Vol. 509 No. 3
8 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Education and Science if his attention has been drawn to the fact that class sizes in secondary schools are larger than they were in 1971; and the plans, if any, he has to reduce the pupil-teacher ratio. [19802/99]
13 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Education and Science his views on the fact that class sizes at second level are larger than in 1971; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20100/99]
28 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Education and Science if he will reduce the appointment ratio for teachers by two points to facilitate the recruitment of teachers and the reduction of class sizes in order to address the generally distributed problem of education disadvantage. [20097/99]
94 Mrs. B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the fact that a recent ASTI survey showed that 60 per cent of second level schools are offering general subject classes with more than the recommended maximum of 30 students, 30 per cent of schools have difficulty in providing access to the full range of science subjects due to inadequate staffing and 42 per cent of schools have difficulty in providing access to the full range of technical subjects due to inadequate staffing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20096/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 13, 28 and 94 together.
This school year is seeing the first allocation of additional teachers to second level schools for some years. This year provision was made for 225 additional teachers and this, together with the retention of 130 teachers who would otherwise have been redeployed, enables us to provide a remedial teaching service in every second level school and also to bring all disadvantaged schools into the home-school liaison scheme. I have also made improvements in the provisions available for guidance in our schools with a guaranteed minimum allocation now available to every school.
In addition to providing for additional teachers, I have this year introduced a new retention ratio for secondary schools. The impact of this is to retain in schools teachers who would otherwise be liable to be redeployed. In all, 150 teachers have been retained under this initiative and these teachers will continue to be available to improve the quality of education in our schools. At second level the issue of disadvantage is closely linked to the incidence of early school leaving. For that reason I put in place a number of initiatives focused on this difficult and intractable problem. In addition to the eight to 15 initiative, a new stay in school initiative is now commencing.
The issue of class size in second level schools is complex. Analysis of this issue conducted by my Department indicates a varied pattern of class size across the second level sector. In general, senior cycle classes are appreciably smaller than those at junior cycle and the pattern across subjects can vary significantly. It is in the nature of some subjects that they attract a relatively small cohort while traditionally core subjects account for larger classes. In addition, schools with like enrolments and resources can have quite different patterns of class size.
The principal concern in relation to class size must be the impact on educational attainment. In this regard, the great body of research indicates that the major impact of class size is to be found in the early years of primary education and for disadvantaged groups in particular. In the 1998-99 school year the pupil-teacher ratio at second level was approximately 15.4:1. Allowing for the increase of 225 teachers and a projected drop in enrolments, it is expected that the pupil-teacher ratio will reduce to approximately 15.1:1 in the current school year. This represents a decline in the actual PTR from that which prevailed in the 1970s. Within the current PTR there are a large number of very small classes.
Approaches to enrolment and redeployment at second level have remained relatively static over many years and one result of this is that there is no necessary link between the allocation of additional teachers and the achievement of key educational priorities such as widening subject and programme choice. Present redeployment arrangements fail to achieve a balancing of necessary resources among schools. For these reasons, I have recently written to the unions and management interests indicating my intention to have these issues examined by a technical or expert group in consultation with the various interests.
I have a strong commitment to continuing to improve the resources available to our schools. It is vitally important that investment in education in all its forms has the ultimate well-being of the pupil at its core and I see the review which I mentioned as being of considerable value in achieving that objective.
Can I take it from the Minister's reply that he does not accept the results of the national ASTI survey in spring 1999 which showed that 60 per cent of second level schools are offering general subject classes with more than the recommended maximum of 30 students, that 30 per cent of schools have difficulty because of inadequate staffing in providing the full range of science subjects and that 42 per cent of schools have difficulty because of inadequate staffing in providing access to the full range of technical subjects? Does the Minister accept or reject this survey? An appeal to complexity does not impress me.
We are willing to discuss the statistics with any group. We have statistics on class size at second level. One might not take the concept of complexity seriously but it is a fact. The key issue is how we allocate resources in the future to obtain our objectives. There are twice as many classes in the system, for example, that have fewer than 15 pupils than have more than 30 pupils. Reducing the general schedule by one or 0.2 in itself will not dramatically impact on many class sizes. I have asked the unions involved to find out what is the best way of providing additional posts at second level to achieve our core educational priorities. I do not accept that a simplistic approach of simply and solely reducing the schedule is the way forward.
Let us stick strictly to general subject classes for a start. I take from the Minister's first answer that the analysis that was made of reducing the class size would probably not apply there.
What does "general" mean?
I have difficulty accepting the first answer which suggests that reducing class sizes does not automatically lead to beneficial results. I have decided to concentrate on general subject classes and my argument, therefore, is that if over 60 per cent of second level schools are offering general subject classes with more than 30 pupils, it is obvious that reducing the class size would have an effect. Does the Minister agree that the inflexible way in which the panel operates at present means that teachers, with the changed enrolments in different subjects that are taking place, can stay on the books of a school while schools are prevented from hiring young, highly talented second level teachers simply because the ratio is being operated inflexibly? If the Minister is arguing for complexity within the subject provision, he cannot then retain an inflexible ratio at the same time. He cannot have it both ways.
