Other Questions.
52 Ms Lynch asked the Minister for Education and Science the timeframe and consultative process for the task force on student behaviour in secondary schools; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [7961/05]
View answer69 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Education and Science the position regarding her plans to tackle the issue of discipline in schools; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [7986/05]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 52 and 69 together.
I recently established a task force to consider and report on the issue of student behaviour in second level schools. The task force is chaired by Dr. Maeve Martin of the National University of Ireland, Maynooth. I want the work of this task force to provide a solid foundation for developing policies and best practice in our schools into the future. The task force will link closely to a wide range of interests across the education system on this important issue.
A consultative group is also to be formed comprising all the partners in education and allowing for their input to the deliberations of the task force. In addition, I have asked that the task force constitute fora of teachers, parents and students with a view to testing emerging ideas and proposals. The task force recently invited, by public advertisement, submissions from interested individuals and groups. There have been four meetings of the task force to date and other meetings are planned.
Two consultative fora have been organised, the first in Cork on 14 March and the second in Galway on 21 March. The chairperson and three of the task force members will attend. The planned format is to meet separate groups of teachers, parents and students with a member of the task force acting as rapporteur for each group. This will then be followed by a plenary session which will be chaired by Dr. Martin. The task force will wait to see how this format works before organising any further such fora but it is certainly envisaged that more will be convened. A number of submissions have been received, a number of organisations have indicated their intention to make submissions and there is still plenty of time before the deadline of 31 March 2005.
I have asked the task force to make recommendations by June 2005 with a view to having them implemented by the beginning of the next academic year. I have also asked the task force to complete its work by the end of 2005. However, it may produce interim reports to highlight various issues of analysis and research.
The Minister will be surprised to hear me say, "Well done, Minister". I welcome that the task force has been set up and I hope the timeframes will be adhered to while acknowledging they are tight. What issues will be examined? A number of alternatives to regular schooling have been set up in various parts of the country for children who have difficulty in settling in to regular school. Approximately 1,000 children drop out and do not go on to second level schools. The Minister of State, Deputy de Valera, who is present, will be aware of one such school in County Clare. These alternatives to regular schooling are scattered throughout various parts of the country, some of which work well and others which do not. Will that issue be examined by the task force?
Does the Minister envisage amending the legislation, although it may be too early to say at this stage? Obviously there are conflicting rights — the rights of the children who have difficulties in schools, the rights of the other children in the schools, the rights of teachers and so on. Will this require amending legislation?
I am well aware of the various types of education centres providing an education for so many young people throughout the country. Those groups are represented on this task force to ensure a broad range of views and experience. A recently retired principal teacher on the Youth Encounter project in Limerick city is a member of the group.
A very good person.
I agree, as are all the members of the task force. The task force will consider various issues. The Deputy is correct in that it is a balance of rights, between the individual student and the rest of the students in the class and a balance of rights between the teacher and the right of the teacher to be able to work within that environment. It is to ensure the creation of an educational environment in which everybody can work.
The immediate cry from everybody was for a change in the legislation. I am not satisfied that changing the legislation alone is the answer. Obviously codes of behaviour and proper procedures in the school and proper classroom management can add a lot as can ensuring that students are following a course of study appropriate to them, whether that be the LCVA or various other programmes on offer in schools. Young people should be guided to ensure they are meeting their own needs to allow them to reach their potential.
If it is suggested that a change in legislation would improve the situation for people, then I am certainly open to considering that as part of an overall package that aims to put in place a better school environment.
Is any expert on bullying a member of this task force? Will the task force examine this issue? I have been informed that behaviour learned at a very early age develops and transfers on to second level education where such children not only bully their peers but also the teachers in many instances. Will this form part of the remit of the task force?
