Brian Hayes
Ceist:1 Deputy Brian Hayes asked the Minister for Education and Science if his attention has been drawn to problems associated with a school (details supplied) in County Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26879/09]
Priority Questions.
Whole School Evaluations.
As the Deputy will be aware, on last Thursday, 18 June, the inspectorate of the Department of Education and Science published a whole school evaluation report on the school referred to in his question. The evaluation described the quality of educational provision at the school as highly unsatisfactory. I have expressed my clear concern about the serious weaknesses that were identified in the report, including poor teaching and learning, inadequacies in child protection policies and unacceptable standards in the general management of the school.
As part of the whole school evaluation process, the inspectors who conducted the evaluation have made detailed recommendations and have directly advised the school authorities and staff of the improvements the school must undertake. In light of the seriousness of the weaknesses evident in the school, senior officials from the Department have met the patron of the school and the chairperson of the school's board of management on a number of occasions to impress on them the need for change and improvement in the operation of the school. The representatives of the school have accepted the report's findings and recommendations. The patron has confirmed that steps have been taken and progress has been made in respect of a number of the report's recommendations. Officials from the Department will hold further meetings with the school authorities to ensure all the issues raised in the report are addressed. Departmental inspectors will continue to visit the school in the next school year to monitor progress and provide advice as appropriate.
The Department of Education and Science has engaged frequently with the school in question since 2003, when concerns were identified by the departmental inspectorate and other concerns were brought to the Department's attention. The school has been visited several times each year. Extensive advice, support and guidance have been provided to staff and principals of the school and the chairpersons of its board of management. This action was supported by other officials in the Department, who engaged with the management of the school to insist on improvements being acted upon. Some progress was achieved at the school, especially in the 2005-06 school year when a newly-appointed principal, supported by the local inspector, implemented several improvements. These improvements were not supported by the then school management, regrettably, and the principal left the school.
At this point, inspectors and departmental officials met representatives of the management of the school to insist on improvements being made and regulations adhered to. The inspectors continued to monitor the work of the school. A new board of management and chairperson were appointed by the school's patron in January 2008. The whole school evaluation was another step by the inspectorate to assess the improvements being acted on and set the agenda for change in the future. I assure the Deputy that my officials will continue to engage closely with the patron and the board. The quality of the school's work will be monitored through inspection visits during the coming school year.
Is the Minister not utterly embarrassed by the fact that the Department of Education and Science, over a period of five years, chose to do nothing while this school was in crisis? Is he not utterly embarrassed by the fact that nothing was done about these problems, even though they were flagged by the Department's inspectorate and the Irish National Teachers Organisation as long ago as 2003, 2004 and 2005? The entire teaching staff of the school resigned en bloc because of the crisis the school found itself in. Does this not highlight the utterly dysfunctional hands-off approach of the Minister and the Department, which failed to intervene at a much earlier stage in this school and possibly in other schools throughout the country?
Does the Minister accept that it took five years for the Department to introduce new measures in the school to ensure that its children are protected and, more importantly, receive the same standard of education we would expect to be given to any other child in the country? Does he accept that an utter disaster befell the school in question because of his failures and those of the Department of Education and Science?
The first thing I want to put on the record is that I accept that there have been difficulties in this school since 2003 or 2004. I accept that the inspectorate was aware of the difficulties in the school. I do not accept that the inspectors were not working with the board of management, the principal and others within the school to ensure that an improvement is brought about. One does not want to close a school. We prefer to provide supports for the school to bring about improvements and work in partnership with both the principal and the board of management.
The Deputy will understand and accept that in 2005, for instance, the school having been visited on a number of occasions, it was indicated to the board of management and the chairman in particular that he was to put a proper scheme in place in line with every other national school in the country — and a principal was then appointed to that school who identified areas where improvements should be made and tried to introduce them. Unfortunately, this principal left the school after about 12 months. We then took it over under the whole-school evaluation system.
Will the Minister confirm to the House that the chairman of the board of management in question was also the person who represented the Islamic education board, which is the patron body for two schools in this country? In that context, will he confirm to the House that in 2007 his Department withdrew funding to the Islamic education board, because in his own words, concerns were raised in relation to the operation and representation of that organisation as a primary management body? Will he outline what exactly the concerns of his Department were that led to this very dramatic and unprecedented step of effectively refusing to fund one of the seven patron bodies in this country?
