Priority Questions.
112 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science the OECD recommendations relating to higher education here which will be progressed by her immediately; those which will be implemented before the end of 2005; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26283/04]
View answerThe OECD review on the future of higher education in Ireland makes far-reaching recommendations for reform and development of the sector. The review comes against a background of the crucial role that has been identified for our higher education system which is not only producing well-educated graduates but is also achieving Ireland's broad strategic objective to become a world leading knowledge-based society.
The extensive consultation that the OECD team undertook with all the key stakeholders here, and the expertise of the team itself, lend considerable weight to these recommendations. Obviously a good deal of consideration and examination of these is necessary on my part. The major importance of the challenge that has been put to Government and to the higher education sector through these recommendations cannot be underestimated. As Minister, I intend to take these seriously and, as a priority, work closely with my Government colleagues and consult widely with the higher education sector in advancing progress on them. In this regard, it is my intention to bring proposals to Government shortly on an implementation approach and priorities.
However, in terms of an immediate response, I welcome certain aspects of the report, including, for example, those relating to the strategic framework within which higher education should develop. The analysis of the review team in respect of the development of a unified strategy for the sector is welcome. As the report outlines, the institute of technology sector has brought great strength to the Irish system and has been successful in meeting the varying needs of students, the economy and society. The emphasis in the report on the institute of technology sector as an equal partner with the universities in a dynamic, diversified system is important in that regard.
The report has identified a continuing need for an independent policy advisory and funding authority for the sector. I agree that this is the appropriate vehicle for ensuring an integrated policy approach to the entire sector, including the institutes of technology and other non-designated bodies. If we are to maximise available strengths and resources within a unified Irish higher education system, stronger inter-institutional collaboration needs to be encouraged. A single oversight body is well-placed to incentivise and promote that.
As the Deputy is aware, it has been a long-standing policy objective to designate the institutes of technology under the Higher Education Authority. The OECD report endorses this and, with the agreement of my Government colleagues, I propose to move on this now on a transitional basis in advance of full legislation for a new authority.
The report makes important recommendations on governance and leadership for higher education institutions and presents a detailed analysis of required changes to the funding allocation model for the sector. These are very welcome. I am glad to say the HEA is already advancing work on a revised funding mechanism in consultation with the relevant stakeholders. The emphasis laid by the OECD report on particular aspects of what is required is a valuable input in this regard.
I share the Minister's views on the IT sector. At the outset she said she welcomed the number of well educated graduates, but does she accept that we have insufficient postgraduates? What steps will she take to ensure we reach 10,000 postgraduates qualifying per year by 2010? Given that she is aware of the OECD's figures on this matter, how will the Minister address the issue of under funding? If more private sector money is made available to the third level sector can the Government give a commitment that it will not be used as a substitute for public funds? The fear of this is currently deterring such investment.
Does the Minister have plans to address the low intake of mature students in the third level sector? I welcome her comments on the tertiary education authority. She mentioned the long-standing policy objective to designate the institutes of technology under the HEA; my concern is that it is of long standing. Will she consider also having a tertiary authority or is this only from a HEA perspective? Has the Minister given any consideration to changing the governing structures of both universities and the ITs?
In my three weeks in office I have not made decisions on all those aspects each of which is important. I share the Deputy's opinion on postgraduates. The postgraduate sector continues to make a very valuable contribution not just to education but also to the economy. Increasing the number of undergraduates and improving the facilities available particularly in the science and technology sector would encourage postgraduates as would funding for that sector, which I intend to promote.
As part of the current Estimates process we are addressing the funding of third-level education. Representatives of every sector will make the case to have their sector treated as a priority, which is true. Each sector needs to be a priority for different reasons: primary education to get at the roots; post primary because of the academic and other issues dealt with at that level; and third level. It would not be fair for me to identify any area as a priority over another. A case has been made for third level as part of the Estimates process.