I deliberately called it a task force on student behaviour, which is quite a wide definition. People are invited to make submissions on anything that relates to this subject. I know the task force will be very happy to consider them. The members of the task force are practitioners in all the various sectors of education. They represent parents, teachers, principals and people outside the mainstream education sector and people identified as top class practitioners in their own right. The ASTI and the TUI both asked for this task force to be set up and have expressed their willingness to work very closely with it. I am quite satisfied that anything that would refer to student behaviour can and will be examined by the group.
Will the Minister agree there are significant discipline problems in some schools in the State? Will she agree that something must be done about children from crisis families or dysfunctional situations as they often bring these social problems into the classroom? What is the Minister's response to these types of children? I emphasise these children are in the minority in primary schools and the very severe cases would account for approximately 200 to 300 children nationally. If there is no early intervention they are the children who will become involved in drugs and crime and eventually end up in prison. This aspect of the discipline problem must also be tackled.
I accept the Minister's response that classroom management is a very important aspect of discipline. Effective teaching is another angle to discipline. We are all familiar with examples of good practice in difficult schools where a good class teacher can turn the whole community and school. Has the Minister any future plans to reward the good practice of those teachers, particularly those in disadvantaged areas?
Deputy McGrath has expressed it quite well. The teacher in the classroom is the person who should be in control and should have the skill to deal with the wide range of issues that arise. The terms of reference of the task force refer to the issue of disruptive students as it impacts on teaching and learning, the effectiveness of strategy at present, in other words, looking at best practice which can then be shared. Any teacher will appreciate being given information on best practice and current strategies. The task force will advise on best practice nationally and internationally. It will make recommendations on how to promote an improved climate for teaching and learning.
I wish to make it clear that the task force is dealing with second level education. It is quite true to say that students cannot leave their families, their society and their problems at the school gate and much of what is happening in the classroom is a reflection of difficulties they are dealing with outside. This is the reason the work of the National Educational Welfare Board, the education psychologists and the wider family support is crucially important in this regard. I refer to positions such as the home-school liaison teacher, which can also be very important. I regard this task force as being a whole school approach to dealing with school behaviour. I look forward to getting the group's recommendations and implementing them quickly.
53 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Education and Science the number of children with mild or borderline general learning disability within mainstream primary education; the number of children within mainstream primary education; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [7893/05]
View answer72 Dr. Twomey asked the Minister for Education and Science the number of children with mild or borderline general learning difficulties within mainstream primary education who are in receipt of resource teaching hours; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [7891/05]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 53 and 72 together.
The number of children within the primary education system is in the region of 446,000 pupils and increasing. Arising from the census of special needs provision undertaken by my Department towards the end of 2003, there were 4,527 pupils within the mild general learning disability range, and 2,450 within the borderline mild general learning disability range. In general, this pupil cohort would be eligible for resource teaching support. The census was undertaken in 2003 to ensure that up to date information on children with special educational needs was available to the Department. The establishment of the National Council for Special Education will be of great assistance in ensuring that such information is available on an ongoing basis in the future.
The scale of resource allocation in recent years has facilitated the provision of education for children with special needs, including those with mild or borderline mild general learning disabilities, in mainly mainstream national schools. However, education for children with special educational needs is provided in a variety of settings. For children for whom mainstream provision is not appropriate, placement may be made in one of the 30 special schools and the 289 special classes catering for pupils with mild general learning disability located throughout the country. These classes have a pupil teacher ratio of 11:1.
In 1998, the Government took a decision that has transformed the level of provision for pupils with special educational needs, including those with mild and borderline mild general learning disabilities. Pupils with such needs would be entitled to an automatic response to meet those needs and the allocation of resources to meet those needs no longer depended, as it had in the past, on the limited resources that were available to meet those needs.
In light of the reality that pupils in the high incidence disability categories of mild and borderline mild general learning disability and dyslexia are distributed throughout the education system, my Department, in consultation with educational interests aims to introduce a general allocation model. It is hoped to have an outcome in the next few weeks.
