Priority Questions
110. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Education and Skills if she will provide details of the revised set of compromise measures on junior cycle reform submitted to teachers' unions for consideration; the measures being taken to avoid further strike action; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [9019/15]
View answerWill the Minister provide details of the revised set of compromise measures on junior cycle reform submitted to teachers' unions for their consideration and the measures, if any, she is taking to avoid further strike action?
The full text of Dr. Travers's proposal document is available on my Department's website. Both sides were asked to confirm whether they accepted or rejected this as a basis for agreement. While the proposal put forward by Dr. Travers requires significant further compromise on my part, I indicated to Dr Travers that I am prepared to accept it as a basis for agreement. In doing so, I acknowledged his considerable effort at achieving a fair and reasonable compromise since being nominated for the role of independent chair by the two unions. Under the proposal, teachers are no longer asked to assess their own students for the purpose of State certification. This is a very significant measure in addressing a previous core union concern. In not suspending their industrial action, the unions have rejected the proposal by Dr. Travers. I deeply regret that decision. The effect of their ongoing action is to seek to prevent teachers from participating in continuing professional development that is available to give them the knowledge and support they need to do their jobs. I also regret that the unions have taken this decision without balloting their wider members on what is a substantially new proposal. No one group can be allowed to exercise a veto on educational reform. I intend to proceed with implementation of junior cycle reform, based on the proposal by Dr. Travers and I will be working with the wider education partners in doing so. I remain open to the unions revising their decision.
It is disappointing that the Minister has not achieved a resolution. It is particularly disappointing to see her indicate in the last few days that it is her intention to push on with the reforms, regardless of whether there is agreement with the teaching partners. I welcome the fact that the teaching unions indicated they were not going to proceed with further strike action. However, they did outline that they continue to have concerns and wish to engage further with the Minister in talks. It is short-sighted and disappointing that the Minister is not engaging further with teachers on the outstanding issues they have.
It is important that we recognise the background to the situation, particularly the approach taken by the Government, including the Minister's predecessor. The current Minister indicated that no one partner could have a veto. Unfortunately, it must also be recognised that no one partner, even the employer, can dictate reforms and what should happen without appropriate consultation. That is what has happened in this instance.
Can governments not decide policy?
A question, please.
Does the Minister agree that the initial proposals pushed through by her predecessor without consultation were incorrect? That she has taken a different approach indicates as much. Will she try to re-engage with the unions and ensure that agreement is reached on genuine outstanding issues?
It is regrettable that I must proceed without the full agreement of the teaching unions but they are not the only partners in education. The other partners want us to proceed with these reforms. Some of those engaged with the media yesterday.
Dr. Travers stated that he intended his proposals to be the basis for agreement, not further negotiation. It is the teaching unions that have questions to answer in terms of the reforms, the importance of other partners in education and concern for students. Although I regret it, I must move forward. My Department has met the other education partners and I intend to invite partners to a seminar on 26 March to outline our proposals on moving forward. My door remains open if the teaching unions want to re-engage on the basis of the Travers proposals, which is what the process was about.
Unfortunately, we are further behind in the delivery of junior certificate reform than we were when the Government entered office. A large part of that lies at the door of this Government and the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Quinn, in deciding to move away from an agreed working document on how to deliver reform, to introduce his own proposals on doing away with the examination and demanding that all teachers mark the full new junior cycle. Deputy Quinn tried to bulldoze through reform and did not consult.
Thankfully, the current Minister started to take a different approach when she entered office. She engaged and reverted to the point of the original document that was in place when the Government entered office. It is unfortunate that she is now adopting Deputy Quinn's approach of bulldozing through reforms without trying to repair the damage done to relations or address concerns about resources and training.
In a survey conducted by the ASTI about the continuous professional development, CPD, provided by the Department on the framework for the junior cycle, a total of 40% of respondents stated that the training provided ahead of the implementation of the new English curriculum did not increase their confidence to teach the specifications. This is no surprise, given that the total amount of training offered was one day. These are real issues and must be addressed. It is unfortunate that the Minister has taken up Deputy Quinn's mantle and is trying to drive reform through without agreement or proper respect for the role that teachers play.
I wonder what the Fianna Fáil approach to reform is. A former Fianna Fáil Minister has joined the fray and suggested that I completely roll over and accept what the teaching unions are saying. However, they are not the only partners in education.
It is not true to say that further CPD for English teachers has not been offered. It is available and our people are ready to provide it. The teaching unions have prevented teachers from availing of further training. We are putting the CPD on a website, so it will be available online if people wish to access it without having to go somewhere physically. We are doing everything possible to offer full training and support to teachers. We hope that they will take up this training. We have some evidence to the effect that individual teachers are anxious to proceed with the reform.
