I welcome the following: Mr. Jim Moore and Mr. Paul Beddy, president and director, respectively, of the National Parents Council Post-primary; Ms Deirdre Keogh, development officer, Irish Vocational Education Committee; Mr. Diarmuid de Paor, deputy general secretary, Association of Secondary Teachers of Ireland; Mr. Noel Merrick, president, Joint Mangerial Body-Association of Management of Catholic Secondary Schools; Mr. Ciaran Flynn, general secretary, Association of Community and Comprehensive Schools; and Mr. Declan Glynn, assistant general secretary, Teachers Union of Ireland. They are here under the umbrella body of the Post-Primary Education Forum. We will examine the effects of the changes in education spending, as well as the importance of protecting investment in education, while maximising the efficient use of existing resources, which is important in these straitened times. In this context, Mr. Moore will make the main presentation but, first, I invite Mr. Beddy to make a brief introductory comment.
Education Spending: Discussion with Post-Primary Education Forum.
Mr. Paul Beddy
I will outline additional background information on the forum. Mr. Moore and I are ordinary parents representing parents nationally. The Post-Primary Education Forum is unique in that it has brought together all the partners in education. What brings us together is our common interests in education. In many respects, we are all passionate about education, as I am sure are the members of the committee.
From parents' perspective, the National Parents Council examined how parents could become more involved, as they have been on the periphery of education matters for many years. Even though it has a representational role, the council is very badly resourced. There is a misconception that parents are somewhat apathetic about what happens in second level education. We believe this is untrue. It is borne out of the fact that parents are not very well organised at second level, unlike at primary level. They are not very well organised mainly because they are not funded. The council does not have the necessary resources. We have our day jobs and our job representing parents. It starts at the basic parents association level and continues through to representative roles at national level and the National Parents Council Post-primary.
In regard to our having a passion for education, the three ideas that come to mind are passion, vision and leadership within education. Wiithin this forum, everybody is very passionate about the idea that education is important. When we got together, we said we had more issues in common than issues that divided us. The biggest single issue that is common to us all is funding for education and the priority it should be given. Studies show that more parental involvement in education brings more benefits right through the education system from local school level.
We want to emphasise that when we talk about investment in education within the forum, that is our concern. Our concerns are not related to teacher or individual management issues. They are separate from what the forum is about. It is about what is common to us all. The funding issue is of critical important to us and we are passionate about the matter. We are glad of this opportunity to indicate the impact of the cutbacks. Our membership includes principals, management bodies, parents and teacher union organisations. I will hand over to my colleague, Mr. Moore, who will present our submission.
I remind the delegates that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. While I doubt the delegates will be seeking to defame anyone today, I must mention that warning nevertheless. Members are advised of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not 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.
Mr. Jim Moore
I thank members for giving us the opportunity to address the committee. As Mr. Beddy outlined, the Post-Primary Education Forum, PPEF, was established as an umbrella group consisting of parents, trade unions and management bodies at second level. It was founded in November 2007 to address common issues and establish a shared viewpoint on priorities for the future development of second level education. It was founded in a context in which, in a time of plenty, Ireland languished towards the bottom of OECD tables in terms of investment in schools.
The PPEF is a unique and significant development in which the partners got together for the first time to promote the interests of children in second level schools. In the autumn of last year everything changed, but we believe our role and mission became more important. In this time of recession investment in education is crucial for economic recovery. Cuts already made are having a serious and negative impact in schools and if we are truly committed to the development of a knowledge economy, we must not only reverse these cuts but also increase investment in our children. In this presentation we will outline the effects that the cuts already imposed are having on the education of our children in second level schools. We will outline how the cuts are having the most devastating and irreversible effect on the most disadvantaged of our children. We will argue that in order to protect our economic and social well-being, our children in second level education must be protected from further attack.
By way of dealing with the cuts, four of our member organisations have conducted surveys of schools to find out exactly what is happening. The findings are remarkably consistent: larger class sizes; subjects dropped; amalgamation of higher and lower classes and different year groups; whole programmes dropped; and increased pressure on extra-curricular activities and pastoral care. The surveys point to two particularly worrying trends. The first of these is the fact that many of the subjects being dropped and amalgamated are those that are regarded as the most important for developing the knowledge economy. Among the subjects schools have been forced to drop are chemistry, physics, applied maths, economics, accountancy, agricultural science, French and German. With approximately 10% of schools losing a modern language and 8% a science subject, it is clear that the cuts are having a negative impact on the capacity of schools to produce the modern well educated and flexible workforce so necessary for economic recovery. Amalgamation of higher and lower level classes in such subjects as mathematics, French and business studies is a further negative consequence of the reduction in teacher numbers. These trends are accompanied by increases in class sizes as a result of the increase in the pupil-teacher ratio. Ireland is close to becoming the country with the largest second level class sizes in the OECD.
The moratorium on filling middle management posts is already having a devastating effect in schools and there is worse to come. The nature of such a moratorium means that the effect is uneven; some schools have lost up to seven assistant principals. Non-replacement of post-holders is placing enormous pressure on the running of schools and the care of our children. Systems that have proven of great benefit to the provision of a safe and supportive environment for our children such as the year head system are under serious threat.
Many of the cuts are hitting the most vulnerable and disadvantaged of our children. Increases in school transport costs and the abolition of the school book grants scheme in non-DEIS schools are among the most obvious of these. Hard pressed parents are finding themselves with anything from a few hundred euro to more than €1,000 in extra expenses at the start of the school year. It is very important to remember that most disadvantaged students do not attend DEIS schools.
One of the most worrying trends from the surveys is the number of schools that have had to drop programmes such as the applied leaving certificate, the leaving certificate vocational programme and even the transition year programme. The abolition of the applied leaving certificate programme in many schools will not only have serious consequences for those children who availed of the programme, it will also have a negative impact on those classes that these students now join. They will find it more difficult to cope in the larger classes pursuing the traditional leaving certificate programme. Teachers will have to pay disproportionate amounts of attention to students who were better suited to the applied leaving certificate programme.
Increased class sizes and amalgamation of higher and lower level classes also have a disproportionate effect on those students who are having difficulties. Many schools have had to abolish smaller classes designed for students who are struggling with the curriculum. The loss of home-school liaison teachers in non-DEIS schools is having a particularly detrimental effect on some very vulnerable children for whom attendance at school at all is the first priority. This link with families has proved invaluable in retaining children in school and helping them to achieve their potential. It costs ten times more to provide a prison place than to support a child in a second level school.
It is only fair that we take this opportunity to acknowledge the commitments in the recently renegotiated programme for Government. The steps taken to employ more teachers and reintroduce some of the grants withdrawn in the budget for 2009 are to be welcomed. The PPEF is anxiously awaiting an outline of the exact details of the grants being made available under the renewed programme for such areas as the book scheme, subjects and programmes. However, this should not be taken as meaning that the second level education system is adequately funded; it is not. We have lost 900 teaching posts this year. Putting back 100 in a year is a gesture. Ireland was lagging far behind its European and world competitors in terms of investment in second level students even in the days of the boom. Circumstances have worsened since. This is a short-sighted policy.
The education cutbacks are placing enormous financial burdens on already hard pressed parents. For many parents, the increases in the cost of school transport, the loss of book grants and more pressure from cash strapped schools are turning the provision of education for their children into a struggle. The National Parents Council Post-primary has estimated that the additional burden on families arising from cuts in education can be as much as €1,000 per child in second level education. If a family has more than one child in full-time education, this cost is inevitably multiplied. These figures do not take account of changes in taxation which apply to these families. In this context, the PPEF is calling for proper funding to be put in place to support the work of the National Parents Council Post-primary. The council speaks for the parents of 340,000 pupils attending second level schools. It is vital to the future of the education system that the modest funding sought by this body be provided in order that parents can have a strong and influential voice in the future development of schools to fulfil their role under the Education Act 1998.
The arguments surrounding the importance for our economic future of maintaining a high quality education system have been well rehearsed and we are not going to repeat all of them here. However, it is worth examining the consequences of increasing or reducing our commitment to the education of our children. If we support our schools, our teachers, our parents and, above all, our children at this crucial time in their lives, the consequences are positive and profound. If we fail to provide this support, the consequences are unthinkable.
