Brian Hayes
Ceist:1 Deputy Brian Hayes asked the Minister for Education and Science the number of school children who have missed more than 20 days of school in 2008; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19474/09]
Priority Questions.
School Absenteeism.
The National Educational Welfare Board, NEWB, is the statutory body with responsibility for school attendance. A key function of the board is to compile statistics on attendance. Schools are required to submit reports on levels of attendance at the end of the school year. This data is analysed and the findings published by the board. The findings will help identify trends and measure the effectiveness of interventions.
The most recent statistics on national levels of school attendance are contained in the report entitled Analysis of School Attendance Data in Primary and Post-Primary Schools: 2003-4 to 2005-06, published by the NEWB in December 2008. The report shows that 11% of primary school students and 17% of post-primary students were absent for 20 days or more. This equates to 100,000 children approximately with absences of more than 20 days each year. Data for the 2006-07 and 2007-08 school years are currently being prepared by the NEWB for analysis.
Reasons for absence can vary and while many can be explained by factors such as illness, the data show that non-attendance is more prevalent among older children and children who come from more disadvantaged areas.
Educational welfare officers employed by the NEWB work with about 10,000 children each year with reported attendance or school placement difficulties. Research generally shows that the underlying causes of non-attendance are complex and are strong indicators of overall child welfare. Combating the issues underlying poor attendance requires concerted effort and better integration of existing support services.
The NEWB is one aspect of the comprehensive framework that this Government has put in place to improve school attendance and encourage more young people to finish school. While the primary responsibility is on parents to ensure that their children attend school, schools also encourage regular attendance by children. The other key support services are the school completion programme, SCP, and the home school community liaison, HSCL, programme. School attendance is a central objective of the school completion programme with attendance tracking being one of its main preventative strategies. HSCL co-ordinators work with parents to promote school attendance and its importance for success in school. These services are available to all schools participating in Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools, DEIS, the action plan for educational inclusion. In line with Government policy the board prioritises its resources to support schools participating in DEIS.
To support and advise families the NEWB has issued leaflets to parents, runs public awareness campaigns to raise the profile of school attendance and operates an education helpline to provide information on attendance and related matters. Guidelines for developing school codes of behaviour, which were issued to all schools last year, will assist schools to put in place strategies to deal with poor behaviour and other possible causes of poor attendance.
Does the Minister of State think it acceptable that information which schools provide to the National Educational Welfare Board at the end of each school year cannot be provided to his Department? The latest information he has cited, suggesting that more than 100,000 children miss more than 20 school days per year, is three years out of date. My question referred to 2008. The Minister of State cannot provide information which is in the possession of the NEWB. Does the Minister of State think that is acceptable?
A vast amount of information is involved. The data for 2006-07 and 2007-08 school years are currently being prepared by the NEWB for analysis. The statistics show that figures for non-attendance are stable. Presumably that is why the Deputy wants the information.
Is it acceptable or not?
The NEWB does a very good job. It is a relatively new statutory organisation.
So, it is acceptable. I have another question. The Minister of State is defending the National Educational Welfare Board. He thinks it acceptable to give the House information which is three years out of date when each school in the country has given the current information to the NEWB. Does the Minister of State think that is acceptable?
The Minister of State has said 100,000 children miss 20 school days or more. Can he confirm that the NEWB only deals with cases of 60 days or more of non-attendance? Children who miss 20, 30, 40 or 50 days of school have no intervention whatsoever through their local educational welfare officer. Does the Minister of State think that is acceptable?
This involves the processing of a vast amount of information. School attendance is, first and foremost, the responsibility of parents. The school also has a role to play. The educational welfare officers provide a service, particularly to schools participating in DEIS.
School attendance is a complex issue and the National Educational Welfare Board is dealing with it. In the first instance it is a matter for parents. There are schemes in place to encourage attendance, such as the schools completion programme and the home school community liaison programme. They all play a role in that regard.
Does the Minister of State accept that this country has a chronic school attendance problem? On the basis of the information he has given the House, albeit three years out of date, one child in eight misses more than 20 school days per year, which is above the statutory amount set out in the Act. Is that acceptable? This year, we will have fewer educational welfare officers than last year directly involved in such cases.
