Priority Questions.
1 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science her priorities for capital improvements in the education sector for 2005; the number of primary and secondary school building projects that will be progressed in 2005; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [30789/04]
View answerAs the Deputy is aware, the Minister for Finance on budget day 2003 introduced rolling five-year multi-annual envelopes for capital investment. At the publication of the Estimates for 2005 last week the Minister indicated that he intends to deal with adjustments to those envelopes in the context of the upcoming budget. Consequently, I am not in a position to define my detailed plans for capital expenditure across the sector in 2005 until after budget day. I can, however, give the Deputy a general indication of my approach.
In the case of third level education, the agenda is set by the Kelly report, Review and Prioritisation of Capital Projects in the Higher Education Sector. The planned countrywide roll-out of broadband to schools during 2005 will continue to influence how funds are provided for schools ICT.
The Deputy asked specifically about primary and post-primary schools. While I must await clarification of my final allocation on budget day, clearly in 2005 I will want to make further significant inroads on moving to tender and construction projects that are already in the final stages of the design process and are likely to be ready to go to tender during the year.
In advancing the school building programme, I will be anxious to further develop the focused schemes introduced to address historical under-investment in our schools, including initiatives such as the summer works scheme, which benefited more than 450 schools in 2004, and the initiative to allow small primary schools to undertake building and modernisation works on a devolved basis, which has already benefited more than 60 primary schools. These devolved initiatives with the permanent accommodation initiative have been welcomed by all the education partners in that they give funding directly to management authorities to manage their own building projects. I am convinced of the merit of using a devolved approach where appropriate and I see it as an important part of my strategy to improve school accommodation.
In tandem with moving new projects forward, whether through traditional or devolved processes, I will of course maintain the asbestos, radon and dust extraction remediation programmes and will make the usual provision for emergency works.
I thank the Minister for her reply. In 2003 while certain projects were progressed and finished, only 12 primary and 14 post-primary school building projects were started from scratch. While I imagine we do not have the total figure for 2004 yet, does the Minister anticipate making greater progress in 2005? Her predecessor carried out a trawl through the school building programme and admitted that progress was slower than he would have liked. Does she feel she will be able to make greater progress? I share the Minister's support for devolved initiatives, particularly the summer works scheme and the primary schools initiative. Has the Minister received queries from schools where the cost of completing these works ends up considerably higher than originally anticipated and schools are being left with significant shortfalls, which they must fill?
A sum of €388 million has been allocated to the schools building programme for 2004, which is the largest in history. This should deliver in excess of 260 significant new projects at or going to construction during the year and 450 smaller-scale projects under the €31 million summer works scheme as well as site purchases etc. Some projects have experienced delays in getting the correct number of tenders, delays in getting on site or delays with planning permissions or planning appeals. However, a huge number of projects are already on site and more will have substantial construction completed by the end of the year.
The Deputy asked about the money allocated to devolved schemes. We have successfully allocated money under programmes like the summer works scheme, which work well. I am aware of cases particularly with the devolved scheme for extensions to smaller schools, where some of the tenders are coming in considerably higher than expected. This appears to be happening in some areas and not in others. Last week I met representatives from a school in Tipperary, which had been allocated €250,000 for two classrooms. While on the face of it one would have thought this was substantial enough — a two-classroom extension is little bigger than a bungalow — the tenders came in at €350,000. While the bidding contractors were all from Kilkenny, last Friday I visited a school in Kilkenny that had added three classrooms for €100,000. There are ways of negotiating at local level that would benefit local people and schools in the long term. We are very much in favour of progressing this matter.
I believe the Deputy had a third question.
Does the Minister intend to make any internal changes in her Department in light of the underspend that will facilitate the smoother running of projects in the building programme? The number of stages a project must go through slows the process down.
I am anxious to review the progress of expenditure, going to site and construction at various stages during the year. The number of projects unable to go ahead because of planning difficulties only came to light in the autumn. It then became difficult to allow other schools to go ahead because they were on-site. We must look carefully at the timing of allowing schools to go on site and free up money for others as the year progresses.
2 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Education and Science the amount of the capital budget for school buildings which has not been spent in 2004 on primary and secondary schools; the reason it has not been spent; if such moneys will carry over into 2005; if she will consider a substitute list for the schools building programme to ensure that money allocated to projects but not spent can be allocated to other projects; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [30716/04]
View answerUnder the multi-annual capital envelope framework, I can carry over 10% of my allocation for 2004-05 and I project a need to do so at present. I plan to carry over €50 million and I am not limited to a carryover of €39 million as recently reported in the media. This means that I can allocate the entire carryover to primary and post-primary buildings in 2005 to match any amount not spent from the 2004 allocations for primary and post-primary school buildings.