The OECD has consistently reported that investment in education provides a significant economic return both to the individual and society at large. It also points out that there is a significant social return from investment in education, pointing out that better educated people live longer, are healthier, more socially cohesive and are more informed and effective citizens. The stark statistic which shows that more 90% of the inmates of our prisons are early school leavers speaks for itself.
Key figures such as Jim O'Hara of Intel, Martin Murphy of Hewlett Packard and Paul Rellis of Microsoft have called on the Government for increased investment in education in general and in information and communications technology, in particular, as a vital component in Ireland's economic recovery. Investment in education will always pay dividends.
It cannot be emphasised enough that the teenagers in our schools today have only one chance to get the best education possible. If they are to realise their full potential, it is no use coming to them in ten or 15 years to offer them a second level education. The damage will have been done and for many of them, it will be irreparable. We understand that Ireland is facing difficult economic times. We know that money is tight. However, apart from the fact that education will be central to our recovery, we cannot punish a generation for the sins of their predecessors. More than that, we owe them the best possible chance to achieve the best they can in life. These young men and women, members children and mine, will not forgive our generation if we deny them this one chance.
Thank you, Mr. Moore. I now invite members of the Opposition and Government parties to ask questions or make comments. This is a crucial issue so I would welcome any comments, however harsh they may be. I would also welcome the involvement of everyone here. I call Deputy Brian Hayes.
I thank the Chairman. I attended the MacGill summer school this year and heard the much publicised speech of Professor Thornhill, the former Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science. One of the most important points he made in that speech was that one of the great strengths in the post-primary education system is the diversity which exists — the fact there is, effectively, parental choice. We have a diverse system which has grown up over the years. We need to recognise that as a real strength in our system. However, one of the downsides of that is that frequently people do not speak with one voice in terms of the funding requirements for post-primary education. Those of us who are policy-makers, whether Government or Opposition, frequently find it difficult to establish exactly what is required.
I very much welcome the fact the Post-Primary Education Forum has come together as a group representing all interests in post-primary education. That has not happened before. It is very important at this time of such financial adjustment in the country that the education partners speak with one voice. Too often we have seen people played off against each other. The Department of Education and Science is happy with that, namely, that one side plays off against another as little deals are done behind closed doors and people feel miffed when the deal is ultimately negotiated. The interests in post-primary education have come together to make this presentation to the committee, which I and my party appreciate. However, they should keep doing so because we need to hear them speak as one.
In the revised programme for Government, a commitment was given to increase the number of teachers by 150 each year over the next three years without changing the class schedule. Have the witnesses been given an undertaking from Government as to the make up of the 150 teachers year on year? I understood the breakdown was 50-50 between primary and post-primary but the Minister of State, Deputy John Moloney, told me in the Dáil this week that it had yet to be worked out. Will the witnesses give evidence as to their understanding of the commitment and the discussions they have had with Government to date? Is it a 50-50 breakdown?
I refer to subject choice. It was stated that 8% of all schools have lost a science subject. That is devastating information. We need to follow this up with the Department of Education and Science which has had the enrolment and the subject figures from each post-primary school in the country since 30 September last. At a time when we need to radically improve our performance in science and, in particular, in maths, it is extraordinary that the evidence to this committee from witnesses is that 8% of post-primary schools have dropped a science subject. That is the outcome of the loss of 800-900 posts in post-primary.
The following suggestion was made by the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science, Brigid McManus, at the NAPD conference in Galway last week. Has any attempt been made at post-primary level to bring schools together in catchment areas to offer increased subject choices? I visited a number of schools in Manchester and Birmingham over the past 12 months and was impressed with how local schools work together to offer a variety of subjects to senior cycle students — children of 15 years of age and upwards — as they approach the equivalent of the leaving certificate.
If we are to come through this very difficult adjustment, we must think outside the box. We must be radical and offer our students every opportunity. If that means taking a subject in another school, we must work that into the system. I would be interested to hear the witnesses position on that because the view of the Secretary General, as published last week at the NAPD conference, is that this is not happening. Why is this not happening? What are the bottlenecks? Can we make some progress on that?
In regard to principals and the loss of posts, the Minister admitted to me in the Dáil this week that at least one in ten principals in post-primary schools has retired in the first ten months of this year. That is an extraordinary admission and an extraordinary loss of leadership. He went on to admit to me that more than 500 posts have been lost at assistant principal and special duty level. Previously, assistant principals were year heads but those positions are now being filled by people who have special duty positions. Since the moratorium, we cannot fill those positions. In the first ten months of this year alone, we have lost 500 of those posts which cannot be replaced. I would be interested to hear the witnesses evidence on the impact it is having in schools.
I speak to many parents and an issue for them is information from schools. I have no faith in the whole school evaluation process because it tells parents nothing. The information it gives on the website is written in such a way that it is not understandable. The intervals between whole school evaluations might be ten or 11 years, so what information is provided for parents? My party has taken a position that schools should publish a yearly report for parents providing all information, including information on debates, sports, examination results and on how children do in one subject as opposed to another.
If everyone is against the kind of league tables produced by the main newspapers simply on the basis of participation in higher level education, the logical response is, why can we not put something better in its place? The only way forward is to have a school report which is available for the school community, in particular, parents, which can be done on a yearly basis and which can simply flood the system with information. That is the only way to do it if people are really serious about arguing against the kind of league tables we read in the Irish Independent and The Irish Times each year. If people honestly believe we need a better system, then we must devise a better one. We need yearly school reports up to which all of the partners can sign.
We will move on to Deputy Ruairí Quinn in a moment but Deputy Brian Hayes has asked many questions. I am not sure how such a large delegation will answer them. Perhaps the National Parents Council would refer to the issue of whole-school evaluation and the teacher unions would address any correspondence they may have received in terms of circulars from the Department of Education and Science regarding the workings of the new arrangement.
Mr. Jim Moore
I thank Deputy Brian Hayes for his complimentary words about the Post-Primary Education Forum. It was an initiative that was started by parents to bring together all our partners in education to find common ground and give direction to where we want to place education in society and in future Government policy.
On the issues he raised on whole-school evaluation, generally parents welcome the increased information available. At this stage there are approximately 240 whole-school evaluation reports. We have campaigned for a long time to resource parents and parents' associations to be more effective in their role within the schools and one of the shortcomings we have found within the National Parents Council movement is getting parents involved at local level, and informing, training, advising and mentoring them to fulfil their obligations as well as their responsibilities in the management of schools. We would welcome any development that would highlight the school performance, but most importantly, we want to see that parents are engaged more fully in the day-to-day activities in schools, and that is not happening.
As part of our presentation today, we look for that support mechanism to the National Parents Council. We have been very good in developing policy with regard to where the National Parents Council and the parents should fit into the Education Act 1998. We have certainly not addressed the issue of how we resource parents in fulfilling that role.
That role starts at the school level. It starts at the day-to-day management level, and contributing positively to the board of management activities and supporting the senior management within schools. If one supports at that level, then one is certainly part of the reporting systems and mechanisms. We would welcome any development of the whole-school evaluation system that would address the issues and the reporting more regularly than was envisaged in the whole-school evaluation.
There may be a difference of opinion on that from the ASTI or the TUI, but I do not want to get into a debate on that.
Mr. Diarmuid De Paor
Before I go on to the issue of the new teachers announced in the programme for Government review, I support the view that the best way to provide information is to empower the school communities. Therefore, we all would support the call from the National Parents Council for some form of funding to get it established so that it can fulfil its role under the Education Act 1998.
The Irish union of second-level students is trying to revive itself at present and speaks of its embarrassment going to international conferences, where everybody else is funded by their Governments and they are begging for scraps, and where they owe thousands of euro because they have no funding line.
On the question Deputy Brian Hayes asked about the number of new teachers and what the Department has stated, the Department has written to the unions asking us to talk to it about what way this should play out. The first teachers were to come on stream in January and, therefore, it is a fairly urgent matter. As sometimes matters in Departments such as the Department of Education and Science move quite slowly, we need to get a system in place fairly quickly on that.
Since the second-level system has lost 900 out of approximately 25,000 teachers and primary has lost 400 out of 30,000 odd, we certainly hope that it is not done on a 50:50 basis because we have lost more teachers and the effects are different and more complex at second level.
There is no agreement.