I am the Minister for Education and Skills and I am responsible for policy. This matter has been debated for long enough. Reform was rightly initiated by my predecessor, Deputy Quinn, and I intend to implement it as soon as possible.
111. Deputy Jonathan O'Brien asked the Minister for Education and Skills if she will provide an update on development of technological universities here, including the proposed merger between Cork Institute of Technology, County Cork and Tralee Institute of Technology, County Kerry. [9095/15]
View answerWill the Minister for Education and Skills provide an update on the development of technological universities with a particular focus on Cork Institute of Technology and Tralee Institute of Technology?
I thank Deputy O'Brien for the question. In regard to the technological university process, detailed plans were submitted to the Higher Education Authority, HEA, early last year by two consortiums of institutes of technology in Munster and in Dublin. Plans have been assessed by an international expert panel appointed by the HEA to be on a clear trajectory to meet the performance and quality criteria set down for the new status concluding stage 3 of the process. Following merger, stage 4 consists of an application to become a technological university submitted to the HEA which, following another independent assessment, will make a recommendation to the Minister on whether technological university status should be awarded.
In regard to the south east consortium, I have asked for a report on the proposed technological university for the south east, which I expect this quarter.
I thank the Minister for her reply. I am sure she is well aware there are growing concerns around the consortium in regard to the Munster technological university, MTU. They are based on a number of issues, including the cost of it, which is €6.7 million. To date, no detailed financial projections or analysis has been put forward by both institutes on how they will meet those targets. All we have heard is that they will be met through efficiencies but we do not know what those efficiencies are. I asked the HEA if it had seen any of the financial projections but it said it would not be part of the stage two process. Therefore, the HEA has not seen them and it envisages they will be part of the stage 4 process.
In regard to the process, there is a difference of opinion about the recommendations put forward by the expert panel, which I have read. A number of them relate to financing and governance issues. The HEA has been very clear in saying that those recommendations, while not binding, will form an integral part of the process of awarding technological university status to the MTU. However, in the minutes of the meetings held between the leadership of both institutes of technology and the unions, the governing bodies stated that those recommendations will not be binding and, in many cases, may not be implemented and that they are pressing ahead with the original proposal. How will that play out in stage 4?
In terms of them moving forward, as the Deputy knows, the assessment was carried out by an international independent panel. It said they were on a clear trajectory to meet the very robust performance and quality criteria set down and was of the view at that stage of the process that they were on the trajectory to reach the final step.
In regard to the financing of the proposals, the institutes were asked at the outset to state how the transition from their current status to their final destination would be financed. The Dublin and the Munster institutes said they would commit to meeting those costs within their budgets. That was part of the initial stage of the process. However, the HEA provided some funding in 2014 to give some support to the institutes involved in the mergers, including the Munster consortium. That was understood at the beginning, that is, that there would be financing involved but that would be paid for by the institutes.
The level of financing the HEA is providing is a drop in the ocean in the overall cost of €6.7 million. I understand that last year the HEA provided €200,000 to the consortium in the Munster region, which will go nowhere towards meeting the costs. The Minister has clarified that the governing bodies in Munster have said they will meet it from within their own budgets through efficiencies but nobody knows what those efficiencies are. They have not outlined what they are and that is of huge concern to the stakeholders involved.
The expert panel report makes a number of recommendations to the proposers, one of which is around financing. It states they need to be very alert to the possibility that in practice, it may not prove possible to diversify income streams as quickly as current projections imply.
They go on to talk about raising student fees and various other sources of income, including income from research.
I have an issue with what the governing bodies have stated. I will finish on this point. The unions asked whether any element of the panel's report would be embedded in the decision of the governing bodies. The governing bodies replied by stating they did not see anything in the panel's report that would cause them to change anything in their stage 2 plan. The HEA has stated these observations or recommendations are creating a significant challenge for the consortium as it aims to achieve the criteria for the merger of the institutes into a technological university. According to the HEA, the further development of such a university depends on the implementation of the observations or recommendations made by the consortium. The HEA is stating designation as a technological university depends on the implementation of the recommendations, but the governing bodies are stating they do not see anything in the recommendations that will make them deviate from the original plans. It does not weigh up. We are in a situation where we are so far down the line in terms of a merger that there is a growing possibility that technological university status may not be awarded to the Munster technological university. The cost involved is huge.
