Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 2 May 2001

Vol. 535 No. 2

Other Questions. - Schools Funding.

Bernard J. Durkan

Ceist:

50 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Education and Science the extent to which he has carried out a review of the funding of various second level schools and colleges throughout the country; if he accepts the need to provide a structure within which equal and adequate funding is available to all such schools; if he further accepts the need to bring such funding into line with modern requirements; if he has received communication in this regard from the various school authorities throughout the country; when he expects to be in a position to respond favourably to such requests; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11313/01]

Breeda Moynihan-Cronin

Ceist:

104 Mrs. B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Education and Science if it is his intention to reach a common funding base for all second level schools in view of the findings and recommendations of the Blackstock report on the funding of the voluntary secondary school sector and his acceptance of the funding disparity between this and other second level sectors; and if so, the time scale which will apply. [12309/01]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 50 and 104 together.

I am aware of requests by voluntary secondary schools for increased funding. As the Deputies will be aware the funding arrangements for our schools have evolved in an ad hoc manner and reflect the sectoral division of our second level system.

I have already made it clear in the House that I consider the report of the steering group on the funding of second level schools represents a comprehensive review of the funding arrangements of post primary schools and is a valuable document in both its analysis and clarity of approach.

The recommendations made in the steering group's report for the future funding arrangements of second level schools are under continuing review. At the core of the recommendations are the principles of equity of treatment, transparency of funding structures and adequacy of funding levels. Although my priority is to focus on the issue of adequacy of funding, I am conscious of the traditional anomalies that have evolved in the funding arrangements for the different school types at second level, and I am committed to bring greater equity and cohesion to this aspect of the funding of schools.

I have already shown my commitment in this regard by establishing the school services support fund. The introduction of this support fund is a significant initiative in the funding of our schools. A school with 500 pupils will now receive additional annual funding of £20 per pupil or £10,000, with a minimum payment for smaller schools of £4,000. This fund will channel an additional £7 million to schools each year. While provision for support services, including secretarial and caretaking, is a particular focus of this fund, schools are being given discretion, in line with that available in relation to per capita grants, as to how this additional funding is best utilised in the interests of their pupils. In addition, schools will benefit from a further increase in the standard per capita grant. The grant was increased to £184 from £177 last year. It was further increased by £8 from September last to £192 and will be significantly increased by £10 for the next school year. For a school with 500 pupils, this amounts to an extra £12,500 per annum and a total capitation grant of £101,000 towards general expenses. An additional per capita grant of £30 per pupil is paid to disadvantaged schools bringing the total grant in the case of such a school with 500 pupils to £116,000.

My approach to date has clearly shown my commitment and determination to address the needs of schools. I am committed to improving further the funding position of second level schools in the light of available resources and to addressing the issue of equity raised by the voluntary secondary schools.

Does the Minister agree that the principal issue is one of equity between the voluntary second schools, and VEC community schools, community colleges and comprehensive schools which get a bigger budget from the Department for caretaker, secretarial and minor repairs? Notwithstanding what the Minister said about the school services support fund which gave an increase across the board, will he bridge the gap between voluntary schools and VEC community and comprehensive schools? Does the accept there is an enormous administrative burden on secondary and primary schools in terms of health and safety, liaison with parents and all the additional duties we have imposed on them in recent years arising from the Education and Welfare Act, the Education Act which requires them to publish annual plans and the establishment of the NEPS? Without increased secretarial support they are simply unable to meet their obligations. The Minister is aware of this as the schools are not publishing their plans due to lack of resources. Will the Minister enable them fulfil their legal obligations by bridging the gap and providing realistic funds in particular for administrative and secretarial work?

I remind the House that a maximum of one minute is allowed for supplementary questions and one minute for answers. I ask all Members to stay within one minute and Members asking questions to confine themselves to submitting questions in fairness to their colleagues who wish to ask supplementary questions. I want to try to give everybody an opportunity.

I agree with the Deputy that there is a matter of equity, but this has arisen because of the traditional situation. It is another of the great gaps which must be closed. Currently, under the free education scheme all schools with enrolments of upwards of 200 pupils are now receiving grants for caretakers and secretaries, unless they were in the 1978 scheme under which full salaries are paid. There are a number of schools in this scheme. I want to do more in this area.

The support fund applied to those schools, but also applied across the board, and I appreciate that point has been made by the joint managerial board, for example. I plan to continue dealing with the issue of equity, which is important and which applies in particular to caretakers, insurance and other such matters.

A huge amount of time and energy went into preparing the Blackstock report. Does the Minister accept it is quite insulting to those involved in preparing the report to set it aside and merely say it will inform policy? The Minister has accepted there is a significant funding gap between the voluntary secondary school sector and other post primary sectors. Does the Minister intend to close that gap no matter how long it takes? Everybody deserves to know where he stands on this issue. Does he not accept that at this stage in our social and economic development the State should meet the full cost of running all public schools?

When the Deputy says the Blackstock report will inform policy, that means policy will be directed along the lines of the report. The report did not provide funding; that must be allocated budget by budget.

What about closing the gap?

I have said I want to close the gap but it will take time. Where the gap begins and ends is a matter for the schools. I made some progress last year but I will try to do more.

Over the past three and a half years we have increased the budget for education by 70%, which is a huge extra provision. It is indicative of the fact that so many gaps need to be filled. This is one with which I will continue.

Is the Minister aware of the tremendous work of the Church-based schools – which includes most of the private schools – that they no longer have easy access to communities and that their costs are, therefore, totally different? He has admitted there is a difference in this regard but does he accept there is a need for an increase in the funding provided?

Given that the education budget has increased by 70% in the past three and a half years, why is the budget for the Monaghan Youth Federation services being removed? Is he aware that County Monaghan has the lowest uptake of third level attendance in the country?

Does the Minister find it acceptable that the voluntary secondary school system is dependent on so-called voluntary contributions from parents? Does he accept that this imposes a burden on many parents? Does he also accept the principle that at this stage in our economic development the State should meet the full running costs of our schools?

Is the Minister aware that over the years and through the initiative of parents groups and management, many schools have had access to FÁS personnel for maintenance purposes without which they would not have had the resources to provide adequate maintenance? Is he also aware that where it has been withdrawn due to changes in the FÁS schemes a two tier system has arisen where some schools are properly financed for maintenance and secretarial staff while others must go without? The Minister must urgently address this inequity.

Mr. Hayes:

The loss of the community employment scheme to education will mean the schools affected will suffer further. When will a final agreement be reached between his Department and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in respect of community employment? In the absence of such an agreement some schools will continue to suffer irrespective of the funding mechanism introduced by the Minister.

I am aware of the work being done. I attended a Christian Brothers school where I had to engage in many activities and I am aware of the changes that have occurred. In those days the schools would not have wanted too much State involvement. Nowadays they are requesting funding. There is a big gap to be filled and we are addressing that.

The question of FÁS and the community employment scheme is important and topical. I am aware of what is involved, not only in terms of the schools but also in the social welfare area where it applies. I hope the matter will be resolved shortly.

Mr. Hayes:

How soon?

Although the numbers involved may dwindle, the money allocated will be fixed at a certain amount. It will need to be phased in because those involved in community employment schemes will be under the umbrella of FÁS and if they are transferred to my Department they will have to be looked after. Their future involvement must also be addressed to ensure they are not excluded. These aspects are the subject of agreement between FÁS, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and my Department. We are anxious to take it over as quickly as possible but naturally they are anxious to see these matters resolved in a satisfactory manner. We are close to a conclusion.

Barr
Roinn