Mr. Diarmuid De Paor
There is no agreement. The letter from the Department arrived only the other day. We will talk to the Department and try to come up with suggestions and come to agreement. The second-level unions, for whom I think I can speak, will work together to ensure that it is done in the fairest way where those teachers are put in the schools where they are needed most, whether that is through looking at schools which are outside the DEIS scheme to see can more be brought in there or looking at the schools that have lost most teachers to see whether one could put them back that way proportionally.
There will be 100 teachers offered in January, and 900 have gone. That is 900 in a context where the school population has increased by 3,500 already and where it is likely to increase by the same amount again next year. The net effect, in terms of the numbers of teachers per student, is quite dramatic and is having the effects that were outlined in the report.
Mr. Declan Glynn
I would add that 100 teachers being offered next January to post-primary schools represents a teacher per seven schools, and it is entirely inadequate. The context is that the bulge in student numbers through primary into second level is about to commence in an unprecedented way. Student numbers at second level will spiral by 30% over the next 20 years and we will move from a second-level population of 340,000 students to 440,000. The rate of attrition of teachers will worsen over time unless we take cognisance of these demographics. There was a record birth rate in 2007, the highest since——
Since 1896.
Mr. Declan Glynn
Exactly. Those issues need to be borne in mind.
In the primary sector teachers are lost on the basis of a teacher per 27 students but in the post-primary sector they are lost on the basis of a teacher per 17 students, or per 16 students in the PLC further education sector, and we must build-in a counterpoise to that. On the criteria that might be established ultimately, there must be a strong weighting on the vulnerable and on the disadvantaged and where posts for the disadvantaged outside the DEIS scheme have been retracted from schools, because it is the most vulnerable and most needy of students whose needs we must cater for first.
Mr. Ciarán Flynn
On the knowledge point, the first question Deputy Brian Hayes asked, we, the management bodies, got a similar letter to the trade unions and the return date for our opinions is 29 October.
Is that on the 200 teachers?
Mr. Ciarán Flynn
Yes.
On the question of the 150 teachers each year for the next three years, there is no agreement either.
For the purposes of clarification, a circular was issued and the criteria will be set in place after the Department has received submissions from all of the education partners, and that will continue for each year.
Mr. Ciarán Flynn
We are being consulted on that at present. I would certainly agree with what Mr. Glynn stated on the criteria. For example, in our sector 20 out of 92 schools lost DAS and, therefore, lost home school liaison teachers, and so on.
On the loss of subjects, we also must take into account that there is a loss of programmes as well. For example, 25% of the schools in our sector — I am not sure to what extent this applies to the other sectors — have discontinued LCA in fifth year this year. That is a massive change, as the committee can imagine, and a significant loss to the children attending those schools.
On the question on the sharing of teachers, that happens in a small number of instances, usually in small towns where there is good co-operation between the schools. The opportunity for it to happen in other schools is quite difficult to manage, particularly in terms of the logistics of moving kids and teachers between schools. It is not as simple as it looks on paper. It is not impossible to do and we certainly should look at it for the minority subjects such as applied mathematics, physics and chemistry. There is no problem with any school trying to do that, but there are practical difficulties. The difficulty was in trying to do it so quickly after the change. Now that it is out there in the public domain, it will happen much quicker.
To return to Deputy Hayes' figures on principal, deputy principal and assistant principal losses, the figures he got from the Minister were for voluntary secondary schools and community and comprehensive schools.
They did not include the VEC sector.
Mr. Ciarán Flynn
Our figures for the total would be 220 principals and deputy principals across the three sectors, and 1,000 assistant principals across the three sectors. Obviously, that is compounded by the fact that many of those who will get the principal and deputy principal posts will come from assistant principalships, and, therefore, that is a further 220 lost to the system. It is having an uneven effect. For example, we have schools which have lost seven assistant principals, which just has the entire middle management devastated. We have had no comeback from the Department on that.
Returning to Mr. Glynn's point, we need to put it in context. There are 100 teachers coming to more than 730 schools, which equates on average to three hours' teaching per school.
Mr. Noel Merrick
On the loss of principals, deputy principals and various assistant principal posts, we have lost a huge amount of experience and talent from our schools. Some 220 principals and deputy principals have gone this year. Long before the moratorium the post of principal was becoming untenable because of the workload involved. The situation has been shocking for many years, with people working 60 to 80 hours per week in an effort to ensure their schools remain open. The moratorium has made it impossible to operate.
Many schools have lost their year heads and these people do invaluable work in keeping school populations going. We have a school with 800 students and without someone to look after each year group, it is not possible for a principal and deputy principal to care for all of them. There are many issues which arise when one has so many young people gathered together in a school. Schools have lost three, four, five or six year heads, those who draw up timetables, examination secretaries and those who cater for special needs. Once a post is lost, that is it. Everything falls back on the principal or deputy principal to try to keep the show on the road. This makes life impossible for them. It also affects the value of the education being delivered because if certain things are not being done, everybody will quickly notice that. The quality of the experience in schools will be affected to a large degree as a result.
Speakers referred to sharing classes among schools. There has been a tradition among many schools of sharing subjects, and so on. If schools are located close to each other, that is fine. When they are situated at different ends of a town, however, it is quite difficult to organise class or subject sharing, particularly in the context of a strict timetabling regime. In Ireland, students pursue many subjects. The British system often allows people to study very few subjects and consequently they have a great deal of time to spare between classes. We have a different system. We would be obliged to consider a range of implications in trying to make class or subject sharing work.
That to which I have just referred would work for some schools. However, the major concerns relate to schools that are losing subjects. Large schools sometimes do not lose subjects but the ability of students to pick certain subjects is being diminished. For example, 40 students may be interested in a particular subject but only 30 can be placed in a class. The remaining ten students are then obliged to pick a different subject. There is much hidden behind the cuts which cannot readily be seen by people.
Any school with more than 500 lost two teachers. This means they lost 60 periods of teaching time in a week. Only five periods per week are necessary for a subject such as fifth year history. Therefore, if one loses 60 periods per week, there is a great deal of ground to be made up if one is intent on delivering a quality education to young people.
Ms Deirdre Keogh
I wish to elaborate on the point made by Mr. Merrick and on the loss of science subjects. For decades, international research has shown that schooling has a major input on sustainable growth and employment. Mr. Moore mentioned that in his initial contribution. For several years, the European Commission underlined the importance of human capital in a knowledge-based economy. The evidence from the surveys carried out indicates that there has been a direct effect on subject choices being reduced. As Mr. Moore stated at the outset, levels are not being catered for and, as a result, honours and pass subjects are being taught together. In certain schools, honours mathematics has either had to be dropped from the timetable or else merged with ordinary level. Practical examples demonstrate that chemistry, physics, accountancy, economics, and so on, have all been affected by the cutbacks.
All ability ranges are affected by the amalgamation of class groupings. However, students at both ends of academic ability, both weaker students and their brighter counterparts, are most affected.
I welcome our guests. In the interests of being brief I endorse many of the points made by Deputy Brian Hayes, particularly in respect of reportage and whole-school evaluations.
Those before us do not constitute the usual kind of representational group that comes before the committee. While I welcome the fact that they have come together, it is clear that there are internal differences and that different interests are represented. However, I do not want to explore that fact. What I wish to explore with our guests is what we might do in a crisis. We face three crises at present and that which our guests have highlighted is the least of them.
The first crisis to which I refer relates to our fast increasing population. People do not seem to realise that. I made an interjection earlier in respect of census data and referred to 1896, when families were much larger and when infant mortality was much higher. The short-term implications for this country are extremely good. However, what is currently a crisis in the primary school system is beginning to becoming one at second level.
We also face a financial crisis, the likes of which the country has never previously experienced. The recession in the 1980s was merely a small wave. What we currently face is a tsunami. I do not believe anyone has come to terms with the scale of what is involved. This time next year our guests may come before us to discuss cuts which could be twice as bad as those currently at issue. There is no way in which we can correct the arithmetic. Some €55 billion is being spent, while only €35 billion is coming in. We are not in a position to devalue our currency to become competitive. If we did so, interest rates would probably be approximately 22% as opposed to 1%. If people do not believe that, they should consider the rates currently being paid by Iceland.
We are involved in a crisis the likes of which has never previously been seen and I do not believe we will see light at the end of the tunnel for between five to ten years. I, therefore, ask our guests to adjust their sets accordingly. I am not being party partisan because this is not the place for it.
