Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Thursday, 20 Nov 2008

Priority Issues for Department of Education and Science: Discussion with Minister for Education and Science.

I welcome the Minister and his colleagues. It is the Minister's first time to appear before the committee and he is very welcome. I am sure we can work together productively and efficiently to address the issues of importance in front of us.

I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I ask the Minister to make his opening statement.

I am glad of the opportunity to come before the joint committee and outline my priorities in the Department of Education and Science.

Our education system has served us well and it is important to recognise its overall success. The quality of the system is recognised internationally and reflected in the results achieved in various international benchmarks. However we need to do more. We must continue to improve the standard of education available throughout the system. We need to ensure the system continues to adapt and respond to the needs of society and the economy. We also need to ensure a response to the needs of the wide range of individual learners, which means increasing the flexibility and diversity of provision and ensuring quality across the system. We are faced with many challenges in this task. In recent times attention has focused on the challenges of our current economic and budgetary situation. While this sets a difficult framework for addressing priorities, the challenge for all of us in the public service is how we can deliver improved outcomes within a constrained public finance framework. In view of the range and diversity of issues in education which contribute to our overall objectives, I will address some of these in my opening remarks and be happy to deal with others in the ongoing discussion.

One of my key priorities is to ensure a focus on the quality of teaching in our classrooms. The educational outcome for the student is crucially dependent on the quality of learning in the school. In 2009 the inspectorate of my Department will continue to support schools and promote improvement through the whole-school evaluation and inspection programme in primary and post-primary schools. Through its school evaluation work in the period ahead, my Department will maintain a focus on promoting best practice in school development planning and self-evaluation. This continues to be an important objective for the system and I am encouraged by the many examples of leadership in this area highlighted in the evaluation reports. In a very small number of schools where serious weaknesses arise, my Department will undertake appropriate follow-through activity. Its administrative sections are working closely with the inspectorate to ensure the schools engage with recommendations for change and are enabled to improve their leadership and the quality of education provided for students. My Department's administrative sections are working closely with the inspectorate to ensure that schools engage with recommendations for change and that they are enabled to improve their leadership and the quality of education provided for students.

Numerous influential reports have highlighted the fact that teacher quality is the single most important factor in improving outcomes. It is vital, therefore, that we not only continue to attract the right people into teaching but that we provide them with the continuum of professional development opportunities they need to be effective educators. The teaching profession in Ireland is highly regarded and continues to attract from the top quartile of students. This is a key ingredient in the provision of quality education.

The Teaching Council has been given a key statutory role with regard to ensuring that the teaching profession operates to a high standard and it is aware of the priority that I and my Department attach to improvements in areas such as pre-service and induction in particular. The Department has a responsibility to ensure that teachers have access to appropriate support and training. Teachers also have a responsibility to update their knowledge and skills and maintain a good standard of instruction throughout their careers.

Curriculum is another important contributor to quality outcomes. There have been significant developments in recent years across primary and post-primary curricula. In the coming period I wish to highlight the reform of the mathematics curriculum at post-primary level. This is an innovative project using a model of curriculum reform that has never been applied before. Project maths is designed to encourage greater take up at higher level and to provide a solid foundation that prepares students for careers in science, technology, engineering, business and humanities options. The 24 project schools started the cycle in September 2008 and will complete the final phase in 2010-11. The mainstream phasing will begin in September 2010, prefaced by a programme of professional training for teachers starting the previous year.

Project maths will be supported by intensive investment in professional development for teachers. A maths support team has been appointed and is currently supporting the project schools, as well as preparing for mainstream in-service development, which will start in September 2009. As well as the maths support team, teacher training in a number of areas will be prioritised in 2009, including special education related programmes, training for language support teachers and training for ICT co-ordinators.

Significant progress has been made since the ICT in schools programme was first launched ten years ago. However, the ICT strategy group report and the ICT in schools report set out a substantial agenda to be pursued to integrate ICT fully into teaching and learning in our classrooms. Although we face significant challenges in implementing some of the recommendations made in these reports because of the current economic situation, I am committed to investing in this area as resources permit.

As recommended by the strategy group, the role of the individual school ICT co-ordinator will be prioritised, with support for school principals. The National Centre for Technology in Education will collaborate with the various school support agencies to integrate ICT into the delivery of all support services. My Department will shortly issue a tender for the next round of the schools' broadband programme and the range of services available to schools will be expanded. The technology industry strongly advocates greater integration of ICT into teaching and learning in our schools and I am anxious to explore with the industry how it can work with my Department to achieve this common goal.

With regard to school staffing and funding, my priority in the immediate period ahead is to sustain the existing level of service to the greatest extent possible. At its most simple, the priority in respect of schools is to survive the current challenges with as much intact as possible of the substantial gains made in recent years. In terms of current expenditure for the school system, this comes down to what we can reasonably afford to spend on teachers and other support staff, with what we can provide for day-to-day running costs.

This will not be easy given that the demographics mean we will see further increases in the number of pupils, with continued growth at primary level. Furthermore, the pressure that is evident at primary level in recent years will increasingly be reflected in the numbers attending at second level. At primary level, we have made substantial investment in providing extra teachers and special needs assistants for those with special needs but we recognise that as pupils transfer to second level many will continue to need support and create pressure for additional teaching and SNA resources. A further key part of policy has been to target resources towards educational disadvantage. We have also sought to address the language needs of newcomer children. My priority and that of my Department will be to do the best we can to balance these competing needs within the overall limits on the number of teachers and other support staff that can be provided within the resources available.

I know that the measures to be implemented next year will present challenges at school level. However, as I have said repeatedly, I cannot accept the extreme claims being made about their impact. It is simply not credible for the INTO or others to present this as having a potential catastrophic impact on education outcomes or, for that matter, as prejudicing the capacity of schools to enrol pupils. Schools at primary level will be resourced as they were in the 2006-07 school year and parents should expect that their children will be educated to no less a standard in the coming year. Similarly, second level schools will have to make choices about how they structure classes in terms of size and subject and level options. Although it is not desirable that we have had to bring second level schools back to the staffing position that applied up to 2000, I have made the point, and will make it again, that those who have graduated successfully from third level colleges throughout most of the last decade spent some or all of their years in second level schools staffed at the same level as they will be in the coming school year.

I am also very aware of the pressures on schools in meeting day-to-day running costs and while the recent reductions in the price of oil are welcome I know that meeting all the different ongoing costs can be challenging for schools. Although I made improvements to the capitation grants this year, I had to cut other grants. Faced with the overall funding limits and the pressures of providing extra money in 2009 for pay and pensions, amounting to approximately 80% of overall current funding, I had to make difficult decisions in this regard. Ultimately, I want to work to a position where the main funding instrument for schools is the capitation payment rather than a plethora of grants requiring separate budgeting and accounting by my Department or schools. Apart from being more efficient, such an approach in the future will allow schools to allocate funding according to their plans and priorities.

Meeting the needs of children with special educational needs has been and continues to be a key investment priority for my Department. This is evident in that over €1 billion of my Department's €9.6 billion education budget is allocated across services for special needs. Over the past decade, there has been a complete transformation in educational policy in this area. Today there is a real choice of educational placement in our primary, post-primary and special schools available for children with special educational needs.

Despite the pressure to reduce expenditure across the public sector, the Government has allocated an additional €20 million in funding to the education and health sectors to further enhance and strengthen the services available to children with special educational needs. An integrated approach between the education and health sectors will target these additional services to areas of greatest need. The additional funding to be allocated to my Department will provide for an expansion of the national educational psychological service permitting all schools in the country to be covered by the service. The additional funding available to NEPS, which represents a 33% increase over the 2008 allocation, will facilitate the recruitment of up to 50 further psychologists. This investment will significantly enhance the capacity of our educational psychologists to support schools directly in the development and delivery of appropriate interventions for children with special educational needs.

Pending the full implementation of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act, services will continue to be provided by my Department on a non-statutory basis, including the allocation of resource teachers and SNAs through the National Council for Special Education. My Department is also involved in a value for money and policy review of the special needs assistant, SNA, scheme. The review is examining the SNA support allocated to children with care needs in schools. As part of the review 100 schools, randomly selected, will be visited by Department representatives and the National Council for Special Education during the 2008-09 school year. The review will also include engagement with parent representatives, schools, education partners and other representative groups. It is envisaged that the review will be completed in 2009 and the recommendations will feed into policy development in this area. There are also important issues concerning the role of all schools, including primary and post-primary, in meeting their share of responsibility for accommodating children of various backgrounds and needs. Proposals on enrolment policies generally are being developed.

Ensuring there is appropriate provision in all areas to meet demographic needs has been and will continue to be a significant challenge. I prioritise the development of improved capacity within my Department in the area of forward planning. While substantial work will continue on the immediate delivery of schools building projects, it is vital that we prepare for medium-term and longer-term needs.

While any projection into the future is tentative and dependent on many factors, it is highly probable that enrolment at primary level will increase by at least 20% in the coming decade. That implies an increase from last year's level of approximately 486,000 pupils at primary level to approximately 563,000 by the academic year 2015-16. In other words, by 2015 enrolment will regain the level recorded in 1989.

Through ongoing innovation and streamlining of processes, my Department has strengthened its planning capabilities and I intend that this will continue in 2009 and beyond. It is vital we position ourselves to deliver the 100,000 extra school places that will be required in the coming years in the areas where these places are needed and when they are needed.

While existing patron models at primary level have served us well, changing needs make it opportune to examine additional models. A new model of community national school is being piloted in two locations for this purpose. The pilot phase of this new model provides an important learning opportunity and will enable informed decisions on a possible roll-out of this new model of patronage in other locations in the future.