The report makes some interesting suggestions on private funding. A number of colleges and universities have been very successful in attracting private investment including foreign investment, which has helped their capital infrastructure in particular. Equally other colleges and institutes feel they have not been able to benefit from such funding. For example, representatives of the DIT feel that when it moves to the Grangegorman site, because it will be a single entity, it will then be able to attract investment. The balancing of private investment against resources to be provided by the State will have to be considered in any one year having regard to the resources available. However, they could be considered in a different context depending on whether it is for research, capital or ongoing spending. I envisage considering it in different ways depending on the investment achieved.
The low intake of mature students could also be addressed by some of the recommendations of the report, which mentions improving the numbers of part-time students. This would particularly suit many mature students and I would like to see this progressed at third level. A huge discrepancy exists between the number of full-time and part-time students. This clearly raises questions about funding and support for such students. However, in the early years this might be a way to attract more mature students into the third-level sector.
Regarding the tertiary education authority, while they obviously talk about funding, the HEA, whose members I have already met, and the Council of Directors of Institutes of Technology, whose members I have not yet met but will do so this week, are also looking forward to progressing that matter. Following my discussions with them I hope to be able to progress it.
113 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Education and Science when she intends to finalise and publish the draft report on educational disadvantage; her priorities in terms of tackling educational disadvantage; if she proposes to secure funding in the Estimates and budget for 2005 to begin to implement a strategy in 2005; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26297/04]
View answerMy Department has been engaged in an overall review of its educational disadvantage programmes with a view to building on what has been achieved to date, adopting a more systematic, targeted and integrated approach and strengthening the capacity of the system to meet the educational needs of disadvantaged children and young people. Arising from the review, a draft report has been prepared. It builds on earlier work carried out by the statutory educational disadvantage committee and is now subject to consideration by me in consultation with my senior officials. I intend to complete this work as quickly as possible.
My priority for tackling educational disadvantage in the context of the final report will include placing a strong emphasis on early intervention; tackling problems with literacy, numeracy and early school leaving; putting in place a more structured system for identifying and regularly reviewing levels of disadvantage, and targeting supports accordingly; strengthening administrative, planning and professional development supports for schools serving disadvantaged communities; adopting a more integrated approach to the delivery of supports, both within the education sector and on a cross-sectoral basis; increasing partnership between schools, homes and the wider community, including the business community; strengthened arrangements for research and the measurement of progress; and outcomes from educational inclusion measures.
My Department is providing €540 million in 2004 for programmes specifically designed to tackle educational disadvantage in accordance with the strategies outlined in the NAPS and Sustaining Progress. This direct expenditure on educational disadvantage represents an increase of more than €80 million on the 2003 provision and nearly 8.5% of the net education budget for 2004. The Estimates process leading to the determination of the 2005 provisions is still under way but I am seeking to secure additional resources for a number of areas, including educational disadvantage, with a view to building on the substantial investment the Government is making in this area.
I appreciate that the Minister has only been in the job for three weeks but does she have a sense of urgency about this issue? Does she not consider it important that the report is published before the Estimates and the budget so she can fight for the funding necessary for its implementation? Is she aware of the criticism of Professor Áine Hyland, chairwoman of the educational disadvantage committee in the Department of Education and Science, who said that some of the recommendations made last December could have been implemented without costing extra money? That happened under the Minister's predecessor and we were all sick and tired of hearing him talking about educational disadvantage while doing absolutely nothing about it.
I understand the report is ready — we even saw a draft of it in The Irish Times. It should be published as soon as possible. Will the Minister give us a date for its publication and an indication if it will address literacy, where, according to the leaked report, up to 30% of students in poorer areas suffer from severe literacy problems? The Minister must ensure it receives the proper funding. If the leaks are true, there are severe criticisms in the report of how the money already allocated is being spent.
I am always amazed at the power of journalists to get full draft reports before even the Minister. I have not seen the full draft report so I cannot comment on every aspect of it. I know, however, that it deals with the strengths and weaknesses in the schemes that have developed incrementally over the years, looks at how we can identify what works and contains ideas on an integrated approach to dealing with disadvantage and streamlining the existing systems. Questions are always asked within the disadvantage area about priorities and targeted responses to particular areas and these must be addressed.