What are we to do during the next five to ten years against that background with a population that is increasing? At present, we are faced with the nonsense of the Department of Health and Children trying to negotiate a redundancy package for public servants that will give rise to up-front costs while school principals would welcome the arrival of an extra pair of hands to prepare accounts, meet parents in order to discuss certain matters, and so on. I accept that there are horrendous problems with which we must deal. I have no illusions in that regard. As a taxpayer, however, it does not make sense that we are negotiating redundancy packages with people at one end of the public service while school principals are remaining at work until 10 p.m. to try to finish reports.
I do not refer to putting unqualified people into classrooms. I refer to placing experienced individuals into the post-primary school infrastructure. I would be interested in Mr. Moore's comments on that. Due to the nature of deployment and employment in the HSE, the people to whom I refer are not all based in Dublin. In many respects, they are our guests' neighbours. These people work in buildings located down the street from our schools.
My second point relates to what we know about our school infrastructure. Given that we are facing a crisis in respect of numbers, particularly in the context of post-primary students who are that bit older, who can travel further and who are somewhat more mobile than their primary school counterparts, where do these children attend school and how do they get there? Is anybody in a position to outline the infrastructure? The ESB can provide a print-out in respect of buildings which indicates their location, when they were built, who owns them, the leasehold and the capacity for extension. The "Department of Schools" — it is certainly not the Department of Education and Science — does not have a clue.
As a principal, Mr. Moore knows the number of classrooms in his school, the state of the science laboratory or the library, and so on. Is there any way of pooling that information so that we might identify where spare capacity or overcrowding exists? If we did this, we would be able to avoid the nonsense relating to the arrival of prefabs in the post-primary sector. There are children who attend primary school whose sole experience of a public building during their entire time there will be of a pre-fab. Is it possible to avoid that being the case at post-primary level?
On the question of investment, I repeat something I first heard Professor Tom Collins state at an Irish Primary Principals Network, IPPN, conference two years ago. He put forward the view that unless we achieve consensus with regard to what we need to spend — in the same way we reached a consensus on how to reach the UN overseas development aid target of 0.7% of GDP — we will be arguing about cuts, restitution, and so on until the cows come home. We say we should have a target of 7% of GDP, averaging at approximately 5% or 4.7%, but this does not factor in all the private contributions from parents. I suspect this also happens in other countries anyway. Comparing like with like we are below the average. Could we agree a figure and could the delegation mobilise parents and everybody else, including unions, around that figure so that by a certain date in the next decade — this would be part of the negotiations — we would reach that 7%, for all the economic reasons Ms Keogh has referred to and which are contained in the submission?
I suggest we look seriously at the free school transport system. I can say this as an urban Deputy and hopefully my rural colleagues will provide the counter-balance. The law of diminishing returns is that if one pushes up the cost of something, fewer people will use it. The school bus transport service seems to have hit fairly substantial cost figures. At the same time in most rural houses I have seen, there are two or three cars. What are the prospects for a system of car pooling? Is there room for a radical rethink? I know the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Haughey, is considering some review but change coming from the Department is difficult. Are we getting value for the money going into the rural school bus service? How many buses are being used? What has been the impact of the increase in prices on the utilisation of the service? Would parents in a typical school which uses a bus system be prepared to have a structured car pooling system and save themselves the cost of the transport? If this were to happen, what resources would be released? Were parents ever consulted about the school bus transport system? Should this be revisited in light of the transformation of car ownership over the past five to seven years? The scale of the problem facing this country compounded by the increase in numbers is something we must factor into our calculations.
I should know the answer to this but I do not. There are approximately 500,000 primary pupils in the education system yet the delegation quotes a figure in its submission of 340,000 post-primary pupils. This difference is bigger than the 20% drop-out rate alluded to on a number of occasions, which suggest they should be in round figures. These are order of magnitude rather than precise numbers. If there is a 20% drop-out rate we should have a population of about 400,000 in post-primary education yet, by my simplistic calculations, there are 60,000 pupils missing. Where are those other children and what is happening to them? Are they the ones on their way to Mountjoy Prison?
I ask leave from Senator Keaveney to allow Deputy John O'Mahony speak ahead of her as he has indicated he must leave soon.
I have no problem with that.
I thank the delegation for its presentation. I will not repeat the topics covered by Deputy Hayes and my other colleagues. I will focus on the pressure on extra-curricular activities as referred to in the submission, which are a result of the cutbacks. I undertook a survey of schools in my constituency because I am interested in that aspect of education. I ask for the delegation's comments on what is meant by the pressure on extra-curricular activities because my information is that in many cases schools are reducing their involvement, whether in sports, musicals, drama or quizzes. I know the reason for schools pulling out of such activities. I know that in some cases schools which were able to send two teachers to accompany teams on buses are now sending one teacher. If a player is injured and has to be taken to hospital are there insurance implications? I was interested to read yesterday a report about Shay Given, our international goalkeeper, who opened a soccer pitch at his old school. His former teacher commented that Shay often came to school without his school books or his homework but he always brought his boots. Extra-curricular activities make school bearable for some students. It gives them a status within the school, whether that be in drama, music or whatever, which they will never achieve in the classroom. It brings them through the classroom and it helps them to pass their exams because of the status they have achieved in those extra-curricular activities. As someone who has been involved for many years, I ask how the schools are coping because my evidence is that these cutbacks are the first point of withdrawal, the first point under pressure.
I welcome the delegation and apologise for my late arrival. I declare an interest in that I am chairman of a VEC so I see the situation from board level. As is the case in my school, great strides are being made by school principals and teachers to adapt to the circumstances they face by changing school timetables in order to stretch the available resources. I commend this work. They are examining different ways of doing things. Are we doing enough to consider different ways of doing things? I refer to the old chestnut of the school being closed by a certain time in the day and nobody allowed use it and sports facilities being sourced in a facility next door to a school sports facility. There has been a lot of duplication over the years. What efforts are being made to have schools open so that parents can use them for after-school educational purposes? Deputy O'Mahony referred to extra-curricular activities. What efforts are being made to help these activities by incorporating the involvement of parents and grandparents? Maeve Kyle, a former Olympic athlete used to say that people concentrate on what the parents are doing but sometimes it is the grandparents who have more time. Perhaps some of the grandparents are interested in socialising and this can offer them an opportunity to engage with younger people and allow for inter-generational contact.
I am concerned about the duplication of facilities. I did a report for the Council of Europe on how history is taught in areas of recent conflict based on the concept of multi-perspectives, being able to see the viewpoint of the other person. I believe the economy needs critical thinkers who can analyse and be creative. In primary school, children are given opportunities to explore. What emphasis will be placed on looking for curricular changes? How do we produce the child who will be the creative thinker, with an analytical mind, a person who will become an employer or be a better employee at the end of the educational process? The point was made about history lessons. Recently we finally discovered that the history curriculum was so overloaded there was no way of dealing with it and it has only been changed recently. When I asked what was to be done with the junior certificate curriculum, the entire Department asked if I wanted them to start all over again. Perhaps the pressure needs to come from within the system, that teachers recognise some of the curricular changes that need to be made, not all of which involve staffing or financial implications but rather better ways of teaching children. For example, if the junior certificate history curriculum remains the same, the capacity to produce these little creative minds will be minimal because facts have to be taught within the time available. It is the same with regard to the English curriculum. If we just teach facts, which are then regurgitated, analytical minds and creative thinking will not be developed. As a musician, I have a problem with the fact that everybody sees music as the first subject to be axed. Coming back to my creative and analytical mind and artistic expression, I see music as not only for the school play, but as a very central resource for personal development, co-ordination, rhythmic development and all those other core essential characteristics that people need to be able to learn. As much as sport might bring children to the school, I believe a separate box music also does that. However, it is a core part of a wide education and a rounded person. I put in a plea that it should be considered as not just a nice little extra, but actually core to what education should be, coming back to those three terms of creative thinking, critical minds and analytical approaches to education.
I welcome the delegation. It is nice to see a united front of the various interests. The cost of school transport has increased by more than 200% in the past two years. I believe this is anti-rural and anti-family. Has there been a noticeable drop-off in the students availing of school transport? The cost of €300 per term is exorbitant. The Green Party is in Government and we are talking about taking cars off the road. I believe it will put considerably more cars on the road. As elderly people know, it is no good having a free travel pass if there is no public transport. There is no good talking about school transport if no transport is available.
