Arthur Morgan
Ceist:56 Deputy Arthur Morgan asked the Minister for Education and Science the position regarding the implementation of the McIver report; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34005/07]
Other Questions.
Adult Education.
The social partnership agreement, Towards 2016, includes a provision which indicates that, having regard to developments in the plc sector, including the McIver report, concrete prioritised proposals would be prepared in regard to plc provision and be the subject of further negotiations between management and unions. The agreement also envisaged that the proposals to be developed would focus, in particular, on the larger plc providers. The agreement further provided that the union side would engage positively in regard to commitments on future working arrangements and developments in the sector.
I emphasise that the context for considering the future development of the plc sector and addressing the recommendations in the McIver report is the Towards 2016 agreement. The McIver report made a series of recommendations with significant resource implications. Its recommendations in regard to staffing alone would involve at least 800 additional staff at a cost of over €50 million. In that regard, the Towards 2016 agreement acknowledged that the level of resources for the plc sector would be determined in the light of resources generally and the implications for other areas of education.
Arising from the agreement, my officials developed a series of proposals for consideration and negotiation. The union and management representatives have met on a number of occasions in the past year to discuss the proposals and endeavour to arrive at agreement. These negotiations are ongoing. I do not propose to go into the detail of the negotiations, as that would be inappropriate and might prejudice the possibility of achieving a successful outcome.
Does the Minister of State think it appropriate that the plc sector should be held back from development and used as a bartering tool in the social partnership negotiations? Surely the Government recognises the needs of this sector in its own right? Given that plc courses were first launched in 1985 and the McIver report was published in 2003, why is that four years later there is no prospect of its implementation because it is subject to negotiation? How can we build a high-end economy when this is the attitude of the Government?
The context is the Towards 2016 social partnership agreement. The social partners have agreed proposals for the ongoing development of the plc sector. Negotiations are continuing between the Irish Vocational Educational Association and the TUI. They began this time last year. To date, eight meetings have been held between the Department and representatives of the social partners. I hope to be able to report progress in the new year and secure agreement between all parties in order that the plc sector can continue to flourish and develop.
Does the Minister of State accept that finance is the reason the Government is pushing this into a negotiating process? A total of €80 million per annum is spent on subsidising private schools. Substantially less than that would have implemented this report in full and ended the nightmare where the plc is virtually an off-shoot of the VEC process. That is totally inadequate and inappropriate.
I very much accept that funding is an issue. As I stated, the staffing implications alone of the McIver report would involve 800 additional staff at a cost of over $50 million. That would have implications for other areas of education as well.
We have agreed a path forward. We have initiated a negotiation process in the context of the Towards 2016 agreement and I am confident that agreement can be reached in the new year so that the plc sector can continue to develop.
School Curriculum.
Joanna Tuffy
Ceist:57 Deputy Joanna Tuffy asked the Minister for Education and Science her views on the theory of intelligent design; her plans to introduce intelligent design in both the junior certificate science curriculum and the leaving certificate biology curriculum; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [33449/07]
Every day in this job I learn something new and this is one of those.
I understand that proponents of intelligent design theory assert that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Those who favour this theory claim that the complexity of the natural world can be plausibly explained only by assuming an intelligent designer. Critics regard it as creationist theory reinvented to appear as science. I understand that intelligent design is not a recognised scientific theory and I can inform the Deputy that I am not aware of any plans to include it in the second level science curricula.
The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, has a statutory role in advising on the curricula to be taught in schools. Following the advice of the NCCA, a revised junior certificate science syllabus, with a strong emphasis on hands-on investigative approaches and on science process skills, was examined for the first time in 2006. The NCCA, as part of the senior cycle review, is currently examining the leaving certificate biology, physics and chemistry syllabi. I understand the revised syllabi in these subjects will, in addition to a number of other changes, have an increased emphasis on science process skills and on an investigative approach to the teaching and learning of science.
Intelligent design does not feature in either the junior certificate science syllabus or in the current leaving certificate biology syllabus. Instead, students learn about the theory of evolution.
It is accepted as a core belief in many religions that God created the human race. For the majority this is not seen as being in conflict with the theory of evolution. My Department has no wish to challenge the beliefs of individuals in this area. Rather, the approach is that within science, the emphasis is to explain phenomena through a well established process of observation and experimentation under controlled conditions, and the theory of evolution is taught in this context.
There is scope for other views and beliefs to be explored in the context of religious education. It should be noted that the national syllabus in religious education developed as an optional examination subject for students of all faiths or of none, includes a specific section on religion and science. One of the aims of this is to explore the tensions between science and theology and to focus, in particular, on such issues as Darwin's theory of evolution.
I welcome the Minister's confirmation that there are no proposals to introduce this in the area of the science curriculum which is the concern of many people. Will the Minister take it upon herself to ensure, through her inspectorate, that in the post-primary schools there is no attempt, despite the exhortations of quite a number, to introduce by the back door or otherwise the theory of intelligent design or creationism in the science curriculum? What happens in the religious doctrine classes is a separate matter altogether.