Recently I announced a review of the procedures for the establishment of new primary schools. Given the rapid growth in population and changing demographics in recent years, it is an opportune time to re-examine the criteria for the establishment of new primary schools.

The programme for Government contained a commitment to review the school transport system, including the catchment boundaries. Proposals for the review are being finalised. The terms of reference include a review of the eligibility criteria for primary, post-primary and special needs children, financial aspects, administrative structures and good practice. A detailed analysis and review of the main cost drivers is required with a view to achieving efficiencies and value for money in the scheme. The aim is to complete the review by the end of 2009.

The higher education sector has undergone very significant growth and change and this has been matched by sizable increases in public investment. Higher education delivers important national goals in teaching and learning, research, promoting social inclusion and through provision of opportunities for life-long learning. The growth of the sector is well recognised as a very significant factor in the Irish economic success story of recent years, with the availability of a highly educated workforce serving as a key attraction for inward investment.

The challenge to ensure our higher education system continues to be responsive to and leading change in the world around it remains key to Ireland's future economic success.

My Department is working closely with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment under the guidance of the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Haughey, to address skills needs in an integrated way across the further and higher education sectors and in collaboration with the enterprise and training agencies. I expect to bring proposals to Government shortly on the process to develop a new national strategy for higher education. The strategy will aim to provide a vision and strategic direction for the future development of the higher education sector in contributing to Ireland's economic and social development in the 21st century. The process will provide an opportunity to review the environment for higher education and the challenges and changes that impact on the sector as we seek to increase participation levels and access, foster innovation and develop the workforce skills needed to help Ireland remain competitive in the global knowledge economy.

In the international arena, higher education institutions are grappling with the challenges of enhancing the quality of teaching and learning and responding to the needs of learners for more flexible provision. The strategy process will also examine how higher education is evolving in other countries and seek to ensure that the Irish system ranks effectively against relevant international comparators. An examination of the overall operational, governance and resourcing framework will be important elements of the strategy review. The Government is investing unprecedented levels of public funding in higher education and to identify future development objectives for the sector. It is also appropriate to establish the effectiveness of the use of current resources. It is expected that the scope for greater collaboration and co-operation between institutions will also be addressed.

I have asked my officials and the Higher Education Authority to examine the range of policy options available for the introduction of a form of student contribution. There are obviously complex and competing considerations related to this topic but, as I previously stated, this is an appropriate time to examine and debate this issue. It is my intention to report to Government in the coming months in this regard.

The Student Support Bill 2008 is due to be taken on Committee Stage shortly and it is an integral part of the overall reform of the student grants system. The principal objective is to create a more coherent system for the administration of these grants. This will facilitate consistency of application, improved client accessibility and improved customer services for students and their parents.

The allocation for investment in educational infrastructure reflects the Government's continuing commitment to investment in educational infrastructure. In 2009 capital investment in primary schools will amount to €369 million, for post-primary schools it will be €212 million and for higher education, including research, it will be €265 million, while expenditure on other capital issues, including the PPP programme will be €42.35 million. The investment in the school building programme in 2009 will build on the achievements of the National Development Plan 2000-2006, under which an aggregate total of well in excess of €2.6 billion was invested in upgrading the existing school infrastructure and providing new school accommodation at first level and second level. This programme delivered more than 7,800 building projects in addition to investment in site purchases, the annual minor works grant to all primary schools, the asbestos and radon remediation programmes, science and technology initiatives, emergency works and grants for the purchase of furniture and equipment.

The priorities for the schools capital programme in 2009 are the completion of construction on 26 major capital projects at first and second level which are currently on site and which will deliver 7,000 school places; the commencement of construction on approximately 50 major capital projects at primary level and 12 major projects at second level on a phased basis throughout 2009; the completion of approximately 100 smaller capital projects already on site under the permanent accommodation scheme and the small schools initiative and allow a further 80 projects previously approved under those schemes to progress to completion; the delivery of permanent accommodation and small schools initiative schemes; and the delivery of a programme of rapid delivery accommodation in developing areas to help ensure there are sufficient school places to meet September 2009 demand.

The planned programme of investment in school building will offer opportunities to all potential building contractors to submit tenders for projects via the e-tenders website. My Department has already sought preliminary expressions of interest from contractors for the 2009 rapid delivery programme. It is my hope that, as well as providing employment in the construction sector, improved competition within the sector will provide increased value for money that will maximise the capacity of the State to address accommodation deficiencies across the educational sector. There is already evidence that tender prices are reducing, in some cases by as much as 15% to 20%. In addition, my Department will continue to use the PPP model as appropriate to supplement the programme of school construction under the traditional route.

The higher education sector will see increased capital spending in 2009 as funding is set to rise to €265 million, or an increase of 44% relative to the allocation for 2008. This investment will enable me to continue a programme of upgrading undergraduate facilities at a number of institutes of technology, universities and other higher education colleges, including works at Athlone, Dundalk, Tralee and Galway-Mayo institutes of technology, DIT and Mary Immaculate College of Education in Limerick. On the research side, the increased investment will allow continued progress in delivering previously approved projects under the programme for research in third level institutions.

While much of our focus is on the education system, there are also significant cultural, economic and academic benefits in building international education links and promoting European co-operation in education and training. Significant progress has been made in recent years, in particular in the recognition of qualifications. I intend to ensure we build on this progress in the coming years. I am also committed to working with Minister Ruane in Northern Ireland on common issues and challenges. We can benefit from sharing our experiences, learning from one another and co-ordinating our efforts in a way that is both practical and meaningful.

The overall priority for me as a member of Government is to secure Ireland's future at a time of global economic downturn. The work of the Department of Education and Science and my priorities for the education sector cannot be looked at in isolation from the economic realities facing the country. Economic and fiscal stability is essential if we are to sustain employment, which means not just ensuring the employment prospects of our children but the employment prospects of their parents now. In the current financial context, therefore, my immediate priority has to be to consolidate as far as possible and within the finite resources available to me the progress made in recent years.

We will continue to target and prioritise our resources to maximum effect for everyone. I am committed to ensuring the resources available to me are used in the most efficient and effective manner. This will ensure we deliver the best possible outcomes for all learners. By doing this we will be well positioned to enable the country to take full advantage when the economic situation improves. I will be working with all the education partners to ensure we get the best possible return from the investment in education.

I thank the Minister for setting the standard for the rest of us. He has come in within his 30 minute time allocation. I remind colleagues that at a previous meeting we agreed rules to ensure strict adherence to timetables. We will proceed as follows. The two main Opposition spokespersons will have ten minutes each which they can use to ask questions or make statements. Every other member will have two minutes in which to ask questions. I ask the Minister to confine his answers to 30 seconds. Members will be able to share time, if possible. I allocate the first slot to Deputy Brian Hayes who will be followed by Senator Brendan Ryan. The first Fianna Fáil member who wishes to speak is Deputy Conlon who will be followed by Senator Keaveney.

I thank the Vice Chairman and welcome the Minister and his officials. I think the Minister is very lucky. He knows this already but he is surrounded by some of the most committed and brightest public servants in any Department at a senior management level which will stand him in good stead in the years ahead. His close relationship with the Taoiseach is similar to that between former Deputy and Minister Gemma Hussey and former Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald. He is the Mark Antony of this Administration which puts him in a very strong position to defend the education sector and look for money because he has the ear of the Taoiseach. He will use this as only he can in the months and years ahead. I ask him to look upon this committee as having members who are interested in and dedicated to the provision of an excellent education system. All Members on this side have completed the group certificate and are committed to the future of education and working with the committee, as his senior officials have in our dialogue with them in the last year.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. One issue he has not dealt with is the implications of the O'Neill judgment in the High Court last week. The redress board which was hoping to finish its work in the latter part of next year might have to continue it if the full implications of the judgment are to be considered. I note the Minister is still studying the judgment and has sought legal advice. Will he tell the committee where he stands on the issue? The net effect is that Mr. Justice O'Neill has argued that persons aged between 18 and 21 years who were in residential institutions should come under the redress scheme. If that is the case and the matter is not placed before the Supreme Court and amended, we must have new legislation to extend the terms of reference of the redress board scheme and the number of institutions it may cover. What is the preliminary view of the Minister of the intention of the Government as to whether the judgment should be appealed to the Supreme Court?

Another problem will arise in the second week of January when children are back in school and four teachers ring to say they cannot come into work and that their leave is uncertified. Under current arrangements, a substitution may be made for the four teachers but from next January that may not happen. What advice does the Minister have for principals if there is such a set of circumstances in the second week of January? He knows that the arrangement worked well but since 2003 not all teachers have signed up to the SNS scheme and health and safety legislation dating from 2005 places onerous responsibilities on school management and principals to provide assistance and cover for students.

My colleague, Deputy O'Mahony, raised specific issues in the House concerning the implications of the Minister's decision and the restrictions it would impose on sports and other curricular and extra curricular activities outside school. I put it to the Minister that agreement must be found before 1 January 2009. His budget proposal will cause havoc in schools from the second week of January and I ask him to rethink.

I seek clarity on the issue of third level maintenance grants. One budget proposal which has not received much attention is that maintenance grants not be increased next year. May I take it that the Minister will not increase the income threshold? It is normally announced in July to allow for a higher income threshold in order that people can claim maintenance benefits. Will the Minister outline a firm view to the committee that he will proceed with a raised income threshold to allow a larger group to obtain maintenance support from July 2009?

