Olwyn Enright
Ceist:117 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science his proposals with regard to the introduction of a scheme to release information in relation to schools; and if he will make a statement on the matter [9885/04]
Priority Questions.
School League Tables.
In my view it is desirable that parents have information about schools that is meaningful, fair and fully rounded. At present, this information can often be anecdotal and based on hearsay. More recently, we have seen the introduction of an unofficial form of league tables based upon third level entry patterns. All this simply reflects that we have steered away from a real and honest public debate about this issue in favour of catchphrases and soundbites. We have allowed a vacuum to develop and it has been filled by superficial and limited information.
It is not good enough to suggest that the issue is one of crude league tables based upon raw examination results or nothing. I do not support that form of league table which has come into being in the absence of a well-constructed alternative. I do not want to see third level entry data continue as the only published yardstick of our schools' effectiveness. We are all aware that league tables based solely on academic results are a flawed measure of the effectiveness and quality of schools. Their use can distort the pattern of school enrolment and the access of students to education as well as the provision of curricula and participation in examinations. They can adversely affect the motivation of students and teachers alike. Their use can also lead to distortions and inequalities in the education system. It is not enough to say what we are against; we must also discuss what we want. For my part, I want a real debate about the real issues, including maximising the information for parents.
As regards the Minister's initial net point, that has been Fine Gael policy since the late 1990s, so we are coming from the same perspective in that sense. What does the Minister intend to achieve through the publication of league tables? I take his point that the current method of compiling such tables, by using information obtained from third level institutions through the Freedom of Information Act, gives us a one-sided approach. What does the Minister intend to do if a school is doing particularly well in the league tables? Obviously, the fear for such a school is that it may receive less funding. Likewise, if a school is faring poorly, will the tables be used as a yardstick for assessing a school's failure to put other matters in place?
Does the Minister agree they could be used to assess the Department in terms of what it provides to schools, for example, PE halls and the implementation of the junior certificate science syllabus, which all schools were not in a position to implement? If schools are evaluated, they should be judged on whether they can offer the entire curriculum. Will the Minister confirm whether league tables will assess a student's baseline as he or she enters school and follow him or her through the system so that a fair result can be achieved? A school in a disadvantaged area cannot be compared to a fee paying school, which does not take in students from all backgrounds. How will the Minister ensure fairness in this regard?
I welcome the Deputy's acceptance of the net point. Most people in education agree on steering clear of only using examination results as a measure of a school's performance. The purpose of the scheme is to recognise schools that do what they are supposed to, taking into account all the circumstances mentioned by the Deputy, and provide maximum information so that parents and students are enabled to make well informed choices regarding schooling. The scheme will not provide that because a school fulfils its role in producing well rounded, successful students, it should be hammered and allocated less money.
The Deputy referred to a number of factors that might be taken into account. While I have not put forward a policy document, I have initiated a debate on this issue but a number of issues raised by the Deputy will be considered, including the socio-economic background of students, the facilities available, extracurricular activities and other provisions that are not currently academically measured. These are value-added measures.
I do not like using the phrase "league tables" because it is shorthand and conveys the wrong meaning. However, I would like to ensure, taking all factors into account, that we have a reasonable picture of how well a school is doing and, in cases where they are not doing as well as they should, the Department could assist them to raise their standards.
Special Educational Needs.
Jan O'Sullivan
Ceist:118 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Education and Science if he is refusing to sanction more than 4,000 applications for special needs resources received before 31 August 2003 that have been assessed and reviewed within his Department until a survey of special needs has been completed; when he expects the survey to be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9889/04]
I am committed to the sustained development of supports and services for children with special educational needs. Approximately 1,000 applications for resources for new entrant pupils were considered on a priority basis for the current school year. Each application was responded to by, or shortly after, 1 September last. As a consequence, a further 131 resource teacher posts and 282 special needs assistant posts were allocated to primary schools. In addition, my Department is continuing to respond to emergency applications as they are received.
The balance of more than 4,000 applications received between 15 February and 31 August 2003 has been reviewed by a dedicated team comprising members of my Department's inspectorate and the national educational psychological service. These applications are being further considered in the context of the outcome of surveys of special needs provision conducted over the past year or so. Account is also being taken of the data submitted by schools as part of the recent nationwide census of special needs provision.
It is intended to advise all applicant schools of the result of their applications as soon as possible. This notification will take account of the outcome of discussions on a weighted system of allocation of special education teacher support. In that regard, my officials have initiated discussions with representative interests on the development of a weighted model. The development of a weighted system is complex and time consuming, involving not only discrete allocations for individual schools, but shared allocations between smaller schools. I am, however, hopeful of a conclusion in the near future.