In answer to a parliamentary question I received a response from the Minister stating that a child would be dealt with under the new weighted system when it comes into being next September. Will children with specific learning disabilities lose the two and a half hours per week they currently have? I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the point that if a child with a mild or borderline disability is given the assistance he or she requires at the time they need it, he or she may require significantly less assistance in the longer term. If they do not receive what is required now, does the Minister appreciate that in the long term they will require a greater investment? When considering the weighted system I ask the Minister to give consideration to that fact and to ensure that the children receive the assistance they require. It is important that persons with a low incidence of disability are also given what they require but one sector cannot be favoured at the expense of ignoring almost 7,000 children in the other sector. Children under that system will lose out.
It is certainly not the intention to ignore such children. Those children will be included in an allocation that will ensure that resource teaching will be available in the school even before the child joins the school. This is to avoid a child having to wait until first or second class or even beyond before a need might be identified. Resource teaching will be available in the school as soon as the teacher notes that extra assistance might be needed by a child. The aim, therefore, is to arrive at a position in which need will be targeted recognising that a percentage of the population, estimated to be around 3%, needs specific allocation, while approximately 10% of the populace is acknowledged to have learning difficulties in literacy and numeracy.
Does the Minister intend to increase the number of resource teachers? While I am aware that an additional 350 resource teachers are working in the education sector this year, the system cannot possibly work as she envisages with current resource teacher numbers. Does she envisage that more resource teachers will enter the system next September?
As I indicated, 2,600 extra resource teachers entered the system in recent years. A further 350 were assigned under this model and the Department is determining whether more will be needed. At the same time as reducing class sizes, as Deputies and others ask me to do, we must ensure this issue is addressed and it will be a priority.
Under the terms of the weighted system, as proposed in special education circular 90/4, the document refers to a third category of learning disability in addition to the two mentioned in the question. I understand it is described as "specific learning disability" and includes dyslexia and some other conditions. The figures provided by the Minister relate to mild and mild borderline learning disability. Does she have figures on the third category?
I do not have figures to hand. The 3% figure to which I referred relates to the specific high incidence group. The task force on dyslexia recognised that the teacher, in the first instance, would identify a need and refer a child to a learning support in the school. If this did not work, the teacher would call in a NEPS psychologist to evaluate what further needs should be met. The matter will be tackled in the first instance through learning support.
In addition to 2,600 resource teachers, 1,500 learning support teachers work in our schools. With this kind of allocation, we should be able to meet the more general needs of our children, while the needs of children with high incidence needs will continue to be addressed separately.
Is the Minister aware that some parents of children with disabilities continue to experience problems enrolling their children? Families of children with autism, in particular, are encountering major difficulty obtaining places in primary school.
We all welcome the targeting of resources on the most needy, particularly in disadvantaged communities. Is it not time to move on to support children with disabilities in the broader school system? Does the Minister accept that every child only gets one shot at the education system and needs must, therefore, be provided for at an early age?
Is the Minister aware that many teachers complain about the bureaucracy associated with learning supports? For example, teachers are pulled out of classrooms to attend meetings and case conferences, with the result that service for children with disability is diminished.
As regards the figure of 1,500 learning support teachers, will a plan be produced in the coming years to determine the effect of these additional resources on pupils with disabilities in mainstream primary schools?
I thank Deputy Finian McGrath for his interest in this issue. I am not aware of specific complaints about children not being able to gain access to primary schools. Under section 29 of the Act, parents can appeal to the Department if their children are refused enrolment. Parents need to be aware of this provision because our aim is to ensure that those who want their children in mainstream education are facilitated. Resources have been available for this purpose, which is the reason that, in addition to the teachers to whom I have referred, we have 6,000 special needs assistants in the system. They will benefit the children in question and help them with their work.