I repeat that they were considered to be on the trajectory when they were assessed in the earlier stages. The governing bodies of the institutions and the institutions are responsible for driving and moving forward this initiative.
It is Government policy.
Interested parties in any part of the country could have applied for this status. They knew exactly what was expected of them to reach the final point. They chose to engage in the process. The HEA is the intermediary in assisting them to reach that target. It is engaged in ongoing consultations with all of the consortiums. I would not be pessimistic about it as there is a determination to reach the goals. Obviously, there are issues. Issues of finance are always going to be important in this regard. The process is being managed by the governing authorities and the HEA. Obviously, we are also keeping a close watch on developments. The process is proceeding according to the criteria set down.
112. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Minister for Education and Skills her views on whether an important element of education is involved in the work of preschool child care professionals such as Montessori teachers; her further views on whether this group of workers should be supported in professional development and with terms and conditions comparable to those of primary school teachers; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [9068/15]
View answerMy question relates to early childhood care and education professionals. I am sure the Minister is aware that there is growing evidence of the educational impact and importance of the preschool phase of childhood care and education. There has been an historical reluctance on the part of the State to consider the educational aspect of childhood development. Does the Minister accept the importance of the educational aspect of early childhood care and education? If so, what is she willing to do to advance the profession of early childhood care and education in terms of professional development, the funding of professional development and terms and conditions, etc.?
Before I start reading my reply, I remind the Deputy that one of the first things I said when I was appointed as Minister was that I considered the area of early childhood care and education to be very important. I have put a number of measures in place in my capacity as the Minister responsible for the educational content of early childhood provision. The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs has overall responsibility for the early years sector.
The care and education of babies and young children are inextricably linked elements in a child's holistic development. The education provided by preschool child care professionals is an important element but not the only element of their work. To support the diversity of pedagogical approaches in the early years sector, my Department has overseen the development of a curriculum framework for early childhood education which acts as a scaffold for all of the different approaches, including the Montessori approach. As a further support, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment has developed an online resource which distils the key elements of Síolta and Aistear. This will be available next week.
Most, if not all, Montessori-trained practitioners are employed in private preschool education services. Their terms and conditions of employment are not set by the State. The question of how the State should invest in early years education is taken very seriously by the Government. My colleague, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, recently established an interdepartmental group to identify the optimum means of investing in the sector. I have established an early years advisory group. I have received funding for a small number of educationally based inspectors, the purpose of whom will be to assist with the educational content of early years provision.
I have also established an examination of the various qualifications people receive to work under the early years programme.
I welcome the Minister's agreement and interest in the educational component. Research from around the world shows that investment at preschool age, whether at two, three or four years of age, is the most effective investment a state can make in education. The problem is as follows. On the one hand, the Government is stating it takes it very seriously, values child care professionals, accepts and embraces the educational component and is examining the matter but that it is up to child care providers to set the terms and conditions. However, it pays child care workers through the early childhood care and education scheme and pays them such a small amount and provides so few child care supports that most child care workers must exist on the minimum wage during term and receive welfare benefits during school holidays. It is stating this has nothing to do with it. If the Minister accepts the core educational importance of this issue, does she accept that we should treat, train, hold to account and pay early child care professionals in a commensurate way and take them as seriously as do primary school and secondary school teachers?
I agree that early years education is vitally important to children, particularly those whose homes may not offer the kind of support other homes do in terms of books, vocabulary and the things that make a difference to a child in being ready to benefit from the education system. That is why I made the area a particular priority when I became the Minister for Education and Skills. The sector needs a focus and to be valued in a way that will bring up wages. The work of my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Gerald Nash, on the minimum wage will be of help to the sector. The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy James Reilly, established a cross-departmental group, in which my Department is participating. We will generally raise the resources for the area. In the past few years there was no money for any sector, but I agree with the Deputy that this area needs a focus. In some cases, there is a undervaluing of the sector.
I welcome what sounds like a very useful step in the right direction. Let me reframe the answer given by the Minister. Let us imagine she gives that answer about primary school teachers, saying we value them, that we are putting together an interdepartmental group and examining the minimum wage. Regardless of what we say, what interdepartmental groups are set up and how much we say we respect them, if the State was to pay primary school teachers the minimum wage, it would be a clear signal that we were not investing in the sector and are not serious about professional development. The Minister is thinking about this issue and working with colleagues on it. Childhood professionals are screaming for support. They are on the minimum wage and then move to social welfare payments. At the same time, we are saying we respect them and that we believe their educational input is at least as important as that of other education professionals. When might the childhood care and education providers see a package from the Government to support both continuous professional development, with commensurate accountability, and a substantial examination of investment in moving from the minimum wage to something more commensurate with that paid to other teachers in society?