There are issues regarding the rural transport initiative around the country. It provided transport to rural areas that would not have had a school transport system. It has been very successful. Would the witnesses agree that it may be time to consider how school transport or rural transport is provided? Perhaps the rural transport initiative could work with school transport. While Bus Éireann is centralised, it may be time for the communities to consider how school transport is provided. We talk about the catchment areas and there have been commissions — I believe there are 67 or 69. I do not believe the Department of Education and Science is really serious about changing school transport.
Non-DEIS schools have lost their home-school liaison teachers, which is very serious as the witnesses have outlined. The home-school liaison officers are unlikely to be replaced. What are schools doing to ensure that students attend school? I know the principals have enough to be doing.
I agree with Senator Keaveney that not enough is being done regarding music. I know that it is impossible to get a music teacher for love or money any more. It is a very lucrative occupation now. I know of a man whose son has been on a music tuition waiting list for a year. I do not believe the schools or the Department of Education and Science show sufficient interest in music or similar subjects.
Deputy Feighan's questions are fresh in people's minds. I will just go over some other issues that people mentioned. Deputy O'Mahony was particularly concerned about extra-curricular activities as, to a degree, was Senator Keaveney, but more so from the point of view of parental participation or even grandparents being able to assist. Deputy Quinn had a wide range of questions and normally we would have taken some answers afterwards but given the time constraints of Deputy O'Mahony, it was not possible. He raised issues about demographics and the rise in population. He mentioned the need for joined-up thinking and a recognition of having a target for education such as 7% of GDP. That is a magnificent and tremendous improvement, which I would support if it ever happened. Whether it happens is another story. However, we need groups coming together as the groups here today have done to push that. It is also a wider issue and could be done in conjunction with the primary sector.
The Deputy also mentioned issues such as car-pooling. Transport was also an issue for Deputy Feighan. On the school transport issue, I understand from feedback on the negotiations process, the Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, is considering creative cross-departmental ways of improving the transportation system while reducing costs at the same time. I am not in a position to expand on that because I do not know whether the Minister wants it to be discussed at the moment.
Will this apply in rural areas? I understood the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Haughey, was in charge of school transport.
He is. However, obviously we are talking about a joined-up approach from an interdepartmental point of view.
The last time there was supposed to be a joined-up approach and then they increased the cost by 200%.
I am not going to get into a discussion on it.
That is not a joined-up approach when it is increased by 200%.
I am just talking about the feedback received to make more effective use of existing resources. That is notwithstanding our combined dissatisfaction with the hike for parents, which may indeed put more cars on the road. While car-pooling might be an option for some, it will not be an option for others.
Before I go into a few questions, it is worth considering the overview raised by Mr. de Paor and Mr. Glynn about the fact that if it was to be shared on a 50:50 basis, which was my understanding, although it is up to the education partners to consult with the Department and for the Department ultimately to make a decision on that. I agree that 100 teachers is a drop in the ocean. However, I am sure he would acknowledge that the expectation from the programme for Government negotiations was that there would be further cuts. I do not know if anyone got to see the "Prime Time" documentary on the Tuesday before last. I was featured on it and I hope people would acknowledge from that point of view that there was no——
The Chairman was breathless on the programme.
Absolutely.
I was worried about his health for a while.
I was not as breathless as I was during the negotiations process. It went right down to wire. By 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. we had not signed off on issues and we could have found ourselves in the middle of an election campaign had education not been prioritised. I want to put on record, not as Chairman, but as a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas that personally my bottom line was protecting education and reversing come of the cuts in the current economic circumstances. There has been considerable media commentary that in achieving even that small progress we were not prepared to put up with some very harsh cuts that are to come. I want to put on the record that is not the case. This will be the mother of all budgets. Regardless of how it ends up, we will not have happy people, including those in the public sector, those on social welfare and the very well off. I hope it is done fairly, but I do not believe anyone will be happy with this budget. When one is pushing that button, as a Government Member it will be very tough.
Will the Chairman be happy?
I will not be happy, but I am content to say that if education is protected to that degree, we need to be able to put up with the harshest cuts possible. The media commentary after the programme for Government was agreed suggested that if education has been protected to a degree, what else will need to be cut further as a result. There was considerable criticism. While they all acknowledge wholeheartedly that more money needs to be put into the education system, the consensus among the intelligentsia out there seems to be that education should not have even got what it did. I disagree with that. However, at the same time, one must ask where else could be cut if we did not even get some reversal and protection when we had the money and the stamp duty revenues were wasted by previous Administrations.
I disagree with the child care allocation that was introduced in the middle of this decade. I do not want to go on ad infinitum about that. Money was wasted when we had the opportunity and we are now reaping the damage caused by that. I will ask for further comment in a moment. However, it will be nigh on impossible to gain any additional funding in the short term for education. It is a case of trying to protect it as much as possible. What Deputy Quinn said is crucial. It would be a far-reaching development if consensus were to be secured on the suggestion that education should have a budgetary allocation like overseas development aid. From a public relations perspective, the organisation should try to educate the general public and the media about the value of education. I do not suggest it should use a photograph of a person behind bars, accompanied with a caption saying that 90% of prison inmates are early school leavers. Something harsh and shocking needs to come out. The battle to protect education has to continue, even if the tide has been stemmed to some extent this year.
Demographics were mentioned by Deputy Quinn. I called for a nationwide audit of sports facilities some years ago, but it never happened. The developing areas unit of the Department of Education and Science has computerised demographic information. The same technology should be used, in consultation with the schools and the education partners, to pinpoint the number of students in each school, not just on 30 September each year but on a monthly basis. As the technology exists, this would not cost anything. I would be interested to hear if there are any barriers to that from a privacy, management or parental point of view. Privacy can be protected and information can be provided.
The issue of shared schools was commented on by Mr. Merrick and Mr. Flynn, in particular. In my constituency, schools down the road from each other have reached sharing arrangements in respect of so-called minority subjects. I would be interested to hear some feedback on the issue of shared posts. A school sometimes loses a post because it shares a teacher. If two schools were entitled to an extra teacher between them, could the unions work out an arrangement whereby the teacher could be shared by the two schools? While that might not be ideal, it would be a creative way of looking at it. In straitened economic times, we have to think outside the box.
When the amalgamated grants and the book grants were cut last year, the Minister argued that as capitation was being increased instead, schools had been given a choice. Given that there was a commitment in the programme for Government to increase capitation anyway, I thought at the time that the Minister's argument might not be appreciated by the education partners. The battle moved on to maintaining capitation, now that there was a push to decrease it. As tender costs on the school building side were decreasing, one could argue that the costs of schools were also decreasing, even if it was by far less than people would like. It was an achievement to keep capitation at current levels. There was an increase in relation to the proportion that was lost in the book grants, in the amalgamation of the leaving certificate vocational and applied programmes, in music, in some of the science subjects and in some other areas. Have the education partners secured a guarantee that schools are committed to spending the additional money being provided by means of increased capitation and clearly ring-fenced to that end? A certain responsibility comes with that allocation, which is provided for specific purposes. Do parents have guarantees that the money will be spent by the schools in that way? Just as the Department of Education and Science wastes money, the boards of management of schools have been known to do the same.
Members asked a range of questions. I ask the delegates to take their time and answer freely and frankly. We will start with Mr. Moore and move around.
Mr. Jim Moore
Deputy Quinn spoke about an aspect of the consensus on investment. When the National Parents Council considered the establishment of a post-primary education forum, it decided that this issue was a reason to do so. The council believed that a common dominator between all the partners in education was necessary to establish how education should develop. At that time — just two years ago — figures were being bandied about to suggest that if the ratio of expenditure to GDP that had prevailed 20 years previously had been maintained, another €2 billion would have been available to the education budget. A consensus-based structure has not been in place in recent years to make the case for educational development, but it needs to be in place from now on. That was at the core of what we set out to do when we established the Post-Primary Education Forum.
The Chairman spoke about the issue of school transport, into which parents have had some input at national level. We recently attended the value for money initiative and considered the Department's discussion document. The organisation of school transport is a management issue. According to the figures we have put together, there are 22,000 fewer students on school buses nationally——
Is that an annual figure?