The Minister mentioned the issue of school quality and I agree that the crucial test is quality. With increased investment must come accountability and quality. The Minister has put great store in the school inspectorate, but I understand this year we have fewer school inspectors than last year — 75 compared to 81. Will the Minister confirm this? The whole school evaluation programme which is very thorough is undertaken on average one year out of every nine. A child can go through an entire school experience without witnessing one whole school evaluation. How can we provide for a whole school evaluation when we have fewer inspectors than last year?

I want to deal with the issue of teacher numbers. Two weeks ago the Minister told the Dáil that up to 15% of primary schools could lose a teacher next year. At the time I said that amounted to 400, but I was wrong; the number is approximately 500. Is it the case that up to 500 schools will lose one or more teachers next year? If that is the case, it means one school in six will lose one or more teachers. I ask the Minister to look at a compromise solution which comes from a school in my constituency in Tallaght and Kilnamanagh. The number of pupils at the school was down by one when it submitted its enrolment figures to the Department on 30 September. Since then it has gained two extra pupils. However, given the new staffing schedule, it will lose one teacher next September. As a consequence, this eight teacher school will be reduced to a seven teacher school. This means that for the first time ever there will be a class with a mixed age-group. I ask the Minister to consider changing the schedule when published in February, March or April in order to give some leeway to schools just one or two pupils over the limit. For those schools which go from being an eight teacher to a seven teacher school and where classes from two years have to be merged into one, can some compensation be provided for them? The proposed sledgehammer approach will cause absolute havoc. While I am aware the Minister has had discussions with the partners in education on this topic, I ask him to show some flexibility. We have time to do so, as the schedule is usually published in February or March. A little creativity could get us away from this Stalinist approach whereby a loss of one pupil will lead to the loss of one teacher. That is not acceptable.

There are many aspects of the Minister's statement with which I agree such as devolving power to schools. In many respects, merging grants is the way to go and the Minister is correct. We need to devolve power to schools and make principals responsible. We need to give them the power to make decisions. The Department in Marlborough Street should be taken out of the equation in many respects, as school principals should lead academic achievement and teaching methodology.

The Deputy mentioned Mark Antony. I hope there is not a Brutus and I will not become Julius Caesar.

I will take the recent O'Neill judgment first. It is not the practice to comment on the position taken in a legal case still being considered by the Attorney General and members of the legal team involved. There is contact between the redress board, our legal team and the Attorney General. Meetings have been scheduled on an ongoing basis between my Department and the Attorney General and I am hopeful we will be in a position to make a final decision on the issue within a short period. One has to allow time and space to ensure whatever decision we take is the correct one.

Is there a time limit in which to appeal the judgment?

I understand the judgment has not yet been perfected; therefore, there is no time limit.

I thank the Minister.

In relation to the grant thresholds, this year I provided for an increase in the reckonable income limits for qualification under the maintenance grants scheme in line with movements in the average industrial wage in 2007. I increased the reckonable income limits for standard maintenance grants by 2.8% for the 2008-09 academic year. In addition, I increased the income limits for the special rate maintenance grant by 11.6% for the academic year 2008-09 to €20,147 in line with the relevant increases in social welfare payments. This will ensure the most disadvantaged students will continue to receive a top-up rate of €3,270, in addition to the standard grant.

Deputy Hayes asked about primary schools that would lose a teacher. An important consideration in the staffing allocation for schools is that schools should be treated equitably. The staffing schedule should operate in a manner that all schools will be treated in like manner and equally. If I were to change the schedule to allow schools which are due to lose a teacher to retain that teaching post, I would be treating them differently from other schools with the exact same number on the rolls. I do not propose to make any change in that regard in the coming year.

Inspector numbers vary from time to time, depending on the number of and the filling of vacancies. My Department will have to manage pay which will involve managing vacancies. The inspectorate is working extremely hard in producing outstanding reports and doing very valuable work in supporting schools through in-service provision, supporting teachers and various programmes. We see inspectors going into schools in a supporting role and where there are difficulties helping to ensure in-service and other services are provided to ensure standards are maintained.

On the issue of substitution, we will still provide for substitution of all persons with a certificate. Deputy Hayes will also be aware that the sum of €17,089 that those teachers who opt into the scheme receive will be available.

How many teachers have opted in?

Not all of them have opted in. I will get the figure for the Deputy as I do not have it with me.

The dilemma is that not every teacher has opted into the scheme the Minister negotiated. It could be argued that the scheme negotiated in 2003-04 was a bad demand-led one. What will happen to the principal in cases where a large percentage of staff have not opted in to the scheme?

I understand the scheme is funded in respect of the number of teachers who have opted in and that others can be brought in. I do not underestimate the difficulties that will arise for schools in 2009. I am saying to the teacher unions that we have to show leadership at this time. I do not have the money within my budget to meet the rising costs of substitution. Recent figures show that, for instance, on Mondays throughout 2008 there were in excess of 12,500 teachers absent on uncertified sick leave and that there was a similar number absent on Fridays. The average number absent on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays was between 11,000 and 11,500. These are significant numbers. The bill to meet the cost of uncertified sick leave this year is €17 million. The figure in respect of certified sick leave is €45 million. The figure in respect of official school business in the post-primary sector is €13 million, and for maternity and related leave, €65 million. I have had discussions with the partners in education and made it clear that we have to live within the budget parameters set. The discussions will continue. I want to arrive at a position where I can live within the budget parameters. They have indicated that there are areas in which they can make suggestions. I will be open to any suggestions they make but we will have to operate within the strictures of the budget. However, I look forward to negotiations continuing among the partners in education——

Is there room for movement on the SNS scheme?

No. That is a matter on which the teacher unions can come back. We have outlined our position clearly to them and they have indicated to us that there may be areas in which we can have a common approach. If that is the case and it is within the budget parameters set, I will gladly discuss the matter with them.

Am I right in saying that if the figure is 15%, up to 500 schools will lose a teacher?

From day one we have pointed out clearly that our net figure is 200 in the post-primary sector and 200 in the primary sector. We are not deviating from these figures. One can argue about the gross figure and what might have been but——

Is it not the case that it is based on an estimate because the enrolment figures are not yet in?

Our estimates are based on experience which suggests the figures are accurate. We remain confident that the figures we have rolled out are the ones that will give a result.

I, too, welcome the Minister and his officials.

There has been much debate in recent weeks about class sizes. It was not my intention to raise it by way of question this morning but I am prompted to make a comment, given that the Minster has again reverted to blaming the Irish National Teachers Organisation to some degree for scaremongering, etc. That is not helpful in the debate on the problem and it is widely acknowledged that there is a problem. The Minister has acknowledged this. The problem for the Government includes a reduction in class sizes. Before the general election the Minister agreed there was a problem that he wanted to resolve by way of this measure. He should abandon that approach. This decision is shameful in so far as it affects pupils with learning disabilities who need one-to-one education, of which they will be deprived.

On the school building programme, the capital spend on schools has fallen from €586 million to €581 million this year at a time of rising unemployment in the construction industry. The Minister might comment on a proposal made by Deputy Gilmore on many occasions, namely, that these construction workers could be used to expand the school building programme instead of imposing more cutbacks. Also, why will the Minister not revert to the practising of publishing a two year school building programme? That would provide some certainty for parents and principals as regards when their school will be built.

Does the Minister still plan to introduce third level fees? He has raised the registration charge from €900 to €1,500. My colleague in the Chair, Deputy Quinn, asked in a parliamentary question how much revenue would be raised and the reply he received was €70 million. Why then is the Minister intent on raising a sum of €44 million with this measure? Why did the Department cut back on third level funding by €44 million this year? Will the Minister acknowledge that if he decides to introduce third level fees, they will be merely a substitute for Exchequer funding of higher education?

There is an unacceptable number of classes provided in prefabs. In the region of 40,000 students, or approximately 10% of pupils, are being taught in prefabs. There is a serious problem in my constituency in Balbriggan, Donabate, etc. In one school in Balbriggan 60% of the children are being taught in prefabs. Many proposals were made during the years and many answers given to the effect that nothing could be done, yet two years ago schools could be provided for virtually overnight when pressure was exerted. Will the Minister acknowledge that in many areas school facilities date from the Victorian era? I note from reports in the media this week that he has dispatched officials to track down rats which are infesting schools.

On the ICT sector, will the Minister accept that the Government has effectively abandoned the IT programme for schools? Its pledge to invest €252 million over several years has been abandoned. The Minister has slashed funding for IT by 29%. How can he talk about developing a knowledge economy when there have been such enormous spending cuts in an area vital for our future economic success?

I will take the question about the school in east Galway first. That matter has been the subject of publicity for some time and it is important that we outline the position. Two tranches of grants have been made available to the school which the principal has declared to be one of the worst in Ireland. It has also been stated it is infested with rats and mice. That begs the question: where is the management of the school? What action is being taken to deal with these matters? If grants are paid, I want to find out that the work has been carried out and how effectively it has been carried out. I want to establish also the reason the school only submitted an application for a new school to the Department last April.

That statement is a disgrace.

It is important that we establish the facts.

The Minister is not establishing the truth.

Excuse me. The application was lodged last April and it is appropriate for me, as Minister, to ask why the principal wants to have her school looked after before every other school which has an application submitted for some time.

The Minister knows the answer.

I sent an inspector to the school in order that I could be informed of the reality. The Deputy should not blame me for this.

That is the position.

The Deputy should not blame me.

Can the Minister stand over it?

The Minister has been called on to speak.

I appreciate that, but it is difficult to be restrained when one hears such a statement.

