufficiently high point to give a signal etc. If it is placed at a great height, high wind could be a potential danger. Hence, a compromise must be made.
I wish to comment on the questions regarding content and on the acceptable usage policy, AUP. We provide schools with a template to ensure that all the elements of an AUP are completed. We ask them to confirm in writing that they have an AUP in place. As for the question of Irish content, we will work in conjunction with many different subject associations on the roll-out of in-service training for new and revised curricula in subjects such as History, Geography and French, as well as an increasing number of subject areas at post-primary level. We will work strategically with the roll-out of in-service training to ensure there are internet-based resources and content available and that teachers have the pedagogical skills to be able to use it in the different subject areas, including mathematics. I believe that answers the question on content.
Are there any plans to carry out an audit of hardware units within each school as to whether they are linked to a network or stand alone? That is crucial in terms of the usage of broadband capability.
Ms McGarry
As for the position regarding general infrastructure, there has been some reference to it. The National Centre for Technology in Education, NCTE, undertook surveys in this regard in 1998, 2000 and 2002. This year it completed a further survey, the results of which we expect later this month, or in early January. The Deputy is quite correct. We anxiously await the results of that survey to get a current, up to date picture as to level and quality of the ICT infrastructure in schools.
What is the survey's name?
Ms McGarry
It is an ICT infrastructural survey, or census, of schools. I have a publication to hand entitled, Schools for the Digital Age, which is a summary document of the three previous censuses. Hence, the new census will follow in sequence to that publication. In terms of disadvantaged schools, to date we have not seen any evidence in the census results — it will be interesting to see whether it holds true in the 2005 census — between schools classified as being disadvantaged schools and schools not so classified.
I understand schools in RAPID I areas receive additional help anyway. However, there are wealthier areas, as well as areas of disadvantage not so classified. Perhaps the delivering equality of opportunity in schools, DEIS, action plan will change that. However, such schools are the ones to watch out for.
Ms McGarry
They are. However, as I noted previously, while the latest available data are from 2002, in terms of pupil-computer ratios, computer age and the additional spend on ICT within schools, disadvantaged schools were not at a disadvantage when compared to non-disadvantaged schools.
I will now deal with the question of investment and what has happened since 2003. The ICT in schools programme began in 1998 with the introduction of the first IT 2000 schools programme. This was a three-year programme which was replaced by a second three-year programme. There has been considerable activity since then.
If we examine overall levels of expenditure, some €157 million has been spent from 1998 to the end of 2004. Like in many other countries, there was an initial infrastructural investment by the State in schools. Following that, the Department of Education and Science's priorities moved to the area of networking in 2004. We have provided some €20 million in networking grants for schools since December 2004. Deputy Gogarty is correct in suggesting that it is equally important to monitor the infrastructure at school level and that if we invest considerably in broadband, schools must be capable of deriving benefits from it. Networking is the key component in this regard, which is why we have invested more than €20 million in building up schools' networking capabilities.
In terms of the overall PCR rates and Internet access rates and our international comparisons, the average pupil-computer ratio, PCR, across Europe in 2002 was 9:1, while the average PCR in Ireland was 10.3:1 so we have some catching up to do. We are awaiting the 2005 Census to see how we are performing. Obviously, the position in other countries will have changed in the meantime. The NCCA recommends a PCR of 5:1 or 6:1 target. People do not advocate having a PCR of 1:1.
On the question of children moving out of the classroom and into computer rooms, the emphasis in the primary programme is on having a child-centred curriculum. We do not provide investment for separate computer rooms. The idea is that where possible, computers will be in classrooms and be a fully integrated part of children's learning throughout the curriculum.
Schools are probably doing this but they have so few computers that they move them into one networked room so that all children can work at the computers at the same time.
Ms McGarry
I do not think the 2002 results are in this publication. The split of computers between computer rooms and classrooms will be dealt with in the 2005 Census. We do not fund the provision of computer rooms and we do not want computers to be used in separate computer rooms in primary schools.
The abridged Estimates contained a €17 million provision on the capital side and €11 million on the recurrent side for the programme. The capital provision is being considered with the overall capital programme. Our position will be evident in the Revised Estimates. As to whether we simply produce a new three-year strategy, we are considering the best route to take, in consultation with the school authority bodies with which we have standing committees. We are also consulting widely with industry and other groups, such as those involved in particular pilot projects on the way forward. It is not sufficient to have the infrastructure and we are very conscious of the pivotal role of teachers in the equation. We must ensure that the professional development needs of teachers are addressed with preservice and in-service training.
Technical support is another area of concern for the Department. The NCCA is finalising a framework document which will address the various ICT experiences with which all students at the different levels of compulsory education should be familiar. This framework will form the road map for how teachers will interact in the curriculum context.
Has the percentage of schools rolled out reached 50%?
Ms McGarry
There are 2,716 schools which have been installed in lot 1 and 2,036 schools installed in lot 2.
Is this approximately 70%?
Ms McGarry
The figure for lot 2 installation is just over 50%.
That is good news so the target for March 2006 might be met?
Ms McGarry
We hope so.
I am concerned about keyboard skills in EU countries.
ICT is a curricular subject in other countries, both in terms of skills and as an area of academic study. Deputy Hoctor is correct in stating that keyboard skills around Europe are at the primary level. Computer science is offered in Europe at levels equivalent to the leaving certificate, although it is not a leaving certificate subject in Ireland. The ICT framework produced by the NCCA, to which Ms McGarry referred, alludes to examining pupils' keyboarding skills even though they are not strictly defined as a classroom curricular activity. It is extremely difficult to equip a scenario where there is a compulsory element to provide keyboarding skills. The orientation is towards facilitating and auditing keyboard skills children acquire concurrently as they use technology in the classroom.
Ms McGarry
A total of €25 million out of the €40 million in technology grants will be spent on health and safety and the updating of machinery. Approximately 80% of these grants are currently being paid to schools. The other €15 million is being allocated in the context of introducing the new curricular subjects. It appears that 80% of it will be paid to schools before Christmas, but I could not be certain about that.
Deputy Crowe asked about the Hermes project and advanced deployment. The Hermes project is a pilot project with nine clustered schools. They already had a broadband connection prior to this, so we left them out of the count here. The advanced deployment is part of the agreement with the TIF members that they would be afforded an opportunity independent of the public tendering process, to showcase their product in a certain number of schools. So, they were excised from the public tendering process and count.
I thank the representatives from the Department and the National Centre for Technology in Education for coming here today. Is it agreed to go into private session? Agreed.
The joint committee went into private session at 1.08 p.m. and adjourned at 1.10 p.m until 11.30 a.m. on Thursday, 19 January 2006.