While it would be premature to anticipate the outcome, the basic purpose of the weighted system is to ensure each school has the level of resources required to cater for its pupils with special educational needs. Pending the conclusion of discussions with the representative interests, schools are advised to refer to circular 24/03, which issued in September 2003. This circular contains practical advice on how to achieve the most effective deployment of resources allocated for special educational needs within the school.
While nobody objects to the Minister carrying out a review, more than 4,000 children whose psychological assessments have been reviewed by the Department and on which a decision is ready to be made are being held up indefinitely. These children are young and need special supports. I have a letter relating to an eight year old whose assessment was forwarded to the Department more than a year ago but he still has not received support, and I could produce many similar letters. How can the Minister stand over a scenario where young children who have been assessed as needing special support are being held up by his Department without a decision?
Supports are available in many schools as part of the exercise we have carried out. The 1,000 applications processed for the most needy children at the beginning of the current school year related to children who were entering schools for the first time or who were attending schools in which support was not available for special needs children. The 4,000 applications on hand in the Department will be dealt with in the near future in the context of the change I am introducing to the system, which will ensure in future children with a higher incidence of special needs and their parents will not have to go through the trauma of psychological assessments, schools will not have to be in almost constant contact with the Department and the Department will not be snowed under with applications that can be dealt with by schools.
Unfortunately, adopting a streamlined system that will be much easier on parents, pupils, schools and the Department takes a little time to get right. I accept people are waiting but I hope they will not have to wait much longer and a much improved and more customer friendly provision for special needs in schools will be in place. It has to be done but, unfortunately, this group of children are being delayed as a result. However, if I do not do this now, the same thing will happen year in, year out and I am not prepared to stand over that.
I accept that the Minister may change the system for the future but it is entirely heartless to hold up 4,000 people. The letter I have states——
It is not appropriate to quote.
What will the Minister do regarding schools that do not have spare resource capacity and children who do not receive the help they need? There are hundreds of these children throughout the State. Is the Minister committed to children with special needs when he allows such a scenario to happen?
I am absolutely committed to them and that is why I am trying to ensure they do not have to go through this again. I have had numerous meetings with a variety of interested parties to try to put in place a system that meets the requirements of special needs higher incidence children so that their parents do not have to get a psychological assessment report and that, from next September, schools will be able to cater for the special needs of children from day one. I am not heartless.
In the meantime, such children have been left for one year without support.
Teacher Union Conferences.
Finian McGrath
Ceist:119 Mr. F. McGrath asked the Minister for Education and Science if he will provide an update on his talks with the three teacher unions (details supplied) regarding his attendance at their Easter conferences. [9887/04]
Jan O'Sullivan
Ceist:121 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Education and Science the reason he has declined invitations from the ASTI, INTO and TUI to address their annual teachers conferences in April 2004 unless they agree to his demand to change the format of the conferences; if he accepts that this is a major departure from the traditions established by his predecessors; if he has made alternative plans to address these unions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9890/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 119 and 121 together.
I welcome the opportunity to set the record straight on the question of my attendance at the forthcoming teacher union conferences. The teacher unions are important bodies in Irish education and it is highly desirable that they should have a significant role in the debate on the major issues facing our education system. It is equally desirable that there be clear and transparent communication between the Minister of the day and the unions.
The traditional format of the Minister's attendance at teacher conferences does not lend itself to either dialogue or communication. It is more about heat than light and a changed format is long overdue. I wrote to the three teacher unions in February outlining my views and suggesting a revised format. Both the Teachers' Union of Ireland, TUI, and the Association of Secondary Teachers Ireland, ASTI, indicated that they were not disposed to a change of format. The Irish National Teachers' Organisation, INTO, was constructive in its response and, following discussions with my officials, revisions to the traditional format were agreed with that union. Subsequently my officials met representatives of the TUI and ASTI. As of now, there is no agreement in place with these unions which would enable me to attend their conferences.
Does the Minister accept that the INTO, TUI and ASTI have made and continue to make a major contribution to education and society? Does he agree that teachers are at the front line in the delivery of quality services to pupils, especially children with disabilities or those in disadvantaged areas?
Does the Minister accept that the teachers unions should decide the structure of their conferences without interference from the Minister or politicians? Does he agree that the integrity and independence of trade unions, in this case the teacher unions, should always be respected and defended? Does he accept that, in general, unions seem to be under threat in the current political and economic climate? Does he accept that the protection of the independence and integrity of unions leads to a more healthy and democratic society?
Does the Minister accept that teacher bashing does not contribute to Irish education? For example, many link the decline in Scottish rugby and football to the loss of goodwill in the Scottish education service because of the serious industrial dispute some time ago. What will the Minister do to create goodwill among the three teacher unions?