I can only respond to the issues raised. I thought I was being proactive. A particular school stated it had a problem. I sent an inspector to it to make a full report on what was happening and the reason issues were arising there. That is appropriate.

The Health and Safety Authority and the Health Service Executive are aware of the problem.

On the class size issue and my difficulty with the leadership of the INTO, I asked it to refrain from using emotive language and exaggerating because it had used words such as "catastrophic" and "Armageddon". The bottom line is that we are reverting to 2006 and 2007 levels. The position in those years was not catastrophic or Armageddon-like. Schools performed excellently and the teachers were outstanding. The outputs remained as good as ever.

We are facing a very difficult economic period and I am looking for the co-operation of the leaders of the INTO and the other unions. I have also said to them that the programme for Government clearly outlines our commitment to reducing class sizes. When the economy picks up, we will continue the programme but I cannot do so in the current economic climate. At a time when people in the private sector are losing their jobs, the tax take in the economy is down, we are likely to have a deficit of €11.5 billion at the end of the year, and many others in the economy are taking a serious hit, I ask them for their co-operation and to work with me as partners in education.

Parents are also saying it. The Minister should not attack them. I have attended public meetings and they are saying exactly the same thing. They know there is a problem and they are using similar language.

Parents attend public meetings at the invitation of teachers and as a result of letters emanating from schools.

That is not necessarily true. Parents are leading the charge.

I have seen the letters that have emanated from schools. I am in receipt of letters written by pupils in fourth, fifth and six class which were put in envelopes by teachers. I am not sure that is appropriate.

It is a development I would have thought.

The parents are also involved and very much leading the charge.

A teacher's union has the interests of teachers at heart. That is why it is there, namely, to look after the interests of teachers.

If that is the Minister's view, he is in total denial.

It is legitimate for it to look after the interests of teachers, but I have to look after the interests of the economy and children——

The Minister is failing them.

——and make sure there will be something worthwhile for them in the economy when they come to seek employment and that they will not have to take the boat from the country. Effectively, what I am saying to the teacher unions — they know and appreciate this as we have had discussions on the issue — is that there is a serious economic problem and a serious difficulty within the education budget and I ask for their patience, endurance and co-operation during the time we will have to deal with this issue.

On the capital programme we are rolling out this year, I would have thought plaudits would have been given to the Department for the outstanding capital budget and envelope it secured. Admittedly, it is €5 million down on the figure for last year, but members will note that I have said we are getting better value to the tune of 15% to 20%. Last year we had the highest ever output ever in the building programme. I hope we will repeat this in the coming year. It is important that we do so. I seek co-operation in that respect.

The Chairman has pointed to the amount of money spent on prefabricated buildings since I took office. I took that advice on board and examined how I might improve the position on the use of prefabs. Effectively, I have said to schools that if, instead of providing a prefab, they want to build a permanent structure, I am prepared to make the money available to them. Thankfully, quite a number have availed of that option. I have told the building section that it must notify schools as early as possible that they will be given a prefab to enable them to make the necessary preparations by way of seeking planning permission etc. in order that they can maximise the use of this scheme, which I encourage. It is working in rural areas. However, we must take into account planning considerations and the general appearance of a building from an environmental perspective. Structures cannot be added on willy nilly to school buildings.

There is a lot of catching up to be done.

On the school building programme, we will have 26 major capital projects this year, 12 at second level and 50 at primary level. I have advised the construction industry that if there are areas where it can be proved that it is appropriate to introduce a pilot lease and buy-back scheme, I will examine that option. Within the parameters and structures set and provided the scheme meets with the approval of the Comptroller and Auditor General and comes within the guidelines of the Secretary General, if we can devise such a scheme, we will do so. We are examining the possibility of introducing a pilot project to fast-track development. I am not sure if it is feasible, but I am examining it as an option to fast-track school projects and ensure we get good value for money. All the other schemes, including the devolved scheme, are in place. I am reintroducing the summer works scheme as part of the overall capital budget. Generally, when everything is taken into consideration, the capital programme for 2009 will be an outstanding one.

I wish to move on to deal with the issue of third level fees.

Before the Minister does that, will he address the practice adopted by his ministerial colleague, Deputy Dempsey, when Minister for Education and Science, of publishing and making public the list of projects and bring to an end the mysterious lottery scheme that drives everyone mad, including I suspect those involved in his Department?

I have stated clearly in the Dáil that I want to return to that practice. I indicated that our website was being upgraded and hope that work will be completed before the end of the year. In line with the practice adopted by Deputy Dempsey, I hope to ensure transparency. While many will not be happy that they will not be at the top of the list——

(Interruptions).

——it will be open, practical and as fair as possible.

That will meet the approval of everybody concerned.

(Interruptions).

That was true of the former Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin.

I wish to deal with the issue of third level fees. We have had a very good debate on the issue, including on a system of loans. I was asked by the Cabinet to report on the third level sector, including the participation rate which we are trying to increase to 70% and the implications for funding in that regard. We are examining international best practice. I hope to be in a position to report to the Cabinet on the feasibility study being undertaken within the next four or five months. I have invited all the partners in education to submit their comments and provide any data that they wish to provide in that respect. There has been an outstanding response to this request which I hope will continue because it will inform what will be a good decision on this matter.

The issue of special needs education was raised. What is happening will have no effect on such provision. All the grants will remain in place.

That is where the Minister is wrong.

For children with special needs who wish to remain in mainstream education, the increase in class sizes will surely impact on them.

All the DEIS schools will not be affected in terms of the grants payable and the appointment of special needs teachers.

I am talking about students with a disability who are trying to remain in mainstream education.

There will be huge losses in that respect, which the Minister may not have foreseen.

I have been quite specific. My budget allocation takes account of the increasing demand for special needs teachers into 2009. That demand will be met. I have given that commitment.

Let us talk about that issue later.

For the benefit of members, I will read out the names on my list and the order in which they will be called. They are Deputy Conlon, Senators Keaveney and Healy Eames and Deputies Ulick Burke, O'Mahony, Feighan and Behan.

I, too, welcome the Minister and his officials. One point the Minister made that struck a chord with me was on the quality of teaching and securing the best possible outcome for learners. The two go hand in hand. Parents want the maximum class contact time to ensure their children achieve their potential. In seeking to ensure children have maximum class contact time, two elements need to be examined. Is the Minister reviewing the SNS scheme? If so, when will the review be finished? If not, will he initiate such a review? The SNS scheme is not working as effectively as it should in all schools.

In addition, will the Minister consider not including the provision of in-service training for teachers in the school year? As somebody who was involved in the management of schools on a daily basis — other principals and deputy principals will concur with me — in-service training was the bane of our lives. It is extremely difficult to find one substitute who is subject matched, not to mention four or five. Parents bemoaned, rightly so, the fact that their children did not have a subject matched substitute, but we just could not find them. Furthermore, where two substitutes come into a school and one of them is subject matched while the other is not, the two are paid the same rate, while one might not necessarily be teaching the children in front of them. There is a huge anomaly in that regard which must be examined.

I welcome the Minister's engagement with the teacher unions. I hope it will continue because there are areas in which fat can be trimmed. It is only through engagement that changes can be made for the benefit of all.

With regard to the review of the school transport scheme, I am anxious that the Minister examine the role of the TLO and the person who occupies that position. He has said his enrolment policy proposals are being developed. When will this be completed? It is grossly unfair and inequitable that some schools will exclude children who might have specific educational needs.

On the subject of in-service training, I have been to and addressed particular subject in-service training on Saturdays. Obviously, this is a very welcome development. The teacher unions have given some ground on the issue in our negotiations with them. I would prefer if there was far more in-service training outside school hours and, in fairness to teachers, this is an area in which we might find a level of co-operation. I hope the unions will come back to me on the issue.

It is often easier for the teacher to stay in the classroom and teach rather than attend in-service training because one must pick up when one comes back.

It is a fact of life that teachers, like everybody else, must upskill.

In-service training is obviously important in that regard. I am hoping the teacher unions will change their requirements. If that were to happene, it would ensure teachers were with their classes far more than under the current system. I have been contacted by many principals since this issue arose. The most disruptive aspect for them is teachers going on in-service courses during class time. They would generally welcome a change also. The president of the second level principals network, at its annual conference, expressed the wish to the teacher unions that perhaps they would consider providing in-service training outside class time. If that development were to emanate from them, we would welcome it very much.

The Minister of State will deal with the transport question.

Deputy Conlon asked about the role of the TLOs in the context of the school transport scheme. The commitment given in the programme for Government to review the school transport scheme, including catchment boundaries and proposals in that regard, is very advanced. I hope to make an announcement in the coming week. It will be a comprehensive review and the terms of reference are to be finalised. It will certainly take on board the point made about the TLOs.

Movill community college took up the option of using bricks and mortar instead of prefabs and it was an exceptionally good scheme. We are seeking the third phase in the school building programme. When I was teaching in the North, I had to do baker time. At least one day per week, when school finished at 3 p.m., I had to stay until 4.30 p.m. It meant that if I was holding choir or orchestra practice or if there was a sports event, we could incorporate it in our baker time.

Does the Senator have a question?

In the context of North-South co-operation, the Minister could learn from such experiences in the North.

I welcome the SNA review and parental input. There has been such a review in Inishowen due to a savage cutting of SNA supports. I welcome the Minister's comments about the health and education sectors working together. Does he have any details on how that will play out? The Department of Health and Children states it is not its concern but that of the Department of Education and Science, while in education we need all these medical supports but it is considered a health matter. It seems ne'er the twain will meet.