It is unfair to say that recommendations made earlier in the year were not implemented although they did not cost money. When dealing with schemes, money is not the only issue. We must check they are properly targeted and if there are proper outcomes from them. It is only when we have the overall picture that we can decide which of the schemes we will go forward with and which will be integrated. We must examine if there is an overlap of schemes in some schools while other schools do not get anything and ensure there is a carry-through from first to second level. That was the subject of at least one of the schemes that is working successfully.
The remit of that educational disadvantage committee, which was set up in 2002, runs until March of next year. It has received various submissions from different groups involved. Separate to that committee is the educational disadvantage forum in which all the different partners and bodies interested and involved in the area of disadvantage have participated and made their views known. What is needed is not so much more money for the sake of it and implementing suggestions for the sake of it, although increased investment is important and will be needed, but to see what works, where it works, how we can make it work better and to move forward with an action plan.
114 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Education and Science the steps she proposes to take to address the serious level of educational under-achievement in disadvantaged areas like Tallaght west in which, by 2002, a quarter of those who had ceased education had either no formal education or had completed primary education only as indicated in a recent report; her views on whether this under-achievement is a direct result of social disadvantage; and if she will be prioritising the education needs for pupils from disadvantaged areas. [26400/04]
View answerA key focus of education policy is to prioritise investment in favour of those most at risk and to optimise access, participation and outcomes at every level of the system for disadvantaged groups. The wide variety of measures in place in Tallaght and in other similar areas for tackling educational disadvantage and social exclusion reflect those concerns. These measures range from pre-school interventions, supports for tackling children's literacy problems, reduced pupil teacher ratios, increased capitation grants and measures to tackle early school leaving and strengthen ties between the school, the family and the community. In addition, there are interventions in support of youth and in providing second chance education for young people and adults.
Despite the range of difficulties identified in the report referred to by the Deputy, 68% of the parents surveyed for it reported that their child was achieving his or her potential at school. I welcome the report as a useful contribution to this complex area of policy and I have asked my officials to consider its wider policy implications in the context of finalising work on an overall review of educational disadvantage programmes at national level.
As part of a wider system of structural reform, my Department is establishing a network of ten regional offices, including one in Tallaght. This network of offices will help to identify education issues arising at local level, especially gaps and overlap in social inclusion provision, and provide regular reports to my Department. This local presence will help my Department to continue to target resources at those most at risk of educational disadvantage in Tallaght and other similar areas. My priority as Minister will be to continue targeting resources at those areas and people most in need.
The research presented in this document shows that the majority of children in Tallaght west carry a disproportionate burden of the inequality and poverty which exists in society. I listened to what the Minister said about the programmes in place and it is welcome that there are many good programmes, such as the Early Start programme, in the area. The report clearly highlights that not enough is being done. There is a cause and effect, and we know the cause — poverty. The unemployment rate is more than twice the average. Children go to school hungry. What happens in the community affects children in school. Long-term as well as short-term solutions are needed.
The report refers to practices in other countries. I do not know if the Minister has read the report but it refers to bullying. Will she look examine measures to deal with bullying in other countries and perhaps address it in that context? We all accept education is the key to breaking out of the cycle but few children from that area attend pre-school. Are there plans to increase the number of children attending pre-school? Will parents be able to afford to send their children to pre-school? The OECD report refers to increasing the number of children from disadvantaged backgrounds attending pre-school. Pre-school clearly gives skills to children and, in many cases, they thrive in that environment.
The report is a damning indictment of successive Governments and not only this one. The key point in this report is that there are solutions. It is important we examine the problems and try to address them.
Several measures are already in place in Tallaght which are working successfully and I appreciate that the report calls for a number of these to be extended. I am committed to the idea of extending pre-school provision, especially in disadvantaged areas. Such provision bears more than its fruit in later years and can prevent expenditure up to seven times greater when children reach their teenage years. As the Deputy is aware, a number of pre-school places are already available, but they are in a part of west Tallaght in which there are many young children. Under the child care provision in the national development plan, many crèche and pre-school places have been provided through various schemes outside the education sector.