There are two issues here. One is the payment that is made to the patron body of the particular group or organisation such as that made to Catholic or Protestant representative bodies. This Islamic education board indicated that it was the patron body for Muslim schools. The imam withdrew recognition of this group as a patron of Muslim schools. In those circumstances the Department withdrew the funding on the basis that it was not the imam's recognised patron. Those were the circumstances in which this grant was withdrawn. As the Deputy knows, a proper board of management is now in place. The imam has appointed a new board, which has accepted the full recommendations in the whole-school evaluation. The board has advertised for a principal and we are working very closely with it to ensure that the children who attend the school will have a proper education system in place for them.
Is it the case that the Minister has audited accounts for the patron body in question?
The Minister has audited accounts for 2008, as supplied by the present board of management. We have a commitment from the board and are working with its accountants on the furnishing of audited accounts for the previous years.
On a point of clarification, I should point out to the Deputy that there are and could be legal difficulties in some of the issues pertaining to the previous board.
The Minister better believe it.
Schools Database.
Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:2 Deputy Ruairí Quinn asked the Minister for Education and Science his proposals to create a database or central records office within his Department which will enable officials to access information on every school here in a format that is readily accessible and retrievable so that valuable man hours within his Department will not be misspent on data collection; if he is satisfied that he and his senior management officials in particular, have implemented in full the 98 recommendations of the Cromien Report, published in October 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26955/09]
My Department is progressing work to improve systems within the Department to facilitate access to accurate and up-to-date information on individual schools to ensure more efficient use of official time and to reduce the administrative burden on schools.
The Department began the process of rationalising internal databases several years ago. The aim is to have one central data holding for core information on schools, teachers and pupils. It is intended that all new and existing systems will eventually pull information from this centralised database. In 2007, the first element of the new central database was introduced and involved the rationalisation and standardisation of certain core information about schools. The benefits of this approach are clear and mean that by keeping only one primary source of school information all staff in the Department have immediate access to the same accurate information.
While this work was being progressed, priority also had to be given to developing an on-line claims system for schools, OLCS. The OLCS is now being used in 3,800 schools around the country and has created significant administrative efficiencies for the Department and individual schools. Other developments include the introduction of geographic information technology which has greatly improved the capacity of the Department to identify the location and quantity of new school accommodation needed to cater for population increases.
Like any organisation, the level of progress will depend on available financial, human and IT resources and how they will need to be deployed given emerging priorities and wider public finance constraints. With regard to implementation of the Cromien report, a programme of structural reform of the Department was approved by Government in 2001. The main elements of this programme were the establishment of the State Examinations Commission and the National Council for Special Education, the establishment of regional offices and the transfer of the institutes of technology to the Higher Education Authority.
In addition to the reforms approved by Government, the reform of the Department included regulatory reform and appellate processes to underpin key allocation functions, along with the implementation of efficiency measures designed to bring the Department's procedures and processes more into line with modern administrative practice. A range of measures have been introduced since 2001.
Other recommendations are in course of implementation and some recommendations are not being implemented at the current time or have been overtaken by events.
Would the Minister regard his Department as being currently fit for purpose and that it is a 21st century administrative body similar to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Department of Foreign Affairs or any other Department?
Yes, obviously I would.
What evidence does the Minister have for that?
I have every evidence in that I have been working in this Department for more than 12 months. I find that the staff are an extremely committed, capable, hard working group whose sole interest is to ensure the top quality running and operation of the Department of Education and Science.
Would the Minister be surprised if the ESB, Coillte, Bord na Móna or the Department of Foreign Affairs could not readily and at the press of a button find out where their embassies were located, where their forests were, what the potential acreage was, the capacity of generation, building conditions, who owned the land, whether freehold or leasehold or the regular inventory of stock that a good publican, say, or good operator would know about at any time? Such data would be contained in electronic format such as that carried by most kids on their mobiles, as a standard instrument.
Can he explain why, at this time, after the recommendations of the Cromien report his Department has not got any of that?
I can only respond to the Deputy to the effect that any of the information or tabulations he has required have been presented to him. I can think back to the projection on enrolments 2008-30, the details on pre-fab locations in primary schools and details on primary schools in the ownership of the Minister for Education and Science.
That is a very good question, as regards the details——
The Deputy has asked me a question and I should like to be allowed the opportunity to reply to it.