With regard to the changes to the pupil-teacher ratio, will VEC schools be at a disadvantage as against community schools on the basis of how teachers are appointed and the more permanent nature of community school appointments? In addition, I am a musician. How will we imaginatively support minority subjects and prevent them becoming elitist and only available through private tuition? The issue of minority subjects will be important.

Deputy Conlon commented on teacher support services. What are the Minister's views on curriculum changes? There is too much, for example, in the junior certificate history curriculum. There was a great change in the leaving certificate curriculum which brought it to a more manageable size. In the current climate, will issues such as examining the curriculum and teacher support services be subject to a reduction in focus or priority?

I will discuss the SNAs and the health and education question first. I have been concerned about the health and education issues with regard to the special needs sector. I requested a meeting with Professor Drumm in order that we could examine how we might better co-ordinate our activities in this regard. We have scheduled a meeting for within the next two weeks in order that we can discuss more joined-up thinking and action on education and health issues. The Minister of State, Deputy John Moloney, will also attend the meeting. I hope, as a result of it, there will be far greater co-ordination.

We are carrying out a review of special needs assistance in the classroom. We are taking approximately 100 schools at random and will examine them throughout 2009. We hope the review will be completed at the end of next year. I hope the meeting with the Department of Health and Children will also inform the review.

With regard to VECs and the redeployment issue, I am convinced of the need for a redeployment scheme. In the negotiations leading to Towards 2016 there were three significant issues. One was promotions and seniority. I was informed this morning that the ASTI had voted by 80% to 20% to remove the seniority requirement. There are also ongoing discussions on the redeployment of teachers. I hope this issue will be dealt with by the teacher unions within a short period. A fair measure of agreement has been reached with the Department on the issue. We are hoping there will be a successful outcome. I do not want to comment too much on these issues, given that the negotiations are well advanced and progress appears to have been made. However, I would welcome a proper redeployment within the sector. There will be concessions within the VECs, a matter on which CEOs must make the case.

I thank the Minister and welcome him to the committee. I was unavoidably detained. I thank Deputy Quinn for taking the Chair in my absence. We will continue as quickly as we can because I know everyone is very busy.

I have two separate questions for the Minister who is welcome. I was delighted to hear him confirm that the percentage of the overall budget accounted for by uncertified sick leave was only about 10%. The INTO has stated it equates to approximately one day per teacher per year. Can the Minister see how he will fail in his intention to save money? As a consequence of this poor decision, teachers may obtain a certificate for four days when they might only be sick for one. Pupils will be the real losers as a result of this decision due to the absence of their subject teachers. I would like the Minister to comment on this point.

My second question concerns what the Minister said on page 10 of his report. He said he was committed to addressing the language needs of newcomer children. One of the harshest and most severe budgetary cuts he has made is by way of the introduction of a cap to have a maximum of two English language support teachers in a school. Many schools are overloaded and have a substantial number of foreign national pupils. How will the Minister advise schools such as the one at Mervue, County Galway, which has 183 foreign national pupils who have some, little or no English how they can manage with two teachers when they previously had six? How will the Minister advise Claddagh national school which has 125 foreign national pupils? It has stated it can manage with 35 but must now mainstream the other 90.

The Minister referred to special educational needs, an area which will be hit by the cuts, although the Minister said he was committed to ensuring it would not be affected. Next year, when the pupils concerned sit standardised tests with native Irish children, those children who need English-language support will need learning supports. This will push native Irish children off the range. Because the Minister has not implemented——

The Senator's time is up. She has had three minutes instead of two.

I was unfortunate that Deputy Gogatry took the Chair because I would really like to make this point. I want to know how the Minister will ensure both native Irish and foreign national children will not lose out.

I thank the Senator. The point has been made.

I refer to special educational needs.

Deputy Quinn was very strict and I will continue his good work.

Senator Healy Eames had three minutes, while I had two

The allocation of teachers is based on the needs of children, irrespective of where they come from. I announced on budget day that we were cutting back to two language support teachers in a school. The Senator has clearly forgotten that we will also provide for some alleviation of the position of those schools where there is a significant concentration of newcomer pupils.

Is that a commitment?

It was included in my budget speech.

What is meant by "significant"? How much will the Minister offer schools which are, for example, losing four teachers?

I have said that I will examine every case on its merits. I have indicated that where there is a serious concentration, we will alleviate the difficulties. People should understand language support teachers work to bring pupils to a particular level. It is not a support that will be provided for a lifetime.

I agree, absolutely.

It is important to have regard to this also. There are 1,500 language support teachers in place.

There will be 500 less.

Therefore, there will be 1,000.

At second level. The guarantee we are giving is that if there is a difficulty, a school can make its case to us. We are prepared to look at the concentration and alleviate any difficulties. That is important.

I thank the Minister. To return to his previous comments——

I must call Deputy Ulick Burke.

No. The Minister did not clarify the issue of special educational needs support. In communications to schools he has mentioned that children's needs will now be met on a non-statutory basis. However, he has told me here that if they need special education, whether they are native or foreign national children, they will receive it. How can he stand over this comment?

The special education council is still working on the allocation. The need is assessed, irrespective of the child's colour or race. I have not changed the allocation.

That is apparent.

I reject the Minster's comments about Eglish national school. What will he and his Department do, given that an improvement notice has been issued by the Health and Safety Authority to the school? What will he do, given that HSE west has closed one room in the school because of the existence of a fungus? I did not bring any of the mice or rats with me, but they are there. There is also a danger concerning electrical installations. What is most offensive for the board of management is the Minister's suggestion, by innuendo, that the annual grants provided for the school have in some way been misappropriated.

I have not suggested that.

The Minister should read the correspondence from one of his senior officers to the board of management in the last few days. It is clear that that is the agenda. The rapid delivery programme would be appropriate in this instance. The Minister should consider the guarantee and undertaking given by his predecessor that Seamount College in Kinvara would be provided with a school within the timescale given by the trustees of the school. Nothing has happened with regard to the acquisition of a site and the provision of a school. Leaving aside the electioneering, the Department has a responsibility to provide an education for the children in this second level school. One of the rooms in the other school has been closed, yet the Minister turns back the wheel by suggesting it should be disbanded and amalgamated with surrounding schools. Clearly, departmental officials do not know about the position in the surrounding schools, as they are referred to. Are we now returning to the situation where the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Martin, failed to implement this amalgamation of rural national schools?

The Deputy has made his point.

Has the Minister reverted to that situation?

Obviously, I cannot comment on individual cases, except to say I took action in the case of Eglish national school. With a number of Deputies from east Galway, the Deputy has been in touch with me previously about the school in Kinvara and we are examining the situation. I cannot give any commitments today. Like everything else, he knows that I want to be absolutely fair, as Deputy Brian Hayes wants me to be. I want to be above board in everything I do and ensure any allocations I make will be fair and transparent. That will apply in the case of the school in Kinvara also.

With regard to Eglish national school, there is no question of my imputing the money was misappropriated. That was never the case.

I refer the Minister to the letter sent by his officials to management at the school.

The principal of the school went public on this matter in a number of national newspapers. The situation relating to conditions at the school was outlined in the interviews given by the principal. I thought I took appropriate action by asking one of my inspectors to travel to the school in order to discover the position. Funding had been made available to the school and I asked the inspector in question to identify the remedial works, if any, that had been carried out and to establish the feasibility of the school operating into the future. That was a logical and reasonable course of action. My approach was proactive and responsible and I acted in a coherent way. The inspector is examining the position and the difficulties at the school and will report back to me at a later stage. We will determine the action that should be taken on foot of that report.

I asked the Minister——

I call Deputy O'Mahony. There can be no follow-up questions from Deputy Burke in the light of the time constraints within which we are operating. There will be an opportunity to ask brief supplementary questions later.

The Minister has stated we need to improve, adapt, respond and be flexible. He also referred to the advances in the curriculum. In conjunction with these comments, we must consider the education package announced in the budget. Advances were made in education in recent years. However, the Minister has brought matters to a new level. If I heard him correctly, he accused the teacher unions of scaremongering and teachers and parents of winding up children and sending letters. Is he stating a young student who is due to play in a football final after Christmas but whose team may have to be pulled out of the competition should not be concerned?

I represent a rural constituency. I know the Minister does not want to deal with individual cases. However, I am aware of a three-teacher school in a rural area which had 48 students in September and will have over 50 at the same time next year. It was eligible for a third teacher this year and will also be eligible next year, based on the figures to which I refer. There are actually two schools affected in this regard, namely, Craggagh national school and Killawalla national school, each of which is due to lose a teacher. I wish to give the Minister an opportunity to show some sensitivity in respect of these schools.

The Minister referred to a figure of €13 million in respect of school business. Everyone is aware of the necessity of making savings. The Minister suggested in recent weeks that abuses were taking place in the substitution system. There is no abuse of that system in the context of school business. The Minister appears to be a reasonable man and I appeal to him to find the €13 million needed in order allow the holistic method of education that has operated in our schools to continue after 1 January.

I thank the Deputy for the compliment he paid me. I do not believe I have accused teachers of engaging in abuses. I am citing facts. I need to make savings of €28 million in the context of the substitution system. I do not underestimate the fact that there are difficulties. In the light of the education budget, however, I will be obliged to cut €28 million in the context of the substitution system. When it began operating at primary level, the cost involved was €23 million. This has risen to €85 million. The position at second level is similar. Costs continue to rise. We are in the midst of an extremely difficult period and I have informed teachers that I need their co-operation and that they must be flexible. I accept that matters will be difficult for a number of years. Before 2003, there were no substitution payments but schools GAA, soccer and other tournaments still took place. There is a need for flexibility at this stage in respect of costs. That is what I am seeking.