Schools in disadvantaged areas benefit from smaller class numbers in the earlier grades. Various programmes are targeted at such areas to provide reading support and extra teaching resources to ensure a better pupil-teacher ratio. Measures are in place to combat early school leaving with six school completion clusters in Tallaght which involve six post-primary and 19 primary schools. The response to the area is very targeted. A literacy programme is in place and the National Educational Welfare Board has a base in Tallaght to target those young people who drop out of school. School leavers continue to be a priority for the Youthreach programme which addresses those persons school did not suit, as opposed to the other way round, and youth work continues to be a function of the Tallaght youth service.
While I acknowledge the significant investment being made in this area, I realise from my experience of having visited various projects in Tallaght that it is an area which requires a targeted response. This is not due simply to the level of disadvantage identified in the report but, more importantly, to the fact that so many young people and children live there. One should not concentrate solely on the negative aspects of the report. It constitutes a useful survey which demonstrates how proud parents in these areas are of their children's attainment. We should do everything we can to build up the pride of those parents in their children and in their area rather than simply highlight the negative.
Deputy O'Connor is not doing any work in Tallaght.
My record is there.
The Deputy has not done anything.
We will deliver.
115 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science the steps she is taking to address educational disadvantage and widen access to and participation in education at all levels; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26284/04]
View answerTackling educational disadvantage is one of my key priorities as Minister for Education and Science. My approach is dictated by the Government's national action plan against poverty and social exclusion 2003-05 and the latest partnership agreement, Sustaining Progress, which contains a special initiative focused on literacy, numeracy and early school leavers. A sum of €540 million is being provided by my Department in 2004 for programmes specifically designed to tackle educational disadvantage in accordance with the strategies outlined in the national action plan and Sustaining Progress. This direct expenditure on educational disadvantage represents an increase of more than €80 million on the 2003 provision and almost 8.5% of the net education budget for 2004.
My Department's approach to tackling educational disadvantage is based on a continuum of provision from early childhood through adulthood. The focus of provision is on preventative strategies, targeting and integrated community responses which are designed to create an education system which allows each citizen to realise his or her full potential. To achieve this goal, provision is made for programmes at pre-school, primary and post-primary levels and, for the youth sector, for further-education measures and pro-grammes designed to broaden access to third level for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Specific provisions which directly target educational disadvantage and social exclusion include almost €8 million for pre-school programmes such as the Early Start pilot project which caters for pupils aged three to four years who are most at risk in areas of social disadvantage. In excess of €70 million is provided for disadvantaged programmes at primary level, including the disadvantaged areas scheme, the home-school-community liaison scheme and the Giving Children an Even Break programme. Approximately €35 million is provided to fund post-primary level disadvantaged schemes such as the disadvantaged areas scheme and the home school-community liaison scheme while more than €23 million is provided for the school completion programme which operates at primary and post-primary level. The school completion programme is a key component of the Department's strategy to discriminate positively in favour of children and young people who are at risk of leaving school early.
A sum of €20 million is provided for disadvantaged youth schemes and €175 million for further education measures, including the back to education initiative, Youthreach, voluntary training opportunities scheme programmes and the adult literacy programme. A total of €197 million is provided for measures specifically designed to broaden access to third level education for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and €6.5 million has been set aside to fund the National Educational Welfare Board. Funding for programmes at primary and post-primary level has provided more than 1,400 additional teachers and co-ordinators in disadvantaged areas and schools. My Department has been engaged in an overall review of its educational disadvantage programmes and it is my intention to complete this work as soon as possible.
The report referred to earlier by Deputy O'Sullivan, which I have not yet seen, points to a lack of coherence and poor co-ordination in this area and we must accept that. I am sure the Minister will agree it is easy to spend money. However, the reality is, despite the figures outlined, that 800 children per year do not complete primary school and just short of one in five pupils do not complete post-primary school. We must look again at where the money is being spent to see if we are obtaining any real return or value for money. The drop-out rate is the first issue which must be tackled.