Mr. Jim Moore
That is the figure for this particular year. There has been a drop. I am mindful that enrolments have gone up.
What is the other side of that figure? What was the figure before it decreased by 22,000?
Mr. Jim Moore
I do not have that figure.
Mr. Moore has said that it has decreased by 22,000.
Mr. Jim Moore
That is the figure we were quoted in respect of the number of applications for school bus transport tickets.
It has decreased by 22,000.
Mr. Jim Moore
Car pooling is taking place among parents as they examine alternative ways of getting their children to school. The difficulty, as everyone can appreciate, is that there is emphasis in rural Ireland on getting children to school. I am involved in the boards of management of two schools, one of which has a 70% uptake on school transport and the other of which has an uptake of closer to 90%. People have limited options when it comes to getting their children to school in the post-primary sector. I ask my colleague to deal with another issue.
Mr. Paul Beddy
Deputy Quinn is correct to say this is the mother of all battles. Many parents, including Mr. Moore and I, have had our individual businesses destroyed over the past six months. We have been able to put them together again, thankfully, although not with the aid of the banks. As Deputy Quinn has suggested, the people around us have helped us to put the show back on the road. He spoke about the mobilisation of parents, who comprise a huge resource. I have been barking on about this issue since I got involved in the council in 2000, when my kids started second level education. I quickly identified the need to get the post-primary National Parents Council working cohesively, to secure funds and to mobilise parents. I am involved in schools where parents do huge things at local level and make a huge input into schools. We are simply excluded from mobilising parents.
Mr. Moore cited a figure of 7%. During the election prior to the last election, I said on behalf of the National Parents Council that at a time of plenty, we should get everybody on board and go for 7% of GDP across education. We could not do it. We had no resources. I am sorry for complaining about it, but it has to be said. We get €165,000 from the Department to fund post-primary education and we are expected to communicate with parents on that basis. It cannot happen. It is worse that having gone through a strategic review, which was completed in 2007 and presented, we went back to the Department and accepted that there was no funding and that the cupboard was bare. We made a cash-neutral proposal to the Department to get the National Parents Council off the ground. I assure Deputy Quinn that we have missed a huge opportunity. If we had the resources and the input into the project from the parent body, we probably would not be where we are at now. If parents made an input, repairs would probably not be needed in our schools. When my kids were in the primary sector, a parish priest said to me "Paul, there are 20 plumbers in the parish, but when something goes wrong with the toilet, they ring me". That happens because there is no connection with the parents. I appreciate that the Department of Finance's cupboard is bare, but it should have been an absolute "no-brainer" for it to accept a cash-neutral way of funding the post-primary National Parents Council. The problem is that we should be there now. We would have been able to come on board and do a great deal in this time of difficulty.
This is it.
Mr. Declan Glynn
A plethora of issues has been raised. From the perspective of the global issues, that which is immediate and urgent is displacing that which is important. For decades, Ireland's education system has experienced a constant downward slide of under-investment, to the extent that only Slovakia and Turkey fare worse in terms of expenditure per student as a proportion of GDP — the sixth lowest per capita of the 28 countries party to the most recent OECD analysis. We do an astonishingly good job in education, as has been affirmed time and again by the OECD TALIS and PISA surveys and other international studies.
A first-hand study carried out by the Department of Education and Science some years ago found that 80% of parents were satisfied or extremely satisfied with the quality of education offered. The survey was conducted as part of the Your Educational System report and was directed at parents.
What values do we advocate and what vision do we have for our public services? Where does education fit within that mix? If the size of the pie is declining in terms of the moneys available, it begs the question as to what slice of the pie should be given to the education sector. There is demonstrable evidence that education can be the salvation of the country in terms of providing a route out of the dreadful economic tsunami we have experienced. The current approach is one of applying sticking plasters. While minor restoration of previous cuts is welcome, they serve only to alleviate what has been a long nightmare for the education system.
People equate posts of responsibility with teaching promotions. The post of responsibility system — principals, assistant and deputy principals and special duties teachers — is the spinal cord of a school, its central nervous system. When it is rent asunder, it is not a Civil Service exercise or question of paperwork or some bureaucratic task that can be attended to at some other point but a matter of not being able to attend to the immediate needs of children and parents and having no one to pick up on challenging, defiant behaviour or learning support deficits. It undermines promotion across the curriculum and all the endeavours undertaken in schools, including extracurricular and pastoral care activities.
The essential issue is that each group of 30 students is not homogenous. Every student has individual and personal needs and must have someone taking charge of and stewarding them, encouraging the reluctant and affirming the positive. This can no longer be done if one removes the central nervous system of the school. This approach will result in schools experiencing enduring damage.
We call for a broader perspective to be taken. The current debate is narrow, ideological and dogmatic, focusing as it does on the teaching hours offered by post-primary teachers, the number of teaching days and teachers' pay, pension and leave entitlements. These issues are not the core focus of the PPF. There is a much bigger picture because the broad analysis shows that irrespective of these issues, the system is effective.
The further education sector is capable of responding to the immediate retraining, reskilling, second chance opportunity needs of the new unemployed. Despite this, the number of places in the sector has been capped, with the result that 30,000 applicants have been refused places on cost-effective, lean, efficient and successful programmes which can assist in reversing some of our problems and removing people from the live register. Even on purely economic grounds, the additional resources required to take on new students would be offset by the savings otherwise payable in the form of jobseeker's allowance. Any analysis of the issue would show this to be the case. The cost-effectiveness of the current approach must, therefore, be examined. Meanwhile, 51,000 activation places went to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and FÁS. Is this a prudent use of the nation's finances in an economic downturn?
We are deeply concerned about the loss of minority subjects on the curriculum, including music, minority science subjects, applied subjects and the leaving certificate applied and vocational programmes, both of which we have had to abandon. To link this into Deputy Quinn's query on data, the national drop-out rate is 20% but drop-out in the Dublin area is 30%. This unacceptably high figure will increase significantly as resources and capacities are withdrawn from schools. The result will be a significant problem. The minority subjects are challenged in schools and have been lost in many of them, which is a great loss.
The issue of data has been raised. We are not in a position to do any thorough or comprehensive inventory of school infrastructure and I am not sure the Department would welcome such an undertaking given its likely outcome. Our schools are largely structureless. A task force report on the physical sciences from 2002 has not been able to advance the smart economy it espouses. Our laboratory provision and information and communications technology provision are nothing short of abysmal. Ireland languishes in 19th place out of 29 countries on the use of technology in the classroom. I understand the data currently gathered by the Department is geo-social and geo-demographic data on birth rates per region, parish and so forth and on the school infrastructure required.
It is a national embarrassment that we spend only 4.7% of GDP on education. It is estimated that 1% of growth in GDP terms was added as a direct consequence of the education system during the years of the so-called Celtic tiger. Education is, therefore, a driving force which can bring us forward. We must open up the debate beyond its current narrow strictures and confines. We must aspire to increase expenditure on education to 7% of GDP. Why can this target not be set? At least then we would have an objective to which we could aspire. Instead, we continue to take a befuddled, piecemeal, ad hoc approach and do not afford education the priority it deserves.
Mr. Noel Merrick
The joint managerial body of the Association of Management of Catholic Secondary Schools supports establishing a target for expenditure on education as it would mark a tremendous leap forward for the entire educational community. Citizens would also support spending a fixed percentage of GDP on education because people strongly support the education system. When the country did not have a penny in the 1960s we invested in education. The investment in education report, as it was known, provided a basis for this policy, which attracted widespread support. We borrowed to build prefabricated schools and people put kids in buses all over the country and sent them to school. We now see the value of this policy. There is widespread support for the view that education is valuable and money is well spent in the education sector. Whatever about the bits and pieces on the edges, value for money in education is tremendous. I refer to the return of 100% on the part of teachers, management and parents in respect of their commitment to schools.
With regard to the provision of schools, there is a lot of work taking place at primary level. We value such work at second level. All we ask for is diversity of provision across the country in order that there will not be too many schools in some areas and none in others. In some areas there are certain schools and parents have no choice but to send their children to them. People in Ireland like choice. We ask that there be reasonable choice across the nation.