Is there a way by which school business, including the promotion of sport in schools, will be retained?

Yes, particularly if the flexibility evident prior to 2003 is reintroduced. Teachers, principals and the teacher unions must realise that we are in dire straits financially. As a result, flexibility is required and costs must be reduced. Until the economy returns to the level at which it should be, I need the support of those to whom I refer. If such flexibility is forthcoming, we can work together to ensure the promotion of sport in schools — a matter of extreme importance to the Deputy and me — will continue. I am obliged to reduce the costs relating to substitution in the sector by €28 million in 2009. That is a target I must attain.

I welcome the Minister and his officials. The Minister expressed the hope the review of the school transport system, including catchment boundaries, would be completed by the end of 2009. This means that a report will not be forthcoming until 2010. The review was announced in 2006. Is the Minister not of the view that it is extraordinary that the completion of the boundary revision process should take four years? I accept that there may be difficulties but it appears the Department is dragging its heels on this sensitive issue.

Last Easter a junior cycle student was charged €99 for school transport. During the past 30 weeks this figure has been increased on four occasions and now stands at €300. This represents a rise of 203%. Does the Minister agree that in areas where school transport is needed, this increase is anti-family and anti-rural? Will he give a commitment that there will be no further increases during the next three years?

Students and teachers at Ballinamore community school in my constituency are obliged to either walk or travel by bus for up to one mile in order to get to certain classes. They have been awaiting the provision of a new school for 30 years. The Minister gave an assurance that a building project would be announced in the first quarter of next year. Is he in a position to confirm that this will actually be the case and will he provide a likely date as to when an announcement will be made?

The Minister of State, Deputy Haughey, will comment on the transport issue.

The Minister referred to the review of school transport, details relating to which are set out in the programme for Government. The joint committee began a review and engaged in public consultation during the lifetime of the previous Dáil. I wish to give a commitment that submissions received in respect of that process will be considered in the context of the proposals for the review I will be announcing in the coming weeks. I do not believe there has been a delay. We are finalising the terms of reference for the review.

I accept that people are genuinely concerned about school transport charges. The allocation for the school transport scheme for 2009 will be €196 million. This represents an increase of over €20 million on the 2008 allocation. We recognise the importance of the scheme, the costs relating to which are escalating for many reasons. Due to the increase in the number of pupils using the system, the scheme is demand led. There are also issues of diversity and other matters which come into play. The costs involved are continually increasing. The contribution sought from parents still represents an extremely small percentage of the overall cost of the scheme. I accept that there were two increases in recent times. However, there was no increase for ten years beginning in 1998. We are examining ways to minimise the difficulties caused for parents, particularly those with more than two children. I hope to make an announcement shortly on the overall maximum family charge and the payment of same. Perhaps it could be done through more than one payment. We are examining the issue on I will come back to the committee in due course.

I cannot give a commitment on the 2010 budget. We have will have to wait and see what the position is in that regard.

Deputy Feighan referred to a number of schools. I cannot comment or make decisions on any school but have indicated that the school in Ballinamore will be part of a PPP project. That remains my commitment.

It is good to be back at the committee. It was the one I enjoyed most, having a professional interest in education. I look forward to returning again as a non-member and thank the Chairman for his welcome.

It is great to have the opportunity to have a discussion with the Minister and the Minister of State. I have always enjoyed a good working relationship with both and they have always been extremely courteous in my dealings with them. They have addressed issues in the same spirit today and I look forward to maintaining a good relationship with them in my new circumstances.

My views on the budgets cuts are public knowledge and I will not rehearse them. The Government made a serious strategic mistake. I do not blame the Minister but the Government did not prioritise education as the one sector in the economy that would ensure we would recover from the difficulties we are in by prioritising the educational needs of young people. Despite the fact we are in difficult circumstances, the Government is wrong not to recognise the future is our young people. Each cutback will affect children at primary, second and third level but, particularly, at primary and second level.

I refer to issues regarding teachers and comments made by the Minister about the INTO and other teacher unions. It is a serious mistake for him and the teacher representatives to become involved in a game of verbal volleyball on such an important issue. The future of this country depends on the partners in education, including the Minister, the Department, teacher representatives, parents' and patron bodies, working together and having mutual respect for each other. It is a serious mistake for anybody but, in particular, the Minister, given his role, to become involved in a tit for tat argument on a regular basis. It is wrong and the Minister should desist. With the teacher unions he should work for the betterment of students.

What safeguards will the Minister introduce to ensure that if he combines grants into a global figure, the overall value will at least be maintained or increased? What is the current position on discussions between the Department and the Irish Autism Alliance on the provision of schools for ABA education? In particular, will the school at Barnacoyle, County Wicklow, be included in the settlement? What is the problem regarding the appointment of inspectors in the north Wexford area which has resulted in teachers who are on probation not having access to inspectors in order that their probation can be completed? There is a difficulty on which I would like the Minister to respond.

I have had a good working relationship with the Deputy and hope that can continue. I am struck that he would take issue with my defending the education system against exaggerations made by the INTO. The education system, as a result of the increase in pupil-teacher ratios by one to the 2006-07 level, is not facing Armageddon or a catastrophe. It did not happen that year. I felt absolutely compelled to respond to the union representatives and ask them to temper their language because it is not appropriate. It was emotive and dangerous.

With regard to relationships and meetings, the INTO representatives and my officials are sensible people, as I am. When we gathered around a table, we got down to basics and examined the issues involved. All the public posturing was no more and we had a fruitful discussion. The discussions will continue.

My Department pays a plethora of grants and we considered it would be more appropriate to rationalise them. In spite of everything, I invested €20 million extra in capitation payments. While other grants were withdrawn, in some instances, schools will receive more money and others will receive less. However, the changes have given flexibility to schools to use the grant in the area of greatest need. That is positive and should be welcomed. I stated in the House that capitation payments for national schools were too low and that I was committed to increasing them, which I did. While I will have to examine budgetary considerations for 2010, I very much favour increasing capitation paymetns if my financial package will allow this.

I do not want to say too much on the autism discussions because both sides agreed they would not comment on how they were progressing. That was an appropriate way to move forward. The discussions are at an advanced stage between the partners involved and I would like them to conclude before making a detailed response regarding a particular school or aspect of the discussions. I would like to leave those involved to get on with their good work because a great deal of progress has been made, about which I am pleased.

I referred to the appointment of inspectors in north Wexford, an issue on which perhaps the officials can come back to me. Teachers in the Gorey area are waiting to take diploma examinations to ensure they will complete their probation. No inspector has been appointed this year. Those who applied last year to undertake their diploma inspection have been told they are not on any list. While they are not in my constituency, this has serious implications.

I will examine that matter and report back to the Deputy in writing.

I welcome my constituency colleague and wish him and the Minister of State well in their roles.

The Minister has stated the summer works scheme will proceed in 2009. Will new applications need to be submitted or will those with the Department be adjudicated upon?

What are the Minster's policies on capital funding in developing areas? I urge the Minister of State and the Department to return to making term payments under the school transport scheme rather than seeking to make one payment.

I refer to the amalgamation of the two primary schools in Kanturk which has caused us much grief during the years. Perhaps the Minister will comment on the issue.

With regard to the summer works scheme, I have indicated clearly that all applications before us will be taken into account. Any new application that comes in will be put on file. We will have to prioritise the applications and see where the greatest need is and where moneys should be focused. We will do that. I have not decided how much will be allocated to summer works.

That is decided, the money is in the Estimate. I think it is €79 million.

I do not think I announced an exact amount.

It is in the Estimate of expenditure.

If I announced it, the Deputy has just informed me of that. I was not aware we had allocated any amount because I am looking at other schemes. I will make some provision again for the summer works in 2009. Sometimes a provisional amount is mentioned in the Estimate, but no determined allocation has been put aside for summer works so far.

Has it not been determined in the sub-head in the Estimate?

I understand there is no separate subhead. There is no mystery in that regard.

On the issue of developing areas, I am aware of concern in rural areas in particular that they are losing out in terms of capital funding. When I became Minister I looked at where the funding goes and discovered that one third goes to developing areas and two-thirds to the rest. I am satisfied, therefore, that there is not an over emphasis on moneys going to developing areas.

With regard to Deputy Moynihan's question on Kanturk, I cannot comment on individual schools. However, since we both represent the area I will say that the Deputy is probably aware the site has not been acquired as there are serious issues with regard to the site and planning for it. The school authorities have not resolved those matters.

I welcome the Minister. The Labour Party welcomes the information offered and would like to see the Minister at the committee more often. The Minister did not mention the drop-out rate in our secondary school system. We praise the bits that work, but seem to ignore the bits that do not. Some 19% of second level students drop out, either at 16 years of age or after the junior certificate. Will the Minister comment on this later?

I am particularly concerned that the Department does not seem to have a clue or does not want to take the time to find out the state of the infrastructure of the primary school system. Any other large organisation, whether the ESB or a large dispersed organisation, would have an inventory of its stock, an overall view of its precise location, its ownership, occupancy and physical condition. I presume the Minister intends to reform the management of the Department, from the deep silos that do not talk to each other, and to examine that issue.

On the issue of literacy, some 500,000 adults in Ireland are deemed to have functional illiteracy. These are people who came through overcrowded classes in previous times. They are victims of overcrowding.

A predecessor of the Minister, Deputy Michael Woods, got a very bad deal from CORI with regard to its contribution towards redress. Is it not time, in light of the Healy judgment, to return to those negotiations and tell the religious organisations and others affected that schools in their ownership, currently being used as schools, should be transferred to the ownership of the State?