I am sure the Minister is aware that the social inclusion unit, a division within her Department, has been in place since 1998. Yet, the report points out there is no real co-ordination between the programmes in existence. I am sure the Minister will say she is awaiting the report but I would like to ask three specific questions. The Early Start pilot project commenced in the early 1990s has not been extended since then. Approximately 40 schools avail of the project. Does the Minister intend to expand that project so more children can avail of it? The Youthreach programme, to which the Minister referred, has operated on a pilot basis for 17 years. Either it works or it does not. If it does, it should be placed on a more definite footing. Does the Minister intend to review that programme?
The Department of Education and Science co-ordinates with approximately six other Departments on redesignation of disadvantaged areas. Given there have been changes in that area, does the Minister intend to put in place better co-ordination between the Departments dealing with that issue? An example is that of area partnerships which have not been reviewed for many years. Many places have become more disadvantaged or less disadvantaged over time yet unless a scheme is located within an ADM partnership area it cannot avail of them. Does the Minister intend to review that scheme?
The roll-out of the National Education and Welfare Board is important in tackling disadvantage. However, it has not been rolled out at a pace that people would like. Neither county in my constituency has a dedicated person from the National Education and Welfare Board as is the case in many other counties throughout the country. Does the Minister intend to provide extra funding to deal with that issue?
Deputy Enright made the point I made earlier when I said there was no point rushing ahead to implement recommendations earlier in the year when what was needed was a co-ordinated approach and action plan to see what is working.
The Early Start pilot project is available in 40 schools. Teachers and parents involved in the project say the children who have moved on to primary education have acclimatised to their surroundings much earlier, have socialised better and have settled in very well. However, other reports state there is no substantial, cognitive or scholastic improvement in children who attend Early Start projects over those who do not. That is not to suggest that children's socialisation and acclimatisation in their surroundings is not important: it is because it helps them to move forward. These issues have to be considered in the context of deciding whether to develop that particular scheme. The project also encourages parental involvement which is important when assisting children in this sector to feel more comfortable in their school surroundings. Currently 56 child care workers and 40 schools participate in the project and there are 1,680 places available. The project is being seriously considered in the context of the review to see how we can move it forward.
The Deputy also mentioned Youthreach. That programme has been a good option for a number of young people, in particular young people who have not been able to reach their potential within the ordinary second level system, because it targets their skills and talents. Youthreach works particularly well in disadvantaged areas and enables such students to remain within the education sector and ensures they leave school with some sort of qualifications. Also, it provides them with guidance and counselling and, in some cases, it offers child care. That is one of the examples of an integrated approach, about which the Deputy asked earlier. Deputy Crowe, when speaking earlier about Tallaght, also referred to it.
I fully accept that in the classroom one is dealing not only with the education needs of the child but with the family situation, the housing issue and community issues. That is the reason the home-school community liaison officer can be crucial in an area and should be developed further. Such officers form those links for those young people to ensure we are not dealing with only one specific element of their ability. In that context there will be a close relationship with the Departments of Health and Children and Environment, Heritage and Local Government when dealing with community issues, not to mention the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.
The redesignation or the designation of areas of disadvantage is a question that always arises. How does one define disadvantage? For some it might be a shortage of money, for others it might be housing and for others it might be family or social background. What is important is that we can identify targeted responses to the areas of most need, taking on board a whole range of factors. To come up with a scheme to designate, whether under a partnership, urban disadvantage or rural disadvantage is difficult but we can all identify areas of need.
The National Education Welfare Board is being extended. It now employs 64 education welfare officers who are working throughout the country and, hopefully, will employ more shortly.
116 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Education and Science the content of the proposed Third-Level Student Support Bill; when it will be brought forward; if she proposes to alter the way in which students are means-tested for maintenance grants; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26298/04]
View answer324 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Education and Science the assistance she has sought from the Department of Social and Family Affairs in respect of assessment of income and means for the purpose of awarding higher education grants. [26157/04]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 116 and 324 together.
My Department funds three means-tested maintenance grant schemes for third level students. The higher education grants scheme operates on a statutory basis, while the vocational educational committees' scholarship scheme and the third level maintenance grants scheme for trainees operate on an administrative basis. The statutory framework for maintenance grants under the higher education grants scheme is set out in the Local Authorities (Higher Education Grants) Acts 1968 to 1992.