Sports capital projects were mentioned. I plead with the Government to continue to provide capital because the value for money achieved in the provision of school buildings is excellent. My school put out to tender a project that would have cost €5.8 million last year but which will now cost €3.6 million. The building work has commenced. This is the time to be building schools which we certainly need.
My school has two prefabs which children have been in since 1989. They were to be removed in 1995 but we held on to them. They are now being used every day of the week. One teacher spent 14 years teaching in one of them and has just moved to another classroom. That is what circumstances are like. There are teachers in primary school who spend their whole career teaching in prefabs.
There is considerable work taking place in local communities. School sports halls are being used by local communities. I work in a voluntary secondary school and our sports hall is open until 10 p.m. every night and from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. every Saturday. Various groups are welcome to use the facilities. Any community group that wishes to use the school in the evening is more than welcome to do so. This is at no cost to most of them, although there may be a nominal charge in certain circumstances. We are delighted to offer this service because we are all part of the community and have to give back what we gain from it. It is very good for improving how a school is perceived in the community if the community feels it is part of that school.
Home-school liaison teachers are being lost. Some pupils were not able to avail of their services but it is in this regard that year heads in schools have a role in dealing with attendance, absenteeism and such issues. The great crux is that we are losing year heads right across the system. Schools are complex places and issues arise regarding bullying, which I am very interested in tackling. If there is no year head or structure in the school to tackle such problems and work with pupils, the quality of education suffers.
Great work is being done on the curriculum and there have been great changes. The transition year programme is one of the great initiatives in Irish education, as is the applied leaving certificate and leaving certificate vocational programmes. These are being cut, although we should be moving in the other direction.
Design and communication graphics is a reformed version of technical graphics. It was underpinned by resources and is a fantastic subject. Construction studies, on which preparation work has been done for years, has not been allowed to proceed because there are resource implications. Everyone would say IT should be incorporated into the teaching of all subjects but we have no funding to achieve this. Pupils coming from primary schools discover traditional classrooms and methods just because there is no other way of proceeding.
Everybody agrees music is very valuable. We have introduced the subject in our school, which is for boys. However, it is just hanging on by a thread because ten or 12 students seek to do it in first year. With the cutback in the pupil-teacher ratio, how can one sustain it when one cannot make provision in other areas?
It should be compulsory in first year.
Mr. Noel Merrick
Pupils will be able to take music up to leaving certificate level; that is the main point. Perhaps it should be compulsory, I take the Senator's point in that regard. Music is a fantastic subject and answers a great need. I would dearly love to retain it but resources must be provided if we are to provide a wide curriculum for pupils.
Mr. Diarmuid de Paor
Many points were made and I will try to address some of them. Some are more germane to the management bodies.
Senator Keaveney has stated the economy requires critical thinkers and we all agree totally. While there is always room for improvement in the system, we should focus on a couple of the strengths of the education system. When people come from abroad and look at the Irish education system, they remark greatly on two factors, the first of which is the level of commitment to extra-curricular activity. I refer to the fact that teachers give of their time and that the school community is involved in activity outside school. In France one goes home after school and there are no musicals or football matches, nor is there the considerable amount of activity that takes place outside school in Ireland.
Reference was made to the transition year programme which has been a great success in terms of critical thinking and allowing students to open up. The system is under threat as a result of the cuts. In our surveys very few will be honest on the loss of the transition year programme, although one or two are considering it for the next year. All are reporting that they must curtail activities greatly because of the lack of funding and the effects on supervision and substitution, whereby a teacher cannot be substituted for another who is taking part in certain activities. That is a serious problem because in transition year students are afforded an opportunity and space in which to develop critical thinking.
There is a considerable variety of subjects in our system. We were asked why we could not pool subjects, as is the case in the English system, but our students tend to engage in a wide variety of activities, which sharpens different aspects of critical thinking. We are all involved in curricular change, including the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. One initiative in this area being trumpeted widely is Project Maths. It is being hailed as a new way to get children to approach maths and become more involved such that they will improve their critical thinking. It was announced yesterday that aspects of the programme will have to be dropped because of the lack of ICT in schools. One cannot have critical thinking without commitment and investment, where needed.
I have a visual arts background and regard it as vital that children taste all these subjects. While music is not compulsory, one of the strengths of our system is that there are opportunities to do music. Most children do art. This option is not available in all systems and we must laud our strengths. As Mr. Glynn stated, we do a good job, considering the budgetary constraints under which we operate. It should be emphasised that all the reports state that, irrespective of the school one attends, be it the most expensive fee-paying school or a local voluntary, secondary or VEC school, the standard of education is the same across the board. One does not benefit from going to one rather than another.
The Chairman referred to the consensus among the intelligentsia. I am not quite sure how accurate the term "intelligentsia" is. It is the intelligentsia whom the media seem to love and who receive all the coverage. There are different approaches. There are people who are trying to open a debate on this issue — I hope this discussion is part of it. They claim that, rather than beginning by asking what needs to be cut, one should begin by asking what we need to protect and how we can afford to do so.
Deputy Quinn started with the big questions. People have dealt with the fiscal crisis and the demographics. We are very aware of this but one should remember that the OECD, which does not comprise left-wing lunatics going off on a tangent, refers to education in terms of public and private returns. It used to deal a lot with private returns and refer to the individual benefits of education. That is very clear in terms of salary, health, life expectancy, active citizenship and interest in politics. All these matters are important but the public economic return is clearly articulated in the OECD's statement. It reads:
At a discount rate of 5%, most educational investments yield substantial private and public returns in most countries. Financing these investments at 5% thus makes sense from both a public and private perspective. Public investments in education ... would be rational even in the face of running a deficit in public finances.
The OECD is stating one should borrow to pay for education. It makes economic sense. Irrespective of the social sense, on which we are all agreed, it is important that this point be made time and again. I totally support the notion that we should set a target figure of 7% of GDP. This would obviously transform the education system but ultimately transform society and the economy.
Members spoke a lot about school transport and how pupils get to school. A home-school liaison teacher whose position is to be lost because of the cuts told me on the telephone that the first thing he did every morning was drive to three Traveller settlements to collect the children to bring them to school. They will not come to school when his job ends. These are the kind of cuts in education we are talking about. Frankly, it is unforgivable.
Ms Deirdre Keogh
I welcome Deputy Quinn's suggestion on establishing a percentage of GDP to be allocated to the education budget and that it be ring-fenced. That presents a challenge to us as partners in the Post-Primary Education Forum to come up with a formula and create ways of thinking around that.
Taking Senator Keaveney's point, we need to look at creative ways of examining the curricula and better mirroring industry's needs. We need to examine what is learned and facilitated in skills development in schools. It is deeply regrettable that 65% of applications for post-leaving certificate courses were unsuccessful this year because there were no places available.
The importance of providing a broad-based curriculum where creative skills and critical analysis capabilities are built is important. I come from a history background, so I understand at a practical level the teaching of a broad-based subject over several ranges of ability.
Staff morale is very low in schools. Goodwill to adopt different teaching methodologies is now constrained because class sizes are larger. Teachers must concentrate on delivering the curriculum and large class sizes hamper creative teaching methodologies that may have been used in the better years.
At its AGM, the Irish Vocational Education Association called on the Minister for Education and Science to convene a meeting of the Departments of Education and Science, Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Social and Family Affairs, representatives of the trade unions, the business world and the education partners to explore creative ways where all the bodies might co-operate to meet the needs of the young low-skilled unemployed, having regard to the difficult circumstances in which the State finds itself. This bears repeating in the context of committee members' ability to petition their colleagues at the highest levels of Government.
Has there been any response from the Minister?
Ms Deirdre Keogh
No.
We acknowledge there is a financial burden placed on parents with an increase of 50% on school transport fees at primary level and 33% at second level. We have had some feedback from our executive concerning a VFM review of the school transport system. A third of the school transport budget is expended on bringing students with special needs to school. If there is a national policy to integrate special needs students into mainstream education, is it not the case that these students have a right and entitlement to school transport? I accept school transport needs to be reviewed. We are aware of situations where three schools have closed in an area and students have to travel further to another school and as a result would require school transport.
The points made by Deputy Quinn regarding car-pooling are welcome. They can be practically assisted and supported at grass roots level. The TLOs and VECs are aware of the issues on the ground. While I cannot speak for them individually, I am confident their willingness to work at primary and post-primary level in assisting in transport to schools in their local catchment areas will improve overall efficiency. I am aware of one VEC that by agreement is already operating a car pool.