Does the Minister of State believe it appropriate that a woman be given a prison sentence in connection with chronic non-attendance, as happened recently? Does he accept the criticism in the Barnados report, published this week, of the utter chaos in his Department and the relevant agency with regard to directly intervening?
The custodial sentence was handed down in a very complex case which was taken to court as a last resort. There were many other interventions prior to that. However, I cannot discuss the details of a specific case or argue with a judgment handed down by the courts.
The NEWB is concentrating on the DEIS areas and is dealing with school attendance. I do not accept that we have a chronic school attendance problem. A number of strategies are in place. It is my intention to reform the NEWB with a view to integrating services. That will be of great help in dealing with this situation.
Schools Patronage.
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:2 Deputy Ruairí Quinn asked the Minister for Education and Science if his Department has, following a meeting of the Joint Committee on Education and Science on 9 April 2009, been in contact with a person (details supplied), to discuss his proposals, made on a number of occasions but most recently at an education conference in Kilmainham in 2008, that he, as patron, wished to divest himself and his archdiocese of the patronage of a number of primary schools; if senior officials in his Department charged with the planning of education provision and school buildings have had discussions or meetings with representatives of the archdiocese; if not, if he proposes to initiate such meetings with a view to ensuring an orderly changeover of patrons that causes minimum disruption for all concerned; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19409/09]
Senior officials of my Department met with the patron in question in late 2007 to discuss statements he had made on the patronage of primary schools. At that meeting, the patron indicated that he had no specific locations in mind where one or more schools under his patronage might transfer to another patron but that it might arise at some point in the future. They discussed the different issues that might arise, the need for such changes to be planned and managed and the desirability in individual school cases of consultation with all stakeholders — parents, teachers and local communities. It was agreed that the patron would contact the Department at an early stage in any case where the patron was considering the feasibility of such a transfer.
The forward planning section of my Department is currently examining demographic trends throughout the country with a view to establishing education accommodation needs at a local level. As part of this examination, my Department will be consulting directly with all existing patrons about specific areas where the establishment of new schools will be required and how emerging demands in these areas will be addressed. In this context, my Department has written to representatives of the patron in question on 27 March and, as part of the follow-up to this process, it intends seeking details of any schools where a change of patronage might potentially be relevant.
In tandem with this, a review of the procedures for the establishment of new primary schools is being undertaken by the Commission on School Accommodation. A technical working group, under the direction of the chairman of the commission, has been established for this purpose. The working group has commenced its work and it is expected that it will be completed and recommendations made to me before the end of the year. Among the issues being considered by the working group is the issue of patronage, including the criteria that must be met to become a patron and the circumstances where changes to patronage may be warranted. The working group will also consider the general approach to maximising the use of existing spare capacity where this arises, including possible changes to patronage.
The approach being adopted by my Department and the Commission on School Accommodation will ensure any changes to current patronage arrangements will well planned and managed in a manner that will accommodate the interests of parents, teachers and local communities and that they will also contribute to an inclusive education system. As part of this process, if further meetings with the patron in question are needed to discuss or clarify any general issues relating to the change of patronage, they will be arranged.
I appreciate the reply and I am pleased that departmental officials have been in contact with the patron. Is it fair to extrapolate from the Minister's comments that in the other 19 or 20 dioceses a similar pressure is being exerted on the patron? If I understand the matter correctly, the Department will not contact all existing patrons. Some 93% of primary schools are under the patronage of the Roman Catholic Church. Has the Minister initiated formal contact with existing schools? Part of the problem with over-demand relates to existing schools rather than the provision of new schools. I have another supplementary question, but is it now the policy of the Department, through Mr. Murray's commission, to contact all patrons of all denominations to establish if they are intent on keeping patronage of existing schools or whether they intend divesting patronage in some areas? If so, what orderly transfer will take place and what will the replacement process involve?
There may be a misunderstanding. As the Deputy is aware, I put in place a moratorium soon after taking office in respect of existing schools and the patronage of new schools.
It applied to new schools.
Yes, to new schools. As part of the moratorium, we stated that where new schools were required, the technical group working at my Department would proceed because the school population is growing. It was agreed that the group would contact all patrons. For 2009 we are able to accommodate all requirements by adding extensions to schools and so on. In 2010 and 2011 there will be a serious influx of pupils into these schools and we must provide new schools. I have arranged for the commission to make contact with the various patrons indicating where we envisage a need for new schools and where existing schools will not be able to accommodate the increase. They were contacted on 29 March and we are awaiting responses in respect of the development of these new schools.