Any saving in 2004 on school buildings is not due to a reduction or cutback in planned activity. Ultimately, we are talking about some payments on existing projects that have already been approved to go to tender and construction that will not be due for payment in 2004 as originally envisaged. A record level of new school projects was commissioned in 2004 and payments expected to fall due before the end of this year are now more likely to be met in early 2005. However, the decision by the Government to put its entire capital programme, including the education capital programme, on a multi-annual basis means that it is easier to manage and cope with that type of variation in projected spending.
The Deputy will appreciate that the 2004 school building programme is a multifaceted undertaking, involving many hundreds of individual projects ranging from new school buildings, extensions, refurbishments and other projects under the summer works scheme to temporary accommodation and permanent accommodation initiatives, remediation programmes and the contingency fund. In addition, my Department funds the purchase of sites for new schools building projects.
There are many reasons which can cause unexpected delays in the pace at which some projects advance. These include an appeal of planning permission by third parties to An Bord Pleanála, contractors withdrawing tenders and design teams being slower than anticipated in getting projects tendered.
Through the carryover measure, however, and the overall management of my capital budget and Department spending until the end of the year, I will ensure that all funds remaining for 2004, together with whatever allocation I receive for 2005, will enable me to maintain the momentum in the capital building programme started by this year's record level of activity.
We all understand that there can be delays but will all the money allocated for 2004 be spent? The Minister said that she could carry over €50 million but does she expect there will be an underspend of more than €50 million by the end of this year and, if so, what happens to that money? Can it be spent within the capital schools budget?
There was a presentation to the Joint Committee on Education and Science on speeding up the process by having standardised architectural designs for specific sizes of schools. Has any progress been made in that area? It has the capacity to save money and speed the process up.
Whatever money is underspent in the primary and post-primary building programmes this year will be spent in those programmes next year. Bills are still coming in and we will pay them before the end of the year, but any underspend remaining which may be used in other capital expenditure will be refunded in 2005. The primary and post-primary schools will not be at a loss as a result of underspending this year. The €50 million is all that I envisage carrying forward to next year.
Standard designs have been drawn up for eight and 16 teacher schools. They are not appropriate designs for every school. They are best on greenfield sites rather than for existing buildings, but we are identifying sites for next year that could go under the generic design because it is a success and cuts down on architectural and engineering fees.
I welcome that we are not losing out on any of the money for this year but is there a danger that there might be less money next year because of the carryover?
There is no danger of that happening.
The Minister will enjoy our full support in this matter.
I appreciate that.
3 Mr. Ferris asked the Minister for Education and Science the measures she proposes to take to address the massive deficit that exists in the institute of technology sector in light of the recent Kelly report. [30720/04]
View answerRecently I announced an end to the freeze on spending on capital programmes in the third level sector and that I was proceeding to implement the Kelly report. In so doing, I indicated that certain high priority projects identified in the Kelly report would be proceeding immediately. These include building projects needed to support the significant expansion in recent years of teacher training places, as well as those associated with skills initiatives that have been aimed at addressing critical health skills shortages in the physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy, pharmacy, radiography, social work and clinical psychology areas. Skills supply in those areas is critical to delivery on the Government's health strategy.
My recent announcements should be regarded as a critical first step in implementation that will deal with a number of projects delayed significantly since 2002. Many further priority projects are identified by the Kelly review group and a large proportion of these are in the institutes of technology area. These will now be considered in the context of the overall funding available to me when the multi-annual capital envelope for the education sector is determined in the budget next week.
I have stated on a number of occasions that my intention as Minister is to address the priority needs that exist at and within each level of the education system. There has been considerable capital investment in the institutes of technology since 1997. The institutes received a majority of the capital available between 1997 and 2002. The Kelly report identifies further significant investment needed within the institutes and I look forward to addressing the priorities identified going forward.
In the Estimates in 2002, the Minister announced that there would be a pause in all capital projects and any new spending proposals would have to go through a review process. Recently, the Minister lifted this pause in spending to give the go-ahead to ten projects. While this was a positive step, it was regrettable that none of the projects approved were in the institute of technology sector.