On at least 30 occasions in the past 12 months, I stated publicly that our education system owes a huge debt of gratitude to all teacher, past and present, for the education system. That is not publicised that often, but I have the records and can stand over it. I have nothing but the height of regard for teachers. I accept that the vast majority of teachers do a good job. Like politicians, they are not all perfect and the sooner we face that reality the better.
I have no desire to decide on the structure of the teacher union conferences. Traditionally and probably for as long as the unions are in existence, the Minister for Education and Science has had a slot to address the conferences. I merely requested that the slot be used in a different way and that, instead of the President or the General Secretary of the union making a speech which may or may not have referred to the points raised by the Minister in his preceding speech, there would be dialogue and greater engagement and communication. In my first letter, I suggested that a "yes" style format would be the way to do that, but two of the unions rejected that out of hand. Perhaps they adopted Deputy Finian McGrath's approach to this, that nobody would tell them anything. I reiterate that I made a request and I did not tell anybody to do something.
One union believed it was important that the Minister should be present and that it should discuss how it might accommodate a change. It had no difficulty with it and we have agreed that change. The two other unions were approached subsequently and some discussion took place with one union on the format agreed with the other union. The executive of the other union will meet on Thursday, so the position is not finally decided.
The independence of trade unions is not under threat from me. As the Deputy stated, we live in a democratic society and, as an elected represented of the people, I have a democratic right to ask the unions to do things in a different way to have greater engagement and a more productive session. I want to attend the teacher union conferences to state my views and listen to their views. There seems to be some difficulty in moving away from the traditional format that generates more heat than light. My door is still open. I have asked both unions if they would indicate whether they intend to engage as unions in the "yes" process. I have indicated to both that I would like to know that before we finalise discussions, but that is not a precondition and the unions can say no if they wish.
If anybody can point out a specific instance where I engaged in teacher bashing, I would be delighted to see it. I have never said anything derogatory about teaching or the teaching profession. I dedicated the EU Presidency to it. I will launch a book dedicated to learning and teaching in this country, which is a mark of my esteem for teachers. As I must take a stand on union matters, there has been a tendency to paint that as teacher bashing.
I was not aware of the Scottish example to which the Deputy referred, but I am aware that, at one of the "yes" meetings, someone spoke of the decline in Welsh rugby and I had it checked out. A Welshman I met on Saturday confirmed that the decline in Welsh rugby over time could be traced to a lack of——
How much time is left in this slot?
Three and a half minutes.
I object to the fact that I get only three minutes when I am supposed to share the time.
Why did the Minister not discuss this privately with the unions? Why did he deliberately court public confrontation with the unions on the issue of attending the teacher conferences? Would it have been in the spirit of partnership if he had tried to engage with the unions on this issue and perhaps come to an agreement with which both parties would have been happy before this became a public matter?
In light of Deputy Finian McGrath's question and the extent to which teachers give voluntarily of their time above and beyond the call of duty, does the Minister fear his ongoing confrontation with them will cause the sorts of problems experienced with Welsh teachers to which he has just referred? The Minister did not want to make benchmarking payments to teachers who were not in school for a few days before Christmas despite that school management made the decisions involved rather than individuals.
While I have never sought confrontation with the unions, I will not back off on a benchmarking agreement which was freely entered into. That is what they did. While I have a duty and a responsibility to teachers, I also have a duty to pupils and parents. I cannot become a spokesman for teachers or any other education interest group except in particular circumstances. I want the effective, efficient education system which produces well-rounded young people that I hope teachers want also.
I do not deliberately court controversy. I wrote a letter privately to the unions on 17 February and it remained with them for some time. While it was being dealt with quietly behind the scenes, my Department's press office received a phone call from a media outlet which stated one union had been in contact about a letter. The union had informed the media outlet that there was no way it would accede to the Minister's request to change union procedures.
Which union?
I will not say in the House. My press office was provided with many quotes as part of an attempt to stir things up. The other two unions went about their business calmly. While the matter came into the public arena, it was not through me.
I wanted to make the benchmarking payment to teachers as quickly as possible, but I could not until the agreements with the unions were finalised formally. From my experience of travelling around the country, I am aware that teachers individually complied with the benchmarking agreement. It should also be noted that 25% of second level schools and 20% of primary schools had not complied with the standardisation of the school year by the closing date at Christmas. I owe it to the 75% of compliant secondary schools and the 80% of compliant primary schools to ensure that those who have not complied are taken to task. Benchmarking was payable on the basis of a signed agreement. While many teachers complied with the agreement's terms, I could not make payments prior to the final agreement of the unions. If I did, I would have been in trouble with the unions for operating outside the terms of Sustaining Progress. I am not looking for confrontation, but I will not back down if I feel I have to defend a particular interest in the education system.