On a related matter concerning patronage, has the Minister considered the application from Educate Together, lodged with the Department in December 2007, to become a recognised patron not only of primary schools, of which it has responsibility for more than 53, but also at secondary school level?
The Deputy will understand there is difference between primary and second level in terms of patronage. I have sought legal advice to establish exactly which powers are available to me under the Education Acts.
I assure the Minister he has a clear hand.
I am not certain of that yet; we hope the legal information will be with us within a short period. However, there is a serious difference in terms of the scale of development. It is very easy to build a primary school, but for a second level school one must consider the scale of the development, the range of the curriculum and subject choice. A given second level school must have an inclusive curriculum and I must be satisfied in the first instance that there are not enough places in existing schools. I could hardly be expected in these strained financial times to build new schools where there is spare capacity. I will take all relevant matters into account in respect of any future development.
The answer to whether I have finally decided on the application of Educate Together in respect of second level patronage is no. I still await legal advice. When I receive that advice, I will examine the two applications before me, one of which is from Lucan and the other from Waterford city. I will examine them to establish if they stand on merit and whether new patronage is warranted. The Deputy will understand that the non-denominational dimension is covered at second level under the new VEC, vocational education committee, community college model.
Leanfaimid ar aghaidh go dtí Ceist Uimh. 3. Níl an Teachta Feighan i láthair. Leanfaimid ar aghaidh go dtí Ceist Uimh. 4 in ainm an Teachta Brian Hayes.
Question No. 3 lapsed.
Legal Costs.
Brian Hayes
Ceist:4 Deputy Brian Hayes asked the Minister for Education and Science the reason his Department chose to contest the legal costs in the case of a person (details supplied) that was recently concluded in the Supreme Court; and if he will make a statement setting out his views on the implications of this case for Irish education. [19476/09]
This case was handled by the State Claims Agency on behalf of the State. There had to be a court hearing in respect of costs as the plaintiff sought costs against the State.
It is normal for the State Claims Agency to seek costs where the State's case is upheld, which was the case in this instance. The State was not found liable by the High Court or the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was told by counsel for the State that while an award of costs against the plaintiff was being sought, the matter of enforcement would be treated with the greatest sensitivity.
My Department cannot sustain a position whereby persons can take cases against the State on the basis that, win or lose, they will get their costs. Our desire is to find a fair balance between the need to protect the taxpayer against costs incurred defending cases where the courts have decided that the State has no liability and to treat individuals humanely at the same time. The decision of the Supreme Court was that no order for costs should be made, in effect, each party bearing their own costs. The judgment determined that the case was a test case and that there were exceptional reasons the normal rule of costs following the event should not be followed.
My Department has no involvement in the day-to-day management of national schools. Teachers are selected, appointed and employed by the school authorities, normally boards of management which are appointed by the patron. The judgment of the High Court which was upheld in the Supreme Court reflects the reality of the relationship between the Department, schools and teachers, essentially as set out in the Education Act 1998 and, therefore, has no implications for Irish education.
Why was it necessary to pursue this woman for costs on the part of the State, whatever about her own costs? She is an exceptionally brave person who challenged a fundamental principle in Irish education. The case has historical and legal precedent. As the Minister stated, comments made by Mr. Justice Murray at the time referred to the particularly complex relationship between primary school teachers and the Department of Education and Science. Is the Minister telling the House that neither he nor his Department had any responsibility and that is was exclusively a matter for the State Claims Agency? I believe undue pressure was put on this woman who had previously been abused and gone through the courts. Given the judgment of the Supreme Court, I would have thought that we had a responsibility at least to pay costs on the part of the State. Is the Minister telling the House that it was not the decision of his Department but rather that of the State Claims Agency to pursue this woman for costs?
The State Claims Agency pursues cases on behalf of the Government and the Department.
It does so for all Departments.
This case was very different from many others and its sensitivity was not lost on me. The girl is from Cork and I was certainly very sensitive to the whole area. I indicated early on that I, as Minister, would not pursue her in terms of taking her house from under her feet but would deal with the matter in a fair and even-handed manner.