The Minister established a group under the chairmanship of Mr. Kevin Kelly and it called for €171 million of funding for the institute of technology sector. How much money will be allocated for structural development in that sector? Does the Minister intend to implement the Kelly report in full and, if so, is there a timeframe for its implementation? How soon will it be completed?
The Kelly report examined the prioritisation of capital projects within the higher education sector and it was on the basis of those priorities that I allocated the money to the teacher training colleges and the therapy courses. The Kelly report also examined the institutes of technology. Projects for the entire third level sector include 97 major projects that will cost €933 million. Out of those, the report identified €629 million for 54 projects in the institutes of technology, including the Dublin Institute of Technology, over a ten-year period. That is a substantial sum and we will have to look within the overall priorities of the Government in an effort to address the capital needs throughout the sector. I will not have my full budget until budget day but I aim to make as much progress as possible in meeting priority needs.
Will the Minister indicate how much she intends to spend in the institute of technology sector in the coming year?
I cannot because I do not know how much I will have.
4 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science if a system of standardised testing is still to be introduced at primary level; the details of the uses which will be made of the information to be gathered through such testing; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [30790/04]
View answerI do not intend to make any decisions with regard to introducing standardised testing in primary schools until after I have carried out a thorough exploration of all the issues relating to the announcement made by my predecessor last July. I am awaiting advice on the matter which the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment is preparing, through its usual consultative and partnership processes. I expect this early in 2005. Then I will be in a position to engage in further consultations, as appropriate, with the relevant partners, including teachers and parents.
Since decisions have yet to be made with regard to standardised testing in primary schools, it is too early to give details of the uses that will be made of test information. Furthermore, it would be inappropriate to pre-empt the advice that I have yet to receive. However, I give my assurances that it is not my Department's intention to use the results of standardised tests for the following purposes: to compile school league tables; as a stand-alone criterion to determine the allocation of resources to individual pupils and individual schools; or as a stand-alone criterion to measure the effectiveness of individual teachers and schools.
The judicious use of standardised test results has high value as one of a range of modes of assessment in helping teachers make more informed decisions as regards the instruction of pupils, in informing parents of their child's progress and in providing information essential to the identification of pupils who may require additional support. At classroom level, information from standardised tests can be particularly useful in informing individual and group teaching. The fact that more than 95% of our primary schools use such tests in some way is testimony to the value that our teachers ascribe to them. Standardised test results also have an important role to play at the level of the whole school as they provide valuable information for teachers, principals and boards of management when engaging in self-evaluation, a vitally important stage in planning the development and improvement of the individual school.
At national level there is need for more regular information than is available on trends in pupil progress and on levels of achievement within our education system. We now have an opportunity to explore the potential of systematised standardised testing in this regard. I believe that a considered and balanced policy on standardised testing will benefit pupils, teachers, parents and policy makers.
I am pleased to hear the INTO statement that it supports the development of an agreed national assessment policy for primary schools and that it will work positively with me to introduce forms of assessment that are appropriate to the learning needs of pupils and the information needs of the system. I look forward to engaging with it as one of the partners in my consultations on standardised testing.
How long does the Minister expect her exploration of the issues to last? I am glad she is taking proper advice on this issue and is not just following on the announcement made by her predecessor, Deputy Noel Dempsey, as I am not too sure what advice was behind that. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, told us today, when speaking on the Estimates, the amount of money to be provided to tackle literacy. Obviously it cannot be tackled if we do not know the base line from which we start. While I am concerned at testing children too young, we must have some base line from which to start. I am aware that schools are testing at present. What use has the Department been making of the information being provided by schools? The information is there and better use could be made of it in the interim. Will the Minister consider that? My question, however, is when she expects to make a more formal and firm decision on this issue.
I, too, am concerned about rushing into a system that might put pressure on students, parents and in particular very young children in the primary school system before we work out what type of tests to use, how they are to be implemented and to what use they are to be put. I accept what Deputy Enright is saying. Information is enormously valuable, particularly as regards literacy. That is why we all accept good use can be made of the tests. While I stated that 95% of teachers are using these tests, not all teachers in a school do the same testing, however, or even use the same test. That is why we need to work with all the partners involved to evaluate how the best use may be made of the information available.
This is very valuable in terms of reaching our targets under the national anti-poverty strategy and for targeting resources for literacy. However, under no circumstances will tests be a stand-alone criterion on that. I have asked the NCCA to come back to me early in the new year because I see it as a priority to achieve progress on this issue, in consultation with all the partners.