The Deputy referred to bureaucracy. This arises from the requirement that children undergo individual psychological assessments, which is precisely what we are trying to avoid. Teachers will be in place before a child even attends school so that as soon as a need is identified a child can be referred to the learning support teacher or resource teacher. This will reduce bureaucracy, form filling and cost for teachers and parents who under the current arrangement must have an individual assessment carried out.
A further significant change has been the appointment of special education needs organisers, SENOs, who are already working with schools. In recent months parents have informed me that the SENOs are making a real difference by acting as a link between schools, parents and the other services. I am confident the Special Education Council will make even more progress in this respect. It will be part of its remit to evaluate progress, particularly in light of the allocations made for staffing, which are of major importance. All Deputies recognise that small class sizes are pointless unless linked to teaching methods.
As our understanding advances and various programmes are developed, the area of special needs will have to be constantly evaluated. This will be a task of the Special Education Council and its conclusions will feed into our understanding.
54 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Education and Science the amount spent since 2000 on the provision and refurbishment of prefabricated buildings at primary and secondary schools; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [7903/05]
View answerSince the beginning of 2000 my Department has spent €74,300,212 on the purchase of prefabricated buildings in the primary and post-primary sectors. This expenditure was for the supply and installation of the prefabricated buildings, including associated site works, and other costs such as for compliance with planning permission conditions, professional fees, connections for water, electricity and sewage.
The breakdown of this expenditure ranges from approximately €4.5 million in 2000, increasing to €770,310 to date in 2005. The figure of €74 million constitutes less than 5% of total expenditure on school buildings between 2000 and 2004. The total spent on primary and post-primary school buildings, including public private partnership projects at second level, is €1.6 billion.
Demand for additional accommodation in schools has risen significantly in recent years, mainly due to the rapid expansion in teacher numbers, particularly in the area of special needs, the growth in the school-going population in rapidly developing areas and demands to cater for diversity through the recognition of new Gaelscoileanna and Educate Together schools.
The focus within my Department is to empower schools to resolve their accommodation needs, wherever possible, in a permanent manner rather than relying on temporary accommodation. To reduce the amount of temporary accommodation at primary level an initiative was launched in 2003, the purpose of which is to allow primary schools to undertake a permanent solution to their classroom accommodation needs and to achieve the best value for money. The feedback from the 20 schools in the pilot was positive and the initiative was expanded to include 44 additional primary schools in 2004. More than 70 schools have been invited to participate in the initiative in 2005.
My Department has also used other innovative solutions to deliver urgently required permanent accommodation for schools in rapidly developing areas. An example of this is the new 16 classroom primary school for Griffeen Valley Educate Together national school in Lucan, which was delivered through the use of a design and build contract within 13 months.
I welcome the initiative introduced in 2003 as a major step forward. I also accept that prefabricated buildings or temporary accommodation as the Minister and her predecessor prefer to call them are necessary in some instances. Does she accept, however, that €74 million is a considerable amount to spend on buildings which, by their nature, are temporary and that this money could be put to better use?
The initiative worked well in certain places but will not work in areas of major population growth where the scale of a project may be too large for a school to be able to complete it on its own. This type of process may not be appropriate for large developments. How does the Minister intend to deal with difficulties of this nature?
The provision of prefabricated buildings is a short-term measure. For example, St. Corban's primary school in Naas welcomed the recent allocation of another prefabricated building because it is desperate. How many schools could have been built if we decided not to use this sticking plaster approach?
The priority must be to ensure there is space for the children. Prefabs are not a long-term solution. However, a school or an extra classroom cannot be built between now and September. This is why prefabs are provided in ensuring places for children.
Another reason for so much temporary accommodation is the increase in the number of primary teachers from 22,095 in September 2000 to 25,959. With these extra teachers, including resource and learning support teachers, applications to the Department for extra space to accommodate them have risen.
The Deputy referred to Naas as a developing area. Lucan, Ratoath and Kinnegad are also developing areas that have contributed to increased demand for temporary accommodation. There are also start-up schools awaiting building programmes. In the last four years, ten new gaelscoileanna and 16 Educate Together schools have been established. Many of them are in temporary accommodation awaiting new school buildings.