I think the Deputy was referring to the redeployment scheme in the later part of his question.
Yes, I did.
That is more of a holy grail for the unions than for the Minister. I would be interested in examining that issue. The Deputy was correct in the sense – as I mentioned in my reply – that the redeployment scheme does not allow for a proper balancing of resources. We reduced the retention rate last year to try to free up some of the teachers on the redeployment panel to enable them to go back to the schools, as part of the core staffing. There is, however, an issue there that we want to examine. That is why we have written to the unions and the management with a view to all of us agreeing a process to get to the core of this issue. In terms of the core classes of English, Irish, and mathematics, there are schools with significant class sizes over 30.
The general subject classes?
Yes, but the size of many of the general subject classes would not be more than 30. Many of the subjects have very low class sizes. Many people would be surprised about that, and I am willing to make the data available to Members.
I will take the Minister up on that point. That data would be very welcome and I would also like him to send me the early start assessment that he promised but has not yet got a chance to send me.
Specifically on this matter, does he recall that before the last general election he published an interesting document under the banner "People before Politics" in which he gave an explicit com mitment that extra teachers would be made available to schools with under 300 pupils to provide for a broadening of the range of subject choice, but that has not happened. Why will he not allocate teachers instead of setting up another review group? He made this commitment in good faith to the electorate, but now he is pushing it off into endless rounds of discussions. He is two and a half years in Government and, perhaps, he will be out of it soon. Why does he not deliver on what he promised?
We have done so. I am the first Minister in years who has given a significant additional increase to second level in terms of—
I am referring to explicit commitment to a provision for schools with under 300 pupils.
We have—
The Minister is not answering the question I asked.
Deputy Bruton, allow the Minister to reply and the Deputy can then ask another question.
I am answering the Deputy's question. We provided for the first time in many years an increase of 225 additional permanent posts for second level, plus a reduction in retention ratio from 18:1 to 17:1, plus—
Deputy, allow the Minister to conclude.
—a retention initiative, which will involve more posts for schools in rural and urban Ireland, plus we are saying to the unions and management that we are prepared to allocate even more resources. When I say to the unions and management that we want—
The Minister can think and weave all he likes, but he has not delivered on what he promised. He is trying to con us.
Allow the Minister to reply.
If I could make one key point, we want a very short timeframe for the deliberations of the review group in which we are asking people to participate – in terms of the expert body – and we want to be in a position to give effect—
Like the pre-school review group. The Minister is fooling us.
—to its recommendations for the next school year.
The Minister is fooling the House all the time. We had the pre-school review and two years on from that not a jot has been done. This is another commitment – an explicit electorate commitment – to schools with under 300 pupils and nothing is being done to favour them over others. The Minister is only talking about general provisions across the board.
That is untrue. We have made decisions to establish new second level schools in some rural communities that did not have any.
That is not the commitment to which I referred.
It is part of our rural renewal programme. A further significant provision in second level teaching allocation resources is curriculum concessions. We have made very extensive provision to rural and urban schools over and above previous years.
That is not the promise to which I referred.
We are only mid-way through our term in Government and we have made very significant progress in the two years that we have been in power.
Táim ag déanamh tagartha do Cheist 68 in ainm an Teachta Gormley nach bhfuil anseo. An nglacann an tAire leis go bhfuil méadú tagtha ar fhoréigean sa seomra ranga le blianta beaga anuas agus ar fhadhb na ndrugaí agus na dteaghlach briste i measc scoláirí? Agus ar riachtanais oiliúna inseirbhíse chomh maith? Dá réir sin an féidir leis a rá go ndéanfar an comhréir idir múinteoirí agus daltaí a laghdú ó 19 in aghaidh an mhúinteora go dtí 15 in aghaidh an mhúinteora agus cathain a bheidh an ráta faoi bhun a 15 faoi mar atá á lorg ag an ASTI?
Tá sé ann anois thart timpeall an chórais. Sin é an meán timpeall an chórais. Mar a dúirt mé im' fhreagra "The ratio will be reduced to approximately 15.1 to 1 in the current school year." Agus nílim sásta leis an bhfigiúr sin fiú. Níl an daonra ag dul i méid sna scoileanna ach ag ísliú. Tá fadhbanna cosúil leis an bhforéigean sna ranganna ag dul i méid cé nach bhfuil sé chomh dona anseo go fóill is atá sé i dtíortha eile. Tá fáthanna eile ann atá freagrach as an méadú. Ní amháin cúrsaí sóisialta. I roinnt de na scoileanna tá an ratio ag ísliú agus tá cláir speisialta acu i gcuid de na scoileanna – LCVP agus LCAP – ina bhfuil na figiúirí i bhfad níos ísle ná sna gnáthranganna.