5 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Education and Science if she plans to reintroduce physical education and sports grants for schools; and the other measures which are planned to encourage physical activity among school children. [30850/04]
View answerPhysical education is one of the seven primary education curriculum areas and plans are in place to implement the new syllabus in physical education in September 2005, with a programme of in-service training for all primary school teachers taking place during the current school year.
Second level schools should offer a physical education programme based on an approved syllabus with teaching hours registered on the school timetable. The focus of physical education in schools is on the young person's holistic development, stressing personal and social development, physical growth and motor development. Goal setting within the curriculum focuses on individual improvement and not on winning or being the best.
At post-primary level, a revised syllabus for physical education for junior cycle, as a non-examination subject, is being introduced on a phased basis. The revised junior cycle physical education syllabus, with its practical focus, provides for young people an opportunity to explore a range of intelligences and represents a balance in what has long been acknowledged as an academically dominated curriculum.
The junior cycle physical education support service was established in September 2003 to support the introduction of the revised syllabus. The programme is being rolled out over three years. All schools were invited to avail of the support service with schools being invited to apply to the programme. Some 112 schools were involved in the programme in 2003 and further 130 have been invited to participate this year. Schools will have a further opportunity to apply for participation in the programme in 2005.
In October 2000, my Department introduced a physical education grant for all primary schools. Since the introduction of the scheme, the Department provided in excess of €5.5 million in grant aid to primary schools under this scheme to enable schools provide coaching or mentoring in connection with physical education or to purchase resource materials associated with the provision of physical education. Materials and equipment purchased by schools in previous years will generally be available to them for subsequent years. In light of the budgetary constraints, it was decided to withdraw payment of the grant from 2003. However, schools may use their general capitation funding to support the implementation of curricula, including physical education.
Since 1997 the standard rate of capitation grant has been increased from £45 or €57.14, per pupil to €121.58 with effect from 1 January 2004, an increase of almost 113% in the period. Provision has been made in the financial allocation announced in the recently published Book of Estimates for a further increase of €12 per pupil in the capitation grant, bringing it to €133.58 in the current school year.
The question of reintroducing a specific grant in respect of physical education in the future will be considered in the context of available resources and priorities within the education sector.
Will the Minister acknowledge, in terms of getting young people involved in sport, that one needs to start at the early stages, namely, primary school level? Is she aware of a survey carried out during the summer by the INTO, which showed that in Donegal 80%, in Clare 63% and in Dublin, with bigger and better equipped schools, 14% of schools did not have a proper sports area or physical education hall? Out of the 86% in Dublin which did have a physical education hall, 60% were inadequate or unsatisfactory. Will she acknowledge that in the new physical education curriculum, two of the six strands are dance and aquatics? In response to the INTO survey, teachers have said they are woefully unprepared for these two areas. Will the Minister acknowledge that most schools will not be able to install the new curriculum? This is a sad indictment of the Government's commitment to sport and to the personal development of young children. Given that the Taoiseach has indicated he is now a committed socialist, will the Minister acknowledge that even the most totalitarian and backward eastern European states of the 1970s and 1980s had a much more superior approach to sport for young people, as was shown by their Olympic results? Will she concede that physical education grants are but one small step? If even €600 a year cannot be given to schools, the Government is simply spitting in the face of our young children and laughing at teachers who are very committed.
I acknowledge that eastern European countries had greater sports facilities and large physical education halls, while their people starved. They had no democracy, no freedom and no flexibility about the development of the individual. It is a matter of priorities. The physical education curriculum in primary schools is dealt with under six headings, athletics, dance, gymnastics, games, outdoor and adventure activities and aquatics. Schools are encouraged to adopt a programme that is enjoyable, involving participation etc. From our inspection of the schools there is no indication of non-compliance.
Teachers are using the facilities they have, be they outdoor or indoor, or local sports facilities in conjunction with local clubs or swimming pools in towns. My colleague, the Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, has done much work in that area. All the new schools being developed at second level include PE halls built to international standards. At that level of physical education involvement in many sports is encouraged and there are basketball and tennis courts, playing fields and so on. We have found that generally schools have at least one element of those facilities.
Some progress was made in the capital programme this year with particular reference to PE halls and there have been developments as part of a wider programme in the drugs task force areas. There is quite a deal of flexibility of choice in the physical education programme. Even those schools with very confined space do their best to ensure the children get physical activity. One of the best physical activities parents could do with their children is to walk.