That said, is Deputy Hayes suggesting that, when a case is taken against the State, we should not defend it but simply pay out? That is an untenable position and it is not in the interests of the taxpayer. Further, on this particular case, Louise O'Keeffe took the case against the State for her costs. We won the judgment in the High Court and she appealed it to the Supreme Court on the basis of seeking costs. We and the State Claims Agency had no choice but to challenge that in the Supreme Court, which departed from the normal judgment. Usually, if the case is won, costs are assigned against the person who lost. The court said this was a test case, that the circumstances were most unusual, and that it would take the exceptional circumstances into account. We are quite satisfied as a Department——
I want to call Deputy Hayes for a supplementary.
I want to say one other thing to Deputy Hayes, because it is relevant. Approximately 140 similar cases are being taken against the State. The State Claims Agency has advised the legal persons representing those individuals of the outcome of this case and indicated to them that they will have to consider the costs involved in pursuing cases similar to the one that has already been through the High Court and the Supreme Court. I am not sure the Supreme Court would give the same judgment if these cases were pursued to that extent.
Each case is different and it is for the courts to decide on the liability based on the evidence that is heard.
Absolutely.
The reason the Supreme Court found in favour of Ms O'Keeffe in terms of the costs the State would have to bear is the special circumstances of the case. It is clear from what the Chief Justice said in the judgment that the complex relationship between teachers, the Department of Education and Science and the boards of management warranted the bringing of a case to the Supreme Court for a decision.
The Minister has had time to consider the decisions from the High Court and the Supreme Court. What lessons can his Department learn about that complex relationship? The Minister and his Department, in effect, pay the salary of every teacher in the country, but they are contracted to individual boards of management. Given that relationship and the importance of child safety and protection, do we need to legislate to make it abundantly clear, once and for all, where responsibility lies?
The Department of Education and Science gives out the responsibility to run schools and manage and hire teachers, and we pay their salaries. We do not micro manage the day-to-day running of schools. That is as it should be. We have to make a distinction. In one instance where the Department was made aware that there was a difficulty within a school, it accepted responsibility and came to an arrangement. In the O'Keeffe case, the Department was never made aware of the issue, and therefore the responsibility lay with the school and the board of management. Therefore, there was a significant difference——
Is the Minister saying the board never informed the Department?
Priority questions are restricted to the Deputy who tabled them.
We were made aware in one case and we came to an arrangement because we felt that, as the Department had been made aware but did not take decisive action, there was a responsibility. In this instance, the Department was not made aware of the case in terms of the day-to-day running of the school. In those circumstances, and in light of all the other cases that were going to emanate and were surfacing, the Department had no choice but to defend itself, and ultimately it was successful.
Special Educational Needs.
Brian Hayes
Ceist:5 Deputy Brian Hayes asked the Minister for Education and Science how many of the 128 special classes in primary schools which are due to close in September 2009 he has visited; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19477/09]
I do not visit every school or class where the level of staffing or funding has been adversely affected by the application of various policies. Not only would it be physically impossible for me to visit every school where a teaching post is being suppressed, I suggest this would not represent the best use of a Minister's time. I frequently visit schools and interact with staff and pupils and I intend to continue doing so. In supporting the principle of inclusion, I state that all children should feel part of the school community and it would be unusual for me to visit a specific special class. Rather, I meet the school community.
My Department examined the enrolment returns for a number of special classes for pupils with mild general learning disabilities and found many of them did not meet the minimum enrolment for retention. The decision was taken to apply the normal rules and suppress the classes concerned. Staffing levels in schools change frequently due to fluctuating pupil numbers. This is a normal feature of the operation of schools. Established administrative procedures are in place to facilitate adjustments to a school's staffing in such situations.
I understand that parents are anxious that their children will continue to receive an appropriate education. I reassure them that no pupil with special educational needs will be without access to support from a special needs teacher as a result of this decision. I have stated previously that I am open to listening to proposals from schools where they can demonstrate it is educationally more beneficial for the pupils involved to be in a special class. A number of schools have made submissions to my Department and my officials will be in contact with them as quickly as possible.
I reiterate that pupils with mild general learning disabilities will continue to have access to additional teaching resources to support their education. However, there is a requirement to make appropriate use of the resources available, and as in all other areas of expenditure, provision depends on the resources available to the Government.