Further Education.
Olwyn Enright
Ceist:120 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science the details of the change in policy instigated by his Department regarding funding for colleges for further education; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9886/04]
Most colleges offering post-leaving certificate courses are operated under the management of the vocational education committees. Funding is provided for pay and non-pay costs on the basis of the approved number of places on approved courses run by the colleges.
In the current academic year, enrolments on post-leaving certificate courses in certain schools and colleges have exceeded the number of places approved by my Department. Teacher allocations for 2004-05 and capitation grants have been allocated on the basis of the approved number of places or the numbers enrolled. During the 2003-04 academic year, almost 28,700 places were approved by my Department. It is considering appeals from vocational education committees, schools and colleges for the recognition of the excess numbers enrolled for the purposes of teacher allocations and grants. A decision on the matter will be taken shortly in light of the totality of demands for teaching resources across the system.
Excess numbers have been enrolled every year, but this is the first in which the cap has been enforced by the Minister of State. Why is that the case? Is she aware that the colleges are not receiving capitation grants for every student enrolled and that teacher allocations are less than they should be as a result of the cap? Colleges are losing out on the allocation of posts of responsibility. Will the Minister of State confirm or deny that the cap is downward rolling? That means a decline in any subsequent year will result in lower caps. In effect, all further education colleges have now received their maximum intake and cannot grow or expand.
I wish the Minister to note that further education colleges play a valuable role. They target students who, for a variety of reasons, may not be able to attend other third level institutions. They also offer a different type of course. How will new courses in further education be initiated and how will the sector react proactively and quickly to the needs of industry? Will colleges have to turn away students from this point on as numbers are capped?
Representatives of the further education sector have written to Department to ask either the Minister or the Minister of State to attend a meeting to discuss this matter over the coming weeks. Will the Minister of State confirm that the invitation will be accepted?
I thank the Deputy for raising the question as it provides me with an opportunity to underline a number of points. Post-leaving certificate courses provide the young people and adults who take part in them with a tremendous opportunity to return to education. It is important to note that these courses are seen as providing development from the bottom up. They respond to a need within the community. There is concern about the numbers who wish to take up post-leaving certificate courses and the extent to which vocational education committees and schools wish to make provision.
We must examine the numbers interested in taking up post-leaving certificate courses. There are two interesting statistics to note. During the academic year 1997-98, there were 21,278 enrolments on these courses and 28,656 during 2002-03. A total of 37,900 places was sought in the year 2002-03. While we should welcome the need for further courses given the bottom-up nature of the development they provide, growth must be managed. I have ensured that my Department takes part in discussions with the Irish Vocational Education Association, IVEA, and, to that end, a meeting took place yesterday. Tomorrow, officials from my Department will take part in a meeting with the Teachers' Union of Ireland, TUI.
I willingly accept that post-leaving certificate courses represent an important element of our further education provision. We recognise the growth in the numbers of those seeking to enrol on courses. Our aim is to manage that growth.
I asked eight specific questions, of which the Minister of State has answered only one. There are seven left to answer in the minute the Minister of State has left. I ask her to deal with the questions which have been asked.
I am attempting to do so. It is important to understand the context. The most important question the Deputy asked has been asked by those who are working in the post-leaving certificate sector. They wish to know what is happening in terms of the allocation of teachers in the current and subsequent academic years. Unfortunately, we do not have unlimited funds to look after all these programmes. The number of participants in many of these courses is growing. We must be able to manage this and this can only be done through discussion. This is why I feel the IVEA and TUI discussions are particularly important.
The Minister of State made this point prior to the discussions.
I have responsibility for further education. I want to see an improvement in every possible way in the provision——
The time for this question has expired.
——for young people and adults who have an opportunity to take on these programmes.
Cutting numbers does not achieve this.
We must work through this change systematically.
The Minister's response has not answered the questions that exist. How will her objectives for the provision of these services be facilitated if she is cutting back the numbers?
It is not a question of cutting back in numbers. We are attempting to look at the overall position in the context of available funds. One need only consider the statistics I outlined in my response, there is no falling back on numbers.
From here on in, that is.
We want to take on board the issues of immediate importance to those who wish to provide the post leaving certificate courses and those who wish to avail of them. Everyone is aware of the PLC review, the McIver report. The purpose of this is to examine and make recommendations on structures and resources.
We have exceeded the time allotted to Priority Questions. We now turn to non-Priority Questions. It is necessary to remind Members that the Minister's initial reply is subject to an upper limit of two minutes, and supplementary questions and answers to them are limited to one minute. The Chair intends to apply these limits.
Question No. 121 answered with QuestionNo. 119.