One of the problems is that many of the providers are private companies and individuals that are paying people working in the sector. In turn, the parents are providing funding. We are coming from a low base in this area and there has been practically no progress for many years compared to that made in other countries. The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy James Reilly, told me that the cross-departmental group would work for a short period of time. It will report before the summer. I expect that at that point we will be able to provide definite answers to the questions posed about the timeframe involved.
113. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Education and Skills if she will clarify the situation regarding resource teaching hours for children with Down's syndrome who have a mild general learning disability; if she will urgently put the resources in place to ensure that children with Down's syndrome who have a mild general learning disability will receive the same resource teaching as pupils with a moderate general learning disability; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [9020/15]
View answerThe purpose of this question is to ask the Minister if she will clarify the situation regarding resource teaching hours for children with Down's syndrome who have mild learning disabilities and if she will provide an update on whether the necessary resources will be put in place to ensure that these children will have access to dedicated resource teaching hours from September next. The children to whom I refer have not had such access up to now. The delay of one year which the Minister has announced in respect of the introduction of the new model means that they may continue to be without resource teaching hours unless she decides to make specific allocation for them. I hope the Minister will provide an update on all these matters.
Under the existing allocation system, all pupils with Down's syndrome, including those with mild general learning difficulties, are entitled to receive additional teaching support. Support is provided from a school's general allocation model hours, or from an allocation of additional resource teacher hours allocated to schools by the National Council for Special Education, NCSE. In the current school year, my Department has allocated approximately 4,950 learning support-resource teachers through general allocation, while the NCSE has allocated more than 6,200 resource teachers.
I am aware that some parents, and Down's syndrome representative organisations, are concerned that the existing system does not provide certainty as to the support their children will receive under the general allocation model because these hours are distributed locally by schools. I recently met representatives from Down Syndrome Ireland and some parents of children with Down's syndrome to discuss their concerns in this regard. I will be meeting with more parents this week. I will consider and review the issues which have been raised and will keep the House informed of my developing views on this matter.
I welcome the Minister's comment to the effect that she is continuing to give consideration to this matter. However, it is disappointing that a decision has not already been made. A great deal of consideration was given to this matter by the Minister's predecessor. Parents of children with Down's syndrome who are designated as having a mild intellectual disability were hopeful that the new model - about which many have serious concerns - would assist their children by facilitating the allocation of additional hours. In view of the fact that the introduction of the new model has been delayed, it is crucial that a decision should be made in the next couple of months in order that those children with Down's syndrome who are designated as having a mild intellectual disability - as opposed to those with a moderate intellectual disability, who are automatically entitled to four and one quarter hours resource teaching per week - might be facilitated. Children with Down's syndrome who have mild intellectual disabilities are treated in the same way as any of their peers who may need additional learning support. Anyone who is the parent of a child with Down's syndrome will indicate that extra supports are required. It is unfair that such parents should be obliged to go another year without such supports being provided.
I urge the Minister to make a decision to facilitate the specific provision of these supports. Will she provide an update on when a decision will need to be made in order that the necessary resources might be put in place? Will she also indicate when she intends to make an announcement in respect of this matter?
On the question of children who are diagnosed as having mild intellectual disabilities in the context of the Down's syndrome spectrum, the position in this regard was clearly explained to me by the parents of those children. They also outlined the fact that their children need supports and greater certainty regarding the supports they obtain in school.
On when a decision will be made, I need to examine the overall position quite quickly. This is not a matter which can be allowed to lie for too long, particularly in the context of the need to make provision in respect of allocations for the next school year.
In terms of the Deputy's disappointment regarding the fact that the new model has not been implemented, it became clear to me that we were simply not ready to implement it because we lacked full information to allow us to assess the complex needs of the children involved. In addition, we would not have been able to respond adequately to concerns regarding what would happen in individual schools next September if the new model were introduced. I am conscious of the fact that there are specific issues relating to children with Down's syndrome.
I agree with the Minister on the concerns which many people harbour in respect of the new model. It is appropriate that the implementation of the latter has been delayed. I am of the view that it should be the subject of a strict examination in the context of how it will work in practice in order to ensure that it will not place certain schools at a disadvantage or lead to a deterioration in the level of support which schools and the children in question currently receive. I am particularly concerned with regard to a specific category of children, namely, those with Down's syndrome who have mild, as opposed more severe, intellectual disabilities.