The Minister has confirmed to the House that, before he decided to abolish the 128 classes in 119 schools affecting more than 500 young people, he did not visit any of the schools, speak to any of the parents, or meet any of the children, principals or teachers. Before the end of the school year, will he go to some of the schools that are greatly affected by his decision to abolish the classes, meet some of the people directly and hear their experiences of the detrimental effect on their school community of his arbitrary decision last February?
Second, did the Minister get a specific legal opinion within his Department or from the Attorney General before he made his decision in February, given the clear obligations under section 2 of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act 2004, which states "the best interests of the child" are "as determined in accordance with any assessment carried out under this Act"? The Minister is leaving himself open to another legal challenge. Unless he shows some flexibility and common sense about the importance of these classes in many schools, such a challenge could well be contemplated and pursued.
First, it is incorrect to say I did not visit special classes. The fact of the matter is that I was in such classes. It is also incorrect to say I did not have discussions with——
Which class?
Excuse me. I visited a special class..
At one of these schools?
Deputy Hayes must allow the Minister to reply.
That is contrary to what he told me two minutes ago.
I certainly visited a special class and discussed with teachers who are mainstreaming pupils with mild general learning disabilities the success or otherwise of that procedure. It was Department of Education and Science policy for ten years from 1985 for special classes to be in place. In 2005, the general allocation model was brought into being. I emphasise to Deputy Hayes that mainstreaming is in line with modern international practice. We take the child with mild general learning disability out of the isolation of a special class and put them in a mainstream class next to their friends. They are allowed to integrate and play with their friends and they are given support outside the class consistent with their needs. Deputy Hayes cannot have it both ways. When I asked him during the last Question Time whether he agreed with mainstreaming, his answer was that he did.
The Minister is quoting me selectively.
Yet, we see the hypocritical nature of his Private Members' motion a week ago where the Deputy wanted me to restore all of the classes. Does he believe what he said three weeks ago in this House when I put a direct question to him about his juxtaposition?
The Minister seems to be in big trouble on this one, largely because he is not in possession of the facts. I will ask the question again. Did he get legal advice internally within his Department or from the Attorney General? He might answer the question posed. Second, the Minister will save €7.5 million from this. Will he give a guarantee to the House that the €7.5 million he will save by axing these 128 classes will go directly into those mainstream classes to help those children he is not putting into the classes? What will he do with the €7.5 million?
He has not got it. It has gone to the Department of Finance.
Let us find out. I would be interested to know.
George Lee might have a difficulty with the Deputy.
I call the Minister for a final reply.
I have one other question.
The Deputy should be brief. We are well over time.
The Minister said last February that he would allow some classes to amalgamate in an area. How many classes of the 128 will he save? We are now into May and it is over three months since he made the decision. Can he give information to this House as to how many of those classes he will allow to amalgamate?
There are three questions. First, I did not seek legal advice. The pupil-teacher ratio for mild general learning disability has been in place for ten years and is 11:1.
That was at that time. Why did no Minister abolish it previously?
For the Deputy's information, we accept a ratio of 9:1. Can the Deputy accept from me that when we considered these classes, eight of them had no mild general learning disability pupil.
The ones the Minister did not visit.
I am very concerned that other children with moderate learning disability or who are autistic get the proper supports. Perhaps it strikes the Deputy that some of those children with special needs may be in an appropriate classroom and may be in a class with a ratio of 5:1.
Every case is different.
That is a fact of life. I am concerned that those children would get the appropriate supports.
The Deputy's third question related to amalgamation.
Which the Minister said in February he would do.
Out of the 128 classes, there have been approximately 40 appeals. I put in place an appeals system because I thought it was appropriate that the schools in question got such an opportunity. Those 40 appeals are now being heard. I thought I would have a decision by Friday of this week but five more appeals arrived in the past week and we want to ensure we process those and give them due consideration. I hope to be in a position to make decisions on all of those appeals by the middle of next week.
The Minister does not make the decision.
Is it not extraordinary that Deputy Hayes wanted to put back all of the 128 classes although only 40 appealed?
We need to move on. We are well over time on this question.
I would hate to think what control mechanism would be in place if the Deputy was in charge of education. He and George Lee would have a real difficulty.
George Lee is not teaching Deputy Hayes much about economics.
I see the Deputies are conceding the seat already.