I do not have figures relating to the drop out rate.

It is 16% to 18%, pre-leaving certificate.

The Deputy would be aware there are programmes in place to deal with those who drop out, such as Youthreach. We are concerned and would prefer if the drop-out rate was not as high as it is at second level. We are looking at various approaches to improving the situation and putting supports in place for that. I do not have the detailed information on this with me, but I will make it available.

In the six months I have worked with the building section of the Department, I have found those working in the section to be extremely proactive and professional. I hold them in the highest regard. On the issue of developing areas, we remember what happened in developing areas previously and the lack of schools and school places. I was involved at the time and we set up a developing areas team in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and invited the Department of Education and Science to come on board with us. We now have a developing areas team in the Department. It says much for the team in the building section that this year it met all of the criteria with regard to developing areas and there was not one pupil in the greater Dublin area who did not have a classroom to go to or a teacher to teach the class. I regard this as an outstanding achievement on the part of the section and give it due credit.

On the issue of an inventory, various schools make submissions to the Department. As a result of those submissions, we are well aware of the difficulties experienced by some schools. We have probably the highest capital programme of most countries in Europe in terms of capital projects and have borrowed to continue this because we know the infrastructure of schools needs to be developed. This year again, we will probably do more to improve school infrastructure than ever previously. We achieved record levels last year and will continue that work. However, our funds are finite and it is not possible to meet all of the demands placed on us. Obviously, we want to get as much value as we can from the works we do and that is the route I will follow.

I will allow the Minister of State comment on literacy.

Adult literacy comes under the umbrella of further education. The figures mentioned are quite out of date. I accept they are the only data we have currently, but we are engaged with the OECD which will conduct a new survey on levels of adult literacy. The budget this year provides for €174.2 million for further education. Despite the budget being cut, adult literacy is being prioritised. Therefore, I do not envisage any cuts in adult literacy places in 2009.

One question that was not addressed was the one concerning religious orders that own primary schools that are currently used as schools. Having regard to the massive increase in the estimated cost of redress restitution I put forward a proposition because I believe the ownership and governance issues are critical for the future of the primary school system. Has the Minister considered or will he consider returning to those negotiations in light of the Healy judgment and offering something that was not requested previously? These buildings would stay as schools and not be sold.

With regard to the indemnity agreement, the full contribution of €52 million has been paid over. Some €10 million has been paid for counselling services by the orders and all but two of the properties have been transferred. Where there are difficulties about title, the properties are being used for public services. There are two such properties and we may find ourselves in a situation where we will have to negotiate moneys for these, based on 2002 valuations. I make no decision on the future of the schools. We are having discussions with the various patrons with regard to a new model and ancillary issues. I want those discussions to continue and will not predicate anything while they are ongoing. I hope the Deputy will appreciate that.

Does the Minister think it was a good deal?

That is not a matter for me on which to comment. I have to ensure the deal negotiated is implemented in full and that the State gets the full value of the agreement.

I stuck my head above the parapet and took a bit of flack for it but for the benefit of the committee, I reiterate that, like Deputy Behan, I cannot stand over the cuts. I am embarrassed by them, as should any member of the Government parties. Insufficient funding was given to the Department of Education and Science. I have also had Deputy Hayes questioning my mental health which I thought was choice but I did not respond.

The Minister has a very tough job to do. I am very confident that given the insufficient funding which his Department has been allocated, he is probably the best person around to deal with the resources available to him. I know there are savings to be made in consultation and negotiation with the teacher unions and the partners in education and have no doubt that in six months' time we will see the fruits of this work. We should all be collectively pushing for more funding for education next year, even given the economic climate. That is my tuppence worth out of the way.

I wish to raise a few issues. The issue of substitution has been raised before. I recently met people from a school in Galway who had raised the issue with regard to children with special educational needs or autism as it can specifically affect such children, as opposed to those in a mainstream school. I ask for the Minister's comments on how these discrepancies can be dealt with in the current budgetary climate.

The Minister has received a letter from the principal of St. Brigid's girls' national school in Palmerstown and I hope a written response will issue in due course. I am aware that the project at the school was about to go to tender. It was slightly over the amount allocated and put back into the pile. A special case should be made for the school. I know of the good work being done by the developing areas unit as regards schools ready for use such as that in the Clonburris strategic development zone. I am aware that the Minister is meeting groups such as the Lucan secondary school action group. Where there is land available and school projects are ready to go, they should be processed as quickly as possible.

The Chairman referred to a specific school. The Secretary General of the Department will be responding to him on the matter. The add-on autism units attached to a normal school formed part of our discussions with the teacher unions and management bodies. They are more flexible and have a lower pupil-teacher ratio. We are hoping there will be ongoing discussions on all these matters and that the teacher unions and management bodies will be back to us to discuss some of them further.

Some members wish to ask further questions. I will allow them no more than 30 seconds each.

I asked the Minister about an improvement notice being issued to a board of management and part of the school in question has been closed down. What are the consequences of this closure and what is the Department's response?

Health and safety is a matter for the board of management of the school in the first instance.

What is the Department's response?

The board of management is set up to manage a school for the management of which it takes full responsibility. It is open to it to make an application to the Department of Education and Science to rectify any difficulties at the school.

The Minister has stated he will target educational resources towards educationally disadvantaged children. Does he accept there are disadvantaged pupils in non-DEIS schools? He has cut their book grant and the number of their home-school liaison teachers. Some of the pupils concerned will drop out of school before doing the leaving certificate. One such schools has told me that it took its home-school liaison teacher to keep five such pupils at school two weeks' ago and this is one of the schools which will lose its home-school liaison teacher. The school is located in Athenry.

These non-DEIS schools were due to lose the additional supports in 2010. We brought it forward by one year.

The matter was renegotiated before the general election.

It was written in black and white that it covered the period up to 2009-10. I reiterate we rationalised the grants by increasing capitation payments. This gives an opportunity for schools to be flexible in the way they distributes grants by identifying the areas of greatest need.

Does the Minister think it is fair that the cutting of a home-school liaison teacher is causing children to drop out before the leaving certificate? It is likely that the children concerned will have no books for school. Is that fair?

I have to target resources. An independent body designates the school in greatest need. I refer the Senator to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. One of the criticisms made was that the Department was all over the place in what we wanted to target. It suggested we identify the most needy targets and the DEIS schools are the most needy. In line with what has been recommended by the Comptroller and Auditor General, we have designated and identified them as being in greatest need. We are putting in substantial resources in order that they will not be affected. I am not saying there are no difficulties in non-DEIS schools----

——and agree with the Senator that there are. However, these difficulties will have to be faced by the school and its board of management by being flexible and innovative in their approach. I have a finite budget. I wish I could deal with all the issues but I cannot, as I do not have the funding to do so. The Department was given an extra €306 million in the education budget, an increase of 3.2%, the second largest increase after the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I would have thought that in a particularly difficult time the education system had done well. A total of 80% of my Department's budget is given over to teachers' salaries, pensions and SNAs. Some 20% of the budget has seen a 3% cut which equates to a 12% to 15% cut. We had no option, therefore, but to look at the figure of 80%. We have tried to minimise the effect in terms of teacher quality and output. We recognise that there will be difficulties but are asking teachers and everybody else to be patient and work with us in the long term interests of children and try to ensure the economy comes out of the slump. I have indicated that when positive growth returns, I will restore pupil-teacher ratios at the earliest opportunity.

I wish to ask the Minister——

Sorry, no.

I am on the one line with him.

I must allow someone else to speak.

I wish to come back to a question which the Minister did not answer about the small rural school which had the numbers last September and will have them next September but which under the Minister's plans will lose a teacher. I come from the only county that even before the cutbacks were made had schools with two classes with more than 40 pupils. In these schools, if there is a teacher missing, there will be more than 50 pupils in a class. The Minister referred to the need for flexibility and targeting. I am asking him to be flexible. I do not think it would put the budget out of sync to look at these specific cases.

There is a strategy and a mechanism in place which is fair to everybody. I cannot interfere with that mechanism. There is an appeals system in place as well. If schools feel they will have some difficulty as a result of a decision, they have an opportunity to appeal that decision and make their case. The schools mentioned by the Deputy will have that opportunity when the staffing schedule is published.

Where do the appeals go?

If they are dissatisfied with the level of staffing they are afforded, they have an opportunity to appeal that and to make their case to an independent group.

The Minister sets the schedule.

Can Deputy O'Mahony understand——

There has to be——

Listen to this now. There are 3,200 schools here. If I make an exception in the Deputy's case, will he expect me to make an exception in the case of every other school?

There are only two schools——

There are only two in County Mayo.

We are talking about classrooms with more than 40 pupils.

I visit schools every day. A teacher recently pointed out to me that there were 30 children in two separate classes in the school. When I went down the corridor, I found a classroom with just 19 children. The committee is aware that class sizes vary within a school. The division of pupils into classes is the prerogative of the local principal.

In a small school, there cannot be a variance. A three-teacher school will lose a third of its staff.

I think the Deputy has made his point about small schools that will lose one of their three or four teachers.

I cannot micro-manage schools. Other small schools might make totally different arrangements.

There is no flexibility.

We have set out a fair and equitable process. If we depart from that process, we will put other schools in an inequitable position. I am not prepared to do that, particularly when an appeals mechanism is in place for all schools.

People will have to agree to disagree. The point has been made on both sides.