Brendan O'Connor recently wrote eloquently in the Sunday Independent about what parents like him experience when they bring their children for assessments. Despite their best intentions, they know that if their children are diagnosed with a mild intellectual disability they will not get the support they need, whereas if the assessment results in the diagnosis of a moderate disability, they will receive 4.25 hours of assistance per week. That is a cruel situation for parents because they face the prospect that their children will not have the hours they need to reach their full potential. I urge the Minister to give this matter her utmost attention. I welcome that she met representatives from Down's syndrome Ireland recently but it is important that from this September onwards, children with a mild intellectual disability have the hours they need to develop to their full potential.
One of the issues that emerged for me from those meetings is that while the general allocation model may have been designed to support children who have a mild disability of any kind, parents feel that it is not addressing the needs of their children. That is why it is under active consideration.
114. Deputy Jonathan O'Brien asked the Minister for Education and Skills if she will provide an update on the development of a pilot scheme for the new allocation system for special educational needs resources for the National Council for Special Education, including the timeframe, the number of schools that will be involved, and the current consultation that is underway. [9096/15]
View answerThis is a follow-up question to ask the Minister to update us on the pilot scheme for the new model, the timeframe for its introduction and the number of schools in which it will operate.
I recently announced that I am not proposing to change the way teachers are allocated to schools for children with special educational needs for the coming school year. In the consultations, there was a broad welcome for the proposed new model from parents, disability groups, schools and stakeholders. However, there has not been sufficient time to address all of the concerns which have been raised in advance of the 2015 school year.
I have asked my Department to design a pilot of the new model, which schools could opt into on a voluntary basis. In conjunction with the National Council for Special Education and the Educational Research Centre, the Department is currently designing a pilot which could consider the impact of the proposed new model on schools. Following the completion of this work, consultation will take place with education partners. The number of schools involved and the timeframe for the establishment of the pilot will then be established.
I welcome that the Minister will not proceed with the pilot for the upcoming academic year in light of the genuine concerns that have been raised by parents and schools. While I agree wholeheartedly with the proposals contained in the new model, these concerns have to be addressed and, given the time and resource constraints on the Department, I support the introduction of a pilot project. However, the issue that arises in respect of the pilot project is that it will be based on voluntary opt-in. I do not think any school will opt into a system which could result in the loss of resources. That needs to be borne in mind when the pilot project is being developed.
There is no doubt that we are dealing with the same number of resources but they will be divided differently. Some schools will gain and others will lose. Perhaps the Department would be willing to carry out a scoping exercise based on the principle of what you have you hold to determine the cost arising to it for a school that gets an increased resource allocation under the new model. Is the Minister willing to commit to some sort of scoping exercise?
We have done some initial work in that regard because when we were considering whether to introduce the new model we needed to estimate how much it would cost and how it would impact schools. I do not have specific figures for the Deputy, however. One of the purposes of the pilot is to gather information about how the model would affect schools. I accept the Deputy's point that if a school thinks it would lose resources, it might not opt for the pilot. That is something we have to consider. We have established a steering committee with NCSE, the Education Research Centre, the inspectorate, the National Education Psychological Service and the special education unit to investigate what kind of pilot could be established, how we might decide which schools to accept for inclusion in the pilot, what kind of support might be needed and how we evaluate the pilot.
We are working on all of this.
I thank the Minister for clarifying the matter. The Department has done some work on the cost of implementing the new model, under which the Minister will still be dealing with a defined allocation of resources. Under the model some schools will lose resources, while others will gain. There will also be a cost in terms of implementation. What I am asking is whether it is possible to have or whether the Minister is willing to look at a situation where schools will hold what they have. Schools which have to date used their allocated resources would hold resources they might otherwise lose under the new model. Under the new model, as we know, some schools will gain on the basis of a wide number of factors. What would be the additional cost in that regard? I am talking not only about the implementation of the new model but also looking at what we have. If we were to have the new model side by side with a situation where no school lost resources, what would the additional cost be? I am asking the Department to do this.
We can look at what that would cost. One of the factors is that there is an increase every year in the numbers of resource teachers and SNAs on foot of demographic changes. If one was to adopt an approach where one would hold what one had, there might be an impact if the pattern were to change and a number of children with particular needs were to enter during the school year. Even if it were to hold what it had, the school might not have the resources required. It is a little more complex than this.
Under the new model the school would receive an increased resource allocation.
It would be based on assessed needs depending on the type of school it was. The matter becomes quite complex when one starts to look at the effect on individual schools. This illustrates one of the reasons we were not ready to bring it forward this year. We must ensure we are fair to all children. This is obviously a very sensitive issue in terms of each child's needs, no matter what school he or she is attending.