Mr. Ciaran Flynn
In respect of music teaching, at the last National Association of Principals and Deputy Principals conference 26 leaving certificate music students gave a fantastic performance with jazz, classical and traditional. If that is what can be done in schools, it is a fantastic response by the education system. It is, however, becoming more difficult. On Deputy O'Mahony's question on extracurricular activities, our substitutions are down to a quarter of what they were. It is making it very difficult to continue the existing levels of extracurricular activities.
I am delighted the figure of 7% of GDP was mentioned. Just to highlight how far Ireland is from that, from the OECD 2009 figures, Ireland spent 0.7% of GDP on higher secondary school education with Turkey next lowest with 0.6%. The European average is 1.2%.
In addition to what Mr. de Paor said about Project Maths, certain elements of this subject now have to be effectively abandoned because the ICT infrastructure is simply not in place in schools. The expert group reporting to the Minister recommended spending of €337 million over ten years just to reach a baseline. I also note — Mr. Merrick mentioned this as well — the underspending in capital because the costs are coming in lower. The Minister has said that €80 million of that could be diverted to ICT. If that is the case, it is equivalent to about a two-year spend on the recommendations of that expert report. When one sees what has happened as regards Project Maths, it needs to be spent immediately. We have not heard of any plans to do so in the schools but perhaps they are under way.
The Department initiated an inventory of school buildings. We were given a presentation on this only recently, so that might be why Mr. Glynn has not heard of it. However, it is certainly coming out, as far as I can recall, in this term. There will be an on-line response from every school down to the level and state of each classroom. It will also address questions regarding trusteeship, ownership, and so on.
In respect of sharing and changing resources from one area to another, I am very interested in that. In our sector at present if a school secretary goes on maternity leave, resigns or is on sick leave, she cannot be replaced. The bottom line from the Department of Finance is that there can only be one secretary per school. In other words, a school will remain at the level of one secretary, regardless of whether new posts are to be filled.
A school could have 1,000 pupils with 70 staff or more with only one person dealing with finance, administration and human resources. How does one administer a school of 1,000 pupils with a staff of, perhaps, 100? It is an impossible task and yet, as Deputy Quinn says, people are being made redundant who have the skills to take over in those positions. It appears to be a "no-brainer".
Senator Keaveney used the term, "multi-perspectives". I should like to believe that is what is behind the post-primary education forum, examining education from a variety of perspectives. Obviously, we need the other educational partners to take this on board. Today has been a good start. I recommend something along the lines of a national convention or meitheal on education. There needs to be a big coming together and determination that whatever resources we have, whether 4.7% rising to 7%, they are used as efficiently as possible. Every partner in the forum would agree with that. Let us do it rather than just talk about it.
I thank Mr. Flynn. Members of the committee will echo the calls for a national forum. Perhaps when the Minister sees the deliberations of this committee, he may give it due consideration.
In one sense it is poignant that while the committee met there was some small amount of media attention. Three or four journalists came in, although the entire focus at the moment is on the Dáil Chamber and the Committee Stage of the NAMA legislation. Various arguments are being aired among the political parties. My take on NAMA in terms of market value versus the overpayment of €8 billion I am prepared to put on the record. To put it politely, it is a scam in one sense to obtain a 1.5% loan. If that €8 billion had to be borrowed to recapitalise the banks at 4.5%, it would have cost the taxpayer a great deal more in the long-run. However, what is being forgotten in the entire NAMA debate, as the delegates here have all underlined, is the value of investment in education. It is difficult to quantify. For every euro invested in higher level education there is a 25 cent return, but for every euro invested at pre-school level, the return is €17. I am not quite sure of the returns in between, and I should be grateful for some feedback on that. However, the key factor is that investment in education has an economic return.
Deputy Quinn has indicated, and perhaps Deputy Hayes wants to speak as well. I will allow the debate to continue longer than usual primarily because of the scope and depth of the subject and its enormous importance. I hope, when it is published, it will be looked at by other education partners and perhaps discussed further.
Chairman, I apologise for leaving. The Seanad is taking statements on the death of a colleague and I need to be in attendance.
I thank the delegates for their comprehensive response. Obviously, much more could be said on some of the topics and I intend to follow up on some of them. I shall address what Mr. Flynn had to say on creativity in terms of the utilisation of resources across the broad public sector. I have worked in the public sector — my first job on qualifying as an architect was in the housing architect's department of Dublin City Council. Most of my working life, certainly, as a politician has been in the public sector. I cannot recall in all my time as an adult witnessing the same amount of sustained attack on the public sector, as is now coming from across the media. We shall either go down individually or we shall resurrect ourselves creatively and collectively. Whether one works for Mullingar Town Council, the HSE, the VEC or the primary school system, there is a commonality less in terms and conditions than ethos and an attitude. We collectively have to find ways of being creative with the resources.
A nonsensical but typical example of a waste of resources was the crisis between the Labour Party and Fianna Fáil which lasted for four weeks prior to the formation of the new Government, in mid-1994. The entire secretarial staff in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, where I was at the time, sat there reading books. I asked one of them whether he or she might not go down the corridor to see if someone was overloaded with a backload of work. The reply I got was: "Oh no, because if we did that we might not come back."
Examples such as this are to be found all over the place. During election campaigns a whole plethora of resources within this area that I know of experiences a different work method. Other times people are run off their feet, when we sit late, until 11 p.m. at night. There is just no equalisation. I regard myself as being in the public sector and the sustained attacks are just relentless, and they are beginning to have their effects among the commentariat. Unless we collectively can find ways to be more productive, creative and flexible — education is just one area — in how we deploy our resources, we may not be in a position to control the outcomes when the scythe finally sweeps through us.
Ultimately, the great differential to be made in education is through the quality of the teaching, and leadership. Those are the two key ingredients. Even if there are no buildings, only pre-fabs, and there is no money for anything else, the two big drivers that change a child's perception of a subject or his or her performance is the quality of the teacher and the leadership in a school. We must keep a sharp focus on that in the days and months ahead because even though the country is in crisis — the adjustment period will last much longer than most people expect — this nonetheless provides an opportunity within education to introduce fundamental reforms and change to the benefit of everyone within the system.
One of the great advantages of the current system is that we have an enormous number of younger teachers, greater than ever before. On the primary side around 40% have been teaching within the past ten years or so, largely because we have had a radical increase in teachers in that period because the economy was good. There is an opportunity to do something very radical with that cohort of teachers, to make them realise that they are at the heart of something important, rather than acquiring some type of Stalinist mind set on what they should or cannot do. It requires a collective effort on all our parts to think outside the box, to stop thinking as managers, union members or politicians to see how we can transform this system, so that when the economy turns around we can make the necessary investment which, for historical reasons, has lagged so far behind.
I recognise the commitment of the delegates to that. All our tasks, politically, on all sides of the House should be targeted towards that end.
To add to my colleagues' statements, it is no longer time for party politics, we are in crisis and we need to work together. Although the PPF has been established for several years it is its first time before this committee. The delegates have done themselves proud in pointing out a unified way, identifying the crisis that exists and pointing to the remedies that need to be applied. I hope the PPF continues and becomes more public and more constructively vocal over the next couple of years because there is a battle for resources and it is crucial, as Mr. Glynn says, to get a slice of the available pie for the children of this country.
We do not have time for anyone else to contribute, with the exception of Mr. Moore. As Chair of the committee I thank the delegates for their constructive and detailed contributions.
Mr. Jim Moore
I thank the Chairman. In summary, many of us experienced the last recession, and this one will come to an end. The focus of the PPF for the future will be to co-ordinate all our attention, effort and energy towards developing an education system that contributes towards that recovery as soon as possible. On my behalf, as well as on behalf of all the members of the PPF I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for listening to our contributions this morning and for their kind words of support. We are established since 2007. Our landscape has changed, but whether one is the public or private sector, we need to develop models that address the issues that are of great concern to all of us, particularly young people in education.
I thank everyone. Given that there are only a few members present within the committee chamber, it might not be right or proper, but when the transcript of the meeting is sent to the Minister, I suggest we add a note requesting a response to the topics raised, and asking whether the Minister might be in a position to set up a forum, as suggested, to look at the issues in a constructive manner. Is that agreed? Agreed.