Deputy Quinn is a former Minister for Finance, a very responsible position and I have always said he did an excellent job. At that time, as a Deputy who served in Government with him, I recall Deputy Quinn asking various Departments to prioritise. In this instance, looking back on the Cromien report, can Deputy Quinn say that the decision to set up the examination commission was a bad one? Can he not say that the position we took by setting up and putting in place the special education commission was a good one? Does he believe that all of the important outstanding items mentioned by Cromien have been put in place? The Deputy has a difficulty with one issue.
No, I have not. There were 98 recommendations in Cromien in 2000. How many have been implemented? What is the number?
I cannot——
I rest my case.
I do not have that information at my fingertips but it is readily available in the Department.
It is not. I have asked the question before. The Minister has no clue.
On the Cromien report and the information Deputy Quinn seeks on the ownership of schools, my Department undertook a pilot in Kildare. It cost €1 million to implement.
The Minister is worse than I thought he was. It is like the voting machines — a sum of €1 million.
The Department decided it was far more appropriate and in line with what Deputy Quinn said as Minister for Finance to strategically put that money into front line education services. That is what the Department did and rightly so, and we stand over it.
The Minister is even more incompetent than I thought.
State Examinations.
Brian Hayes
Ceist:3 Deputy Brian Hayes asked the Minister for Education and Science if he will make a statement regarding the problem with English paper 2 which occurred in the 2009 leaving certificate examination. [26880/09]
On the morning of 3 June 2009 a superintendent distributed in error the leaving certificate English paper 2 which was scheduled for the following morning, 4 June. When he realised his error he immediately retrieved the incorrect papers and distributed the correct papers. The State Examinations Commission was notified of the problem at exactly 3.55 p.m. by the principal of the school. The commission immediately took steps to establish whether the contents of the paper had become known and security compromised. My Department was notified of the position at approximately 5 p.m. that day.
The commission concluded from its investigation that the integrity of the English paper 2 examination had been significantly compromised. As the commission could not guarantee that the correct supply of contingency papers would be delivered to 100% of the over 2,000 leaving certificate examination centres by 9 a.m. the next day, there was no option but to re-schedule the paper. The examination was rescheduled and held on Saturday, 6 June.
The core responsibility of superintendents is to safeguard the security and integrity of the examination papers. They are provided with detailed instructions to assist them in the discharge of their duties. Support and training is provided for any superintendents who have not engaged in this work before. There are clear and comprehensive documented procedures to be gone through to ensure the correct paper is distributed for each session of the examination process. In this case, none of the documented procedures were carried out correctly by the superintendent.
I asked the State Examinations Commission to investigate the matter fully, to report on the circumstances that required the rescheduling of the exam and the measures needed to address any weaknesses identified and to minimise the risk of any future recurrence. I am due to receive the report tomorrow. I will arrange to have the report placed on my Department's website when I have had the opportunity to consider its contents.
I fully appreciate that the re-scheduling of the examination, although unavoidable, gave rise to distress and inconvenience for students. Both the commission and I have apologised to students and their families in media broadcasts for the inconvenience caused. I take this opportunity to apologise again for what was a stressful disruption in the examination process. In addition, I thank school management, principals and staff, and Bus Éireann and school transport providers for their excellent co-operation and organisation, which ensured the re-scheduled examination ran smoothly. I particularly thank the school principals whose support was assumed and was, most generously, given.
From the Minister's reply I take it that he is to receive the report tomorrow. How convenient that is when we are debating it in the Houses of the Oireachtas today. This is another fine mess which happened on the Minister's watch. It is easy in this case to make the superintendent the fall guy for another systems failure in the commission or the Department. We must be the only country in the western world where a problem such as this arises in one examination centre and the entire system is knocked out for every other student sitting their leaving certificate examination. If anything describes the dysfunctional nature of the Minister's Department it is this.
Is the Minister telling this House that had the information from the supervisor been given to the examination commission earlier, contingency papers would have been arranged and provided for in all the examination centres?
Yes.
So the fault lies at his door and nobody else's. Did the Minister also say his Department became aware of this a good two hours after this problem emerged? I find it astonishing, given that the leaving certificate is the big deal for the Department of Education and Science annually, that the Department would know of this two hours after it emerged and that proper procedures were not put in place. What is the cost of this monumental cock-up?