I am not aware of any pressure to introduce it at all into the science syllabus or of any school which is attempting to introduce it as part of the science syllabus. I did not know where the question came from but I am glad I have had the opportunity to learn about it.
Looking at other countries, in the United States, for instances, it was rejected as a science and could not be promoted. The Council of Europe has also stated that creationism is not based on facts and does not use any scientific reasoning. In the UK, they say it is not a recognised scientific theory, and it is not included in the science curriculum but can of course be used in religion.
I can confirm for the Deputy that it is not part of the syllabus, there are no proposals to make it part of the syllabus and I am not aware of any pressure to include it in part of the syllabus.
I want to ask a question related to intelligent design. The Minister produced a nice document on all the plans for schools in Dublin North.
Why do I feel this might stray beyond the parameters of the question?
I do not think so.
A Deputy
Straying into architecture.
Whether or not we discuss intelligent design, we need a forum in which to do so and that forum is normally the school. Has the Minister planning permission for any of the schools which she has promised the people of Dublin North or is she, like the Minister for Health and Children, full of plans, promises and reviews but no action?
That is not related to this question.
As a Christian, I believe God created it.
Fingal.
Legislative Programme.
Noel Coonan
Ceist:58 Deputy Noel J. Coonan asked the Minister for Education and Science when her Department will publish the student support Bill; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [33902/07]
Martin Ferris
Ceist:66 Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the proposed student support Bill. [34004/07]
Kathleen Lynch
Ceist:98 Deputy Kathleen Lynch asked the Minister for Education and Science the reason the student support Bill has not been published; if the heads of the Bill have been agreed by Government; if it has been sent to the parliamentary draughtsman’s Office; if so, when; if she will introduce it in the Dáil or Seanad; if she will have it published before the Christmas recess 2007; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [33431/07]
Denis Naughten
Ceist:726 Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Education and Science when she will publish the student support Bill; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34053/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 58, 66, 98 and 726 together.
As the Deputies will be aware, I announced in June 2006 that the vocational education committees, VECs, would be given sole responsibility for the administration of the third level student maintenance grants. Following my announcement, the Government gave approval for the drafting of a new student support Bill along the lines of the general scheme presented to them.
The proposed student support Bill will place all student grants on a statutory footing for the first time and will provide for the designation of grant awarding authorities and for the general basis on which grants will be awarded to eligible students.
My main priority in bringing forward this Bill is to provide a statutory framework for reforming the administration of student grants, and a coherent basis for a new single unified scheme of student maintenance grants.
The Bill is part of a programme of legislative and administrative reform, which will facilitate the introduction of service improvements in the administration of student grants, providing for greater consistency of application, improved client accessibility and timely delivery of grants to those who need them most. It will include guaranteed timeframes for the assessment of grants, an independent appeals procedure and more efficient arrangements for handling applications and making payments.
The existing arrangements for student grants encompass a mix of statutory and non-statutory administrative schemes involving a variety of different conditions and entitlements under each scheme. Therefore, in moving from the four existing schemes to a single statutory-based scheme, a range of complex issues emerged to be addressed. Officials in my Department have been working closely with the Attorney General's office to resolve all of these matters in order to ensure the new arrangements in the single scheme will be more coherent, accessible and understandable for students and their parents.
I want to reassure Deputies of my commitment to move forward with the programme of legislative and administrative reform of student grants. The student support Bill is at the final stages of preparation and my Department is currently working closely with the Office of the Attorney General to finalise the draft legislation. I hope to be in a position to have the Bill published shortly, if possible during the current Dáil session or, more likely, before the return of the Dáil in January.
The Minister will be aware that she gave a commitment in 2006 that this issue would be resolved. On at least ten occasions before the general election she stated this Bill would be published and the issue would be resolved. What are the delays at this stage?
Deputy Coonan asked when the Minister will publish this Bill. Will it be published in the next month before the new session begins and, more importantly, when will it be put before the Dáil?
This is the key question. Is the Minister giving a guarantee to the House that the new regime, in terms of placing responsibility for all maintenance grants within the VEC sector, will be in place by September 2008 so that there is a much greater streamlining of grants for third level students?
I am not sure Deputy Hayes heard the last line of my answer, where I stated the Bill will be published by the time the Dáil returns in January. We then intend to pursue taking it through the Houses immediately during the next term.
Our obvious commitment then is to ensure that matters can be speeded up for next year. My intention is to have the applications forms etc. ready by March of next year — it was somewhat later last year — and the publication of the schemes, which did not occur until June last, will occur in April of next year in order to provide a better service for students.
Question No. 98 relates to the same matter which the Minister has answered. Clearly, there has been an inordinate delay in the preparation of this and we do not yet have the full story as to why it has been delayed. The best promise we now have is that it will be ready towards the end of January next year.