Our main aim is to ensure children do not spend too long in temporary accommodation. Schemes such as the permanent initiative and giving schools the funds to build extra classrooms are working successfully. Securing sites for the provision of full schools will alleviate this in the future. Unfortunately, we will not be able to say there will never be prefabs because there must be place to accommodate children.
Following from the reply to Question No. 51, will the Minister consider tabling an amendment to the Planning and Development Act 2000 to require developers to provide properly fitted school buildings, free of charge, in housing developments over a certain size? This would be similar to the strategic development zones such as Adamstown. Such an amendment would make an impact in the provision of school places. What progress has been made on multi-use modular school buildings? The needs of a growing primary school population could be extended into second level school provision in time while providing sports and community facilities at the same time.
I am interested in examining development plans and looking at how school sites can be made available. It pains me to have to pay so much for some sites, particularly in the greater Dublin area. However, it must be acknowledged that many of the sites are private personal property. It is an issue that will arise in other Departments in the next several years. An individual's personal property cannot be taken from him or her for whatever use, as there are constitutional issues involved. I am looking for any process to alleviate the problems, particularly in the new growth areas.
The idea of an education campus is positive, particularly with the sharing of sporting and community facilities. A whole culture of education can be created around an education campus, which can then be opened to adults. However, such a scheme is much easier for a new community to develop than an existing one. We are examining this system where lands are available.
55 Mr. Neville asked the Minister for Education and Science if her Department will alter a school bus route which no longer meets the needs of the children in the area (details supplied) in County Limerick. [7830/05]
View answerBus Éireann, which administers the school transport scheme locally on behalf of the Department of Education and Science, is responsible for the day-to-day operation of school bus services. Routes are determined on the basis of numbers of eligible pupils in particular areas, road networks, distance guidelines and other operational factors.
As a rule primary school transport routes are planned so that no eligible child will have more than 2.4 km, 1.5 miles, to travel to a pick-up point. Pupils living off the main route of a service are generally expected to make their own way or be brought to convenient pick-up points along the main route. Home pick-ups were never envisaged as part of the school transport scheme as the cost involved on a nationwide level would be prohibitive.
The families residing in the areas referred to by the Deputy appear to be accommodated within the guidelines. It is not open to my Department to approve an extension of a service where it is satisfied that children have a level of service within the school transport guidelines and where the extension would involve additional cost. However, parents of eligible children may pay, subject to certain conditions, for a route extension themselves. Accordingly, should they so wish, they may consult with the local Bus Éireann office regarding arrangements for a payable extension.
While Deputy Neville's question refers to a specific school, how recently was the whole scheme reviewed? I accept that each child cannot be picked up outside his or her front door. However, do the Department's rules take into account the new growth areas and the changes that have occurred? Was a review carried out to ensure the provision of the best possible service in 2005, as distinct from 15 years ago when population centres were different and different needs had to be serviced?
All these issues have been reviewed in recent years. While I am subject to correction on the date, I understand it was 2001 when a complete review was undertaken on distances and improvements on eligibility were made, allowing more people to avail of the service. The rules and regulations on distance have been made easier. The annual cost of providing school transport stands at €100 million a year. Up to 140,000 pupils are looked after on a daily basis on over 5,000 routes. Approximately 8,000 pupils with special needs are also looked after by the scheme. The scheme is reviewed on an ongoing basis. There have been provisions in recent years to improve eligibility where distance is concerned.
The rigidity of the system can often prevent the solution of certain problems. I am not sure of the school referred to by Deputy Neville in his parliamentary question. However, recently, Deputy de Valera met with the principal of a school in County Limerick on a similar issue. If this is the school concerned, a free bus to it for children living in a certain area in Limerick which falls under the school's catchment area would solve their problem. Otherwise, their parents will have to transport them to the other side of Limerick city to receive schooling. All Members are aware of the problems with school places in Limerick city.