I have two short questions. Does the Minister have any idea when he will be in a position to issue his proposals on enrolment policies? On the complete review of school transport, I do not think we are getting value for money in the school transport sector. In light of the fact that buses are lying idle for large parts of the day, will the review consider the need to use the bus fleet in a more efficient manner?

The process of consultation with all the education partners on the issue of enrolment policies has been completed. We are examining all the submissions. We will consider our policy options after that. I am quite concerned. The overall situation is quite good. It is obvious that certain schools are not complying with the guidelines as we would wish. Recent months have been quite hectic, as members of the committee can imagine. One of my priorities is to come up with initiatives in respect of enrolment policy.

Value for money is a central aspect of the school transport review, in which the Department of Finance is involved. We pay for buses when they are in use. We do not pay for them when they are idle.

Better use could be made of them.

We will look at that.

I would like to return briefly to the Department's management structure and the need to achieve value for money in the Department's capital programme. My questions have not elicited any information from the Minister, other than the comment that he is too busy to give the details sought, or that to do so would require a disproportionate effort or displacement of energy. I do not see how a system of almost 3,300 primary schools and more than 800 secondary schools can be run, and real value for money can be achieved, in the absence of a strategic overview of what the Department has, where it is, what condition it is in and how the return on it can be maximised. It is not a question of parts of the country where the population is increasing. I am talking about built-up areas where there is no connection between the primary and secondary school systems. I could give examples, but I will not take up the time of the committee. The Department will not achieve the value for money it is capable of until a horizontal view of what it has got, as opposed to a view of 3,300 vertical files, is made available in readily accessible form.

As a result of the submissions made to it, the building unit has a very good profile of the needs of primary and post-primary schools throughout the country. That information is within the Department. I will examine the value of the Deputy's suggestion to see how appropriate it might be and where exactly it is at. I will report back to the Deputy on it. It is unfair of Deputy Quinn to say I am too busy to bother with these things. I have been in the job for six months.

I am quoting from the answers that the Minister did not write.

I am prepared to take valuable suggestions on board. I have taken one or two from Deputy Quinn already. I appreciate them. I do not think all the knowledge and expertise resides on this side of the fence. If the Opposition makes constructive suggestions, I will have no problem dealing with them and taking them on board.

I thank the Minister.

Does the Minister think we have too many schools?

Is that a leading question?

There are 1,600 primary schools with less than 100 pupils.

I understand that almost 1,000 schools have four teachers or less. I would be interested to hear the Minister's observations on that. The bigger issue is the need for a critical mass when developing a curriculum. We should not force schools to amalgamate. Has the Minister thought about providing incentives to encourage schools to come together? Two four-teacher schools could amalgamate to get the kind of infrastructure that is available to an eight-teacher school.

I will give the Minister some leeway to think about that while I ask another question. Do I understand correctly that the Department is spending €15 million a year on the provision of taxis? The vast majority of the taxis in question are used to transport children with special needs. I will say something that people might not like to hear. There is a fundamental responsibility on parents to bring their children to school, in so far as possible. It seems to me that the amount of money being spent by the section of the Department for which the Minister of State, Deputy Haughey, is responsible is escalating exponentially. How sustainable is it to spend such a huge sum of money on the provision of taxis?

When the Minister was in China, our illustrious Chairman, Deputy Gogarty, did not know what way he was going to turn on the budget cuts.

I always knew what way I was going to turn. I did exactly what I said I would do.

The Chairman said he sent a letter to the Minister in Beijing. Did the Minister ever get a copy of that letter?

Did the Minister reply to it?

We have met since then and we will continue to meet.

That is fine. The Minister got the letter.

The Chair and I are involved in continuing dialogue.

I thank the Minister for that.

It is obvious that the issue of minimum numbers will be examined in the context of the review of primary school recognition. When one visits small schools, one recognises the pride people feel at having a school as part of the immediate community. Schools often mirror the communities within which they operate. Communities are tremendously proud of the rapport they have with schools. As someone who comes from a rural area, I must say that having a policy of closing such schools is not high on my agenda. There are practical benefits associated with merging smaller schools. An amalgamated school retains the teacher numbers of the original schools. If a new school is being built to house a number of schools which are to merge, the teacher quotas of the schools will be retained as part of the merger. That benefit is there for them.

Can the Minister see an advantage in bringing four small rural schools together under a single board of management, for example?

Yes. This is being promoted by the network of principals. When I met members of the group in question, they put this proposal to me. We will examine it.

I think the patrons of the schools would be in favour of such a move. I refer in particular to parish priests, whose vocation related to saving our souls rather than educating our kids.

We will have to get the people in the parishes to agree to this.

It is a question of flexibility. We need to give people the option of pursuing this approach, rather than forcing them to do so.

The option will be there. There is no difficulty in that regard. It is a question of getting agreement.

If one speaks to members of the clergy, such as Bishop Willie Walsh in Clare, one will be told that as the years go by, the aging cohort of clergymen simply will not be able to do the job that is being done at the moment. It does not seem to me that it would be terribly complex to provide for different models of boards of management. The Minister could offer it as an option. We know that compulsion does not work. I remember the controversy associated with a single-teacher school in Dingle in 1973. Compulsion will not work. It is preferable to give people an option and an incentive to avail of it, as the Minister has done in other cases. It is ludicrous to have separate boards of management for boys' and girls' schools located side by side on the same site. There are probably five examples of this practice in my constituency.

I am wide open to the Deputy's suggestion.

On Deputy Hayes's question, children with special needs are a major element of the school transport scheme. The number of taxis engaged in recent years has increased from approximately 250 in 2004 to more than 700 this year. Some of these taxis will cater for——

Will the Minister of State repeat the figures?

The number of taxis engaged increased from approximately 250 in 2004 to approximately 700 this year.

Is that trend sustainable?

The Department is carefully examining the issue. In the next two or three weeks changes will be made to provision for children with special needs, including with regard to the use of taxis. I will return to the joint committee on that matter.

In a reply to a parliamentary question I was informed that one third of the global expenditure on school transport of approximately €170 million was expended on taxis or special grants to assist parents in providing school transport. Is the Department spending in the region of €50 million on taxis this year?

The figures indicate that approximately 30% of the allocation for school transport is being expended on transport, including taxis and grants for children with special needs. A breakdown of the expenditure on taxis and private vehicles is not readily available for the past five years.

Will the Minister of State arrange to have the figures produced?

Deputy Hayes put a leading question to the Minister and the Minister of State on reducing the number of small schools in rural areas and made a comment to the effect that the onus was on parents to bring their children to school. Notwithstanding that some parents are poor and cannot afford a car, is it not the case that the closure of some rural schools would require parents or the relevant transport provider to travel further to bring children to school, thereby increasing costs? Perhaps a compromise solution is available. Deputy Hayes made valid arguments.

I am not sure the reason for the problem I will outline lies with education legislation, boards of management or trade unions. The difficulty to which I refer is the failure of schools at secondary and primary level to share teachers when they qualify for only a fraction of a teaching post, for example, half a teaching post. What are the barriers to increasing efficiencies by having teachers from adjacent schools share posts, for example, having half a post in each school? Could this solution be used to a greater extent?

This approach is taken in the case of resource teachers.

I refer to mainstream teachers.

I do not know how one could achieve the objective the Chairman sets out. It would be more difficult to achieve with mainstream teachers than resource teachers.

Does the difficulty reside with teachers, trade unions or boards of management? In my constituency, for example, separate boys' and girls' secondary schools within a couple of hundred metres of each other share certain subjects on a voluntary basis. Could one give statutory effect to arrangements whereby a school is provided with a science teacher on condition that a nearby school is permitted a share of the teacher's time? Does it not make sense to share resources in these tough economic times rather than have, for example, two schools failing to secure a teacher because they qualify for 0.6 and 0.4 of a teaching post, respectively?

Schools assign their curriculum on the range of subjects available. It is much more important to agree a redeployment scheme, as such an agreement would allow the Department to redeploy teachers to appropriate areas at second level.

I presume work is being done on that issue.

The Department hopes to secure an agreement on it.

Members of the joint committee recently visited Liverpool where we had an opportunity to visit some schools. Notwithstanding the significant investment in technology which I will discuss on another day, one of the most interesting ideas in post-primary education was an example of four schools which had come together to offer subjects in different schools to the entire sixth form school community. In other words, one school offers a subject which is not available in the others, thus allowing the group of schools to offer a greater range of subjects to a large cohort of students. While this is, again, a matter of critical mass, has the Department considered this option?

The Minister will be aware of a range of issues arising in New Ross, a town I visited recently, which has three or four post-primary schools. There is no reason we could not offer subject choices on a communal basis at these schools. It would also encourage greater collegiality.

This practice is applied in a number of cases. It is a question of schools approaching the Department with ideas which would be in the interests of the general community. One could obviously offer a much wider subject choice if schools took this approach, which would be a welcome development.

Does the power of initiative lie with schools or the Department?

The schools determine the subject choice.

The Department pays the schools.

I will inform schools that they should take a sensible approach in certain areas by providing the most comprehensive range of subjects possible.

This approach is heavily incentivised in Liverpool to encourage schools to work together. A carrot and stick approach is required because without offering an incentive, schools will not act of their own volition.

My Secretary General informs me that it is a bad sign if one must incentivise schools to adopt this type of approach. The Department is open to the Deputy's suggestion and will examine how such an approach could operate. We will examine the overall impact of subject choice, particularly in developing areas where new schools are being built to complement existing schools.

I thank the Minister and the Minister of State for their open and comprehensive contributions to the joint committee's important deliberations.

The joint committee went into private session at 12.30 p.m. and adjourned at 12.35 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 2 December 2008.
Top
Share