The report, Supporting Equity in Higher Education, published in 2003 identified the fairness of the means assessment on which student support is based as being a vitally important issue in promoting equity. It noted that the current system is widely regarded as being inequitable and, in line with earlier reports, concluded that the introduction of a capital test would remove a significant perceived inequity in the system. The report also concluded, in this context, that the administration of the student support schemes needs to be reformed.
In accordance with the commitment in An Agreed Programme for Government, I propose to introduce a single unified scheme. I also intend to put in place a more coherent administration system to facilitate the introduction of more sophisticated means testing arrangements and ensure consistency of application and client accessibility, which are identified as necessary in the report, Supporting Equity in Higher Education.
My Department is engaged in ongoing consultations with the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners as well as other stakeholders in relation to the streamlining of the administration of the planned single unified scheme, which I intend to establish on a statutory basis to replace existing arrangements. These discussions relate to their possible contribution to the future shape and administration of the student support schemes.
I intend to provide a new statutory basis through a new student support Bill. This Bill will have as its objective the promotion of equality of access by providing a new system for awarding grants to assist qualifying persons to attend courses of further and higher education. It will address arrangements for the future administration of the schemes including an appropriate assessment system. A key objective underpinning legislative proposals in this area will be to ensure that the grants system is fair and equitable, and that the resources are allocated accordingly to achieve the Government's objective of supporting and facilitating greater participation in further and higher education from hitherto under-represented socio-economic groups.
There are major implications in any proposals to change the administration of the maintenance grants schemes, and it is for that reason there is ongoing consultation with the key stakeholders. When these are concluded, I will be in a position to make a final determination as to the most efficient, effective and equitable arrangements for the future administration of the schemes.
Will the Minister give an indication of the timescale as to when she expects to implement these proposals? Is it her intention to have a Department, for example the Department of Social and Family Affairs, do this work or does she intend to set up, as stated in the proposed legislation, an appropriate awarding authority, and if so, is it likely to be a separate body or a Department? Is the Minister concerned that, according to the most recent figures from 2000-01 released to my colleague Deputy Burton, twice as many students from professional, management, self-employed and farming backgrounds received grants as those from the lower socio-economic groups such as skilled manual, semi-skilled manual and unskilled manual workers? The figure is quite shocking.
Why has the Department not gathered the information in order to publish figures for 2001-02 or 2002-03? Does the Minister intend to introduce a capital or asset test as part of this proposal?
The Deputy will be aware that a number of reports have been undertaken on the third level grants sector. We will spend €184.9 million this year, which represents substantial expenditure and, although we do not yet have the figures for this year, I understand that between 2003 and 2004, some 56,000 students benefited from the scheme. It is of concern that people do not have confidence in the assessment system and feel it is unfair. It is not for me to state which sectors are gaining more than others but it is true to state that people believe they are not getting a fair share. The issue must be addressed which is why it is being examined in consultation with the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Social and Family Affairs and others.
It is crucial that the assessment system is seen to be fair and commands public confidence, which important message is set out by the de Butléir and Supporting Equity in Higher Education reports. We must also have an amalgamation of all the schemes, which we have worked towards. After maintenance grants were made available for post-leaving certificate course students in 1999 a more aligned system was put in place with one common application form. It has also been proposed that there should be one group of agencies or one body to implement it but I am more concerned that we have a unified scheme rather than an authority to implement it. We are not yet far enough along the road to decide which should be the implementing body and I am not sure of the value of proceeding with a separate central authority in any event. However, I see the value of one body comprised of groups of people being responsible for it such as, for example, local authorities or the Irish Vocational Education Association.
There has been convergence of the schemes but there is a lack of public confidence in the assessment. We will continue to invest in the system and ensure that people can qualify for the grant or other schemes such as top-up grants, which have been of huge benefit to the 11,500 students who received them last year as a result of the movement of thresholds in recent years. It is important that no student suffers as a result of any changes in this regard. Rather, our aim will be to ensure that the system is equitable and fair.