Deputy Neville's parliamentary question was specific and he did not provide the details of the families involved. The Department understands three families are involved. One family resides 4 km, 2.5 miles, from Ballingarry national school and 0.64 km, less than half a mile, from the route of the existing service. The second family resides 3.8 km from the national school and under 0.5 km from the route of the existing service. Both families are being looked after under the scheme.
In any discussion of the school transport scheme, the question of catchment areas arises. I am often asked why the catchment area system cannot be reviewed as it came into vogue in the late 1960s. Its main function is to prevent schools poaching pupils from one another. It was essentially designed to support the local school, particularly small rural schools where one could see their demise if poaching pupils was allowed. Catchment areas also impact on education policies such as building programmes and so forth. The rules and regulations have been improved greatly since the changes took place in 2001.
The Minister of State will obviously be aware the catchment areas have not been reviewed since 1969. Will she undertake to carry out a simple review of the catchment areas and boundaries? Given the huge population shift that has taken place and the establishment of multi-denominational and Islamic schools and Gaelscoileanna, she might find they will have to be reviewed.
Sadly, there is nothing simple about the catchment areas debate, as I have pointed out. The question of catchment areas impacts on education policy throughout the Department. There would also have to be much discussion in regard to the building programme and so on. We have a very good service considering 140,000 students travel on a daily basis. There are 5,000 routes. The annual cost of the service is €110 million, yet only €6 million of that amount comes from charges parents or guardians must pay for the provision of that service. There is a particular provision to ensure children have an opportunity to avail of gaelscoileanna.
56 Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Education and Science her proposals to add additional institutions to the list under the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [7957/05]
View answerSection 4 of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 enables additional institutions, in which children were placed and resident, and in respect of which a public body had a regulatory or inspection function, to be added to the Schedule to the Act.
Since enactment of the legislation, my Department has received correspondence from individual and survivor groups identifying a number of additional institutions that may be eligible for inclusion in the Schedule. Accordingly, consultations have taken place between my Department and other Departments which may have provided a regulatory function in the operation of these facilities to ascertain the case for their inclusion under the Act.
While inquiries have not yet been completed in respect of all institutions, I signed an order on 9 November 2004 which provided for the inclusion of 13 additional institutions to the Schedule. Further consultations are taking place in regard to a number of institutions and I will consider the position of these institutions when this process has been completed.
My colleague, Deputy Costello, who tabled this question, had a particular concern about Bethany Home in respect of which he received correspondence. Will the Minister indicate whether it is one of the institutions being considered? It would not have been under the auspices of any of the bodies which signed the indemnity agreement. Will the Minister clarify whether the fact that it was not run by one of these bodies would rule it out?
In regard to the recent High Court judgment which awarded a considerable sum to somebody who survived residential institutional abuse, does the Minister intend to amend the Act?
Institutions included on the list must be identified as reformatory schools, industrial schools, orphanages, children's homes and special schools in which children are placed and resident. A key feature is that a public body had to have a regulatory or inspection function. In many cases, we are still trying to identify whether the State or a public body had a regulatory function and, therefore, our liability in that regard. That might delay the inclusion of some of the institutions.
On the case last week, I do not believe it is necessary to amend the legislation. I think everybody will agree the system works very well. There are distinct advantages to the redress scheme and the way it works. It is practical and people are able to get financial redress for what they have suffered. It is very fast and there is a much lower burden of proof. It is not an adversarial process. Many people have had offers made to them on the basis of an application and without ever having their cases heard. Many people have accepted that on the basis that it is private.
It is important to note that of all the awards made by the redress board only four have been rejected. The number of awards of over €200,000 made by the redress board or the review committee that have not been accepted is nil. It is working very sensitively and efficiently and that is what is important to the victims.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.