Can the Minister confirm that the extraordinarily complex and highly bureaucratic application form which is a Kafkaesque deterrence to people attempting to apply for the grant, will be included as part and parcel of the reform of this process? I welcome what the Minister stated about the revised timetable, but can she indicate that the application form, which is part and parcel of the hurdle applicants must overcome, will be simplified and that the revision of same will form part of the debate in this House when the Bill eventually comes before us in the new year?
Deputy Quinn is correct. One of the main aims behind this is to provide a greater service for students. The current problem, and the reason it is so complex, is there are four schemes, one of which, that for higher education, is on a statutory basis. However, the VEC scholarships, third level maintenance for trainees and plc grants are all on an administrative basis. The aim behind the legislation, therefore, is to provide a unified scheme and form.
It is equally important that students and applicants provide all the information required of them. There has been much criticism of VECs and councils not meeting targets, etc., but, equally, many intelligent college students submit incomplete application forms. If we can get full co-operation from both sides, it will, ultimately, be to the benefit of the students.
Does the Minister accept that the requirement to supply death or marriage certificates as part of an application is somewhat excessive?
No, because the application is based on income. It is a means tested application and, therefore, people must have the relevant information. At all times, people try to be sensitive to the information required from people.
I welcome another announcement the Bill is imminent. Can the Minister give any indication as to when the legislation will be implemented and when the new scheme will begin? Is there any particular reason the USI and students have been kept in the dark with regard to consultation on the proposed legislation? I am told there has been no consultation whatsoever with them. We all welcome clarity on the issue. I am sure the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's constituency office is like mine and that every year, like me, he clears a patch to deal with the significant number of inquiries on the issue.
The Deputy is quite incorrect with regard to USI, which has been kept involved. As recently as the past fortnight, it has been asked for its views. It was also asked to indicate whether there were delays in individual councils or VECs around the country in the payment of grants and it has not reported any this year. Therefore, it is involved.
That is not what I was led to believe.
I welcome the Minister's statement today that the Bill will be published in January. Could she make the heads of the Bill available to the Oireachtas Committee on Education and Science before then so it can discuss the Bill with the student unions? My second question follows the line of Deputy Morgan's question. Will the Minister guarantee to the House that the new scheme will be in place for people to avail of it during next summer for the following academic year?
I do not see any point in distributing the heads of the Bill at this stage because the Bill will be published before the Dáil returns in January. That will provide ample opportunity for people to discuss it. I have indicated some of the things we will be able to do next year with regard to forms, but most likely we will still have four different schemes in operation next year.
Student Databases.
Brian O'Shea
Ceist:59 Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Education and Science the manner and method in which the post-primary pupil database in her Department is operated and indicate for each of the years 2004, 2005, and 2006 the number of foreign students recorded on that database and their percentage of the total of post-primary pupils; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [33434/07]
The post-primary pupils database was first implemented for the 1991-92 school year and it holds basic information on each pupil attending a post-primary school. In October of each year, all post-primary schools make a return to my Department detailing their enrolments for the year. This is known as the October return and it is used to populate the Department's post-primary pupils' database. In the school year 2006-07, the returns from 732 schools provided details on 333,718 pupils nationwide. The October return gives a snapshot of school enrolments by programme level, junior certificate, leaving certificate and class year, as at 30 September each year. Detailed information on the subject choice of each student is also collected.
A good overview of the type of information collected can be gained by looking at the second level education section of my Department's annual statistical report. Much of the data in that section of the annual report is taken directly from the post-primary pupils' database.
The in-house processing of the October returns and the provision of a helpdesk facility for schools is carried out by the post-primary pupils' data section of my Department. Processing of the October returns commences in October of each year and is completed around May. The Department uses the information supplied for a number of tasks, including payment of per capita grants to voluntary secondary schools and determination of the provisional teacher allocations for all sectors. An extract of the data is provided each year to the State Examinations Commission to facilitate the organisation and co-ordination of the junior certificate and leaving certificate examinations.
Among the data collected on each student is a country of origin designation. This designation defaults to Ireland, unless otherwise indicated in the schools October return. Based on this designation, I can inform the Deputy that the number of pupils whose country of origin was returned as other than Ireland was 12,037 pupils in the school year 2004-05; 13,791 pupils in the school year 2005-06; and 17,003 pupils in the school year 2006-07. It can be seen, therefore, that within a three-year period, an extra 5,000 students, other than Irish students, entered secondary school. The figure is a lot higher in primary schools.
The overall enrolment figures for all post-primary schools in each of these years were 305,808 in 2004-05; 303,031 in 2005-06; and 303,527 in 2006-07. We anticipate school numbers in post-primary schools will begin to increase again next September, but they have been declining for the past ten years or so.
The percentages requested by the Deputy for the number of children whose country of origin was other than Ireland are, therefore, 3.9% in 2004-05; 4.6% in 2005-06; and 5.6% in 2006-07. Of the many countries represented in each of these years, those from the United Kingdom consistently dominate in top spot with the United States also consistently featured in the top five countries of origin.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.