The principal of the school contacted the State Examinations Commission at approximately 3.50 p.m. or 3.55 p.m. The Department of Education and Science was contacted at approximately 5 p.m. Every year there are hoax calls into the commission indicating that some paper has been compromised and an evaluation must be carried out to check to see what exactly has happened. In this case the commission carried out an evaluation and was satisfied from the information available that this paper had been compromised. In the circumstances the Secretary General of the Department was contacted and I was contacted as a result.
We examined how we might get the papers out in time for the next examination the following morning at 9 a.m. We were in touch with An Post and all the bodies that might make this possible. It became apparent that a 100% guarantee of delivery by 9 a.m. the following morning could not be agreed. In the circumstances we decided on the next best option, the Saturday morning. This made it difficult for students and parents, and the commission apologised for the inconvenience caused. I also apologised. We are delighted the examination went off without a difficulty. All centres had papers and the examination was conducted in a professional manner.
While the Minister might be delighted by that, I suspect the students did not feel delight. The Minister said he will receive the report tomorrow. Will he make it public?
I already indicated I would.
So we will get a chance to see it tomorrow. What is the cost of this mistake? Why was the paper in the hall in the first place, given the clear procedures set out for security for superintendents? This is the fundamental question which needs to be asked, and it may come out of the report the Minster will receive today or tomorrow.
The papers are held in a safe and are clearly annotated and marked. There is a process by which the superintendent of the examination collects the relevant paper and has it co-signed by two students who will identify that the examination paper has not been tampered with and opened. Those two students will sign that paper. There was in this case a further note in the envelope indicating that a second English paper was due the following morning.
I must wait for the report on this but it would appear that due diligence was not acted on in this instance. No matter what we say, in all these matters there is human failing. Human failing was involved here. It is not my business to make the superintendent a fall guy because the superintendents are employed directly by an independent body, the State Examinations Commission, and it is a matter for it to deal with what arises from the failures there. I will examine the report and any recommendations in it.
And the cost?
The cost will be more than €1 million. We still have not received all the cost implications from Bus Éireann and a number of other sources.
Special Educational Needs.
David Stanton
Ceist:4 Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Education and Science the recent changes in acceptable qualifications for home tuition providers as listed in appendix A of the home tuition application form; the reason for his Department’s preference for a fully qualified teacher as opposed to psychology graduates, registered mental health nurses and persons holding autism-related qualifications given that the majority of children who require home tuition have autism or other forms of intellectual disability; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26881/09]
The list of acceptable qualifications for home tuition providers has not been changed. The Deputy will be aware that the home tuition scheme provides funding to parents to provide education at home for children who, for a number of reasons such as chronic illness, are unable to attend school. The scheme was extended in recent years to facilitate tuition for children awaiting a suitable educational placement and also to provide early educational intervention for preschool children with autism. The home-based July provision scheme provides funding for an extended school year for children with autism or a severe or profound general learning disability. The scheme is intended to provide education appropriate to the child's educational needs.
The Deputy will also appreciate that as home tuition takes place outside of the normal school framework, there is need to ensure that tuition providers are qualified to give education to the children concerned. It is reasonable to expect that a person, providing an education to a child in the child's home outside of the normal school structure, is fully qualified.
Some parents had advised of difficulties in sourcing fully qualified teachers. The Department therefore has allowed for other qualifications. However, the guidelines to the scheme have in recent years advised of my Department's preference for a fully qualified teacher. In this school year, the home tuition, and more recently the July provision, application forms were amended in format and additional text was added to clearly state the Department's preference for a fully qualified teacher.
I wish to assure the Deputy that my Department has continued to sanction alternative tuition providers where parents have shown that they were unable to source a fully qualified teacher.
Is the Minister of State suggesting that a person recently qualified from teacher training college with a BEd is more qualified to teach a preschool child who may be non-verbal and autistic than somebody with a diploma or degree in early child care studies who might be a qualified social worker with qualification in PECS, ABA, early childhood studies, Lámh and perhaps child protection? I draw the attention of the Minister of State to a letter sent in respect of such a person who is not a qualified person but who has eight years' experience. The letter pointed out that this tutor would not be eligible to deliver the tuition next year. Appendix A to the home-based July provision been changed. In the past it was "either-or" and now no preference is given. A person with a qualification in autism only is now not allowed to teach and will not be allowed to teach in the future. Would the Minister of State not agree that is a backward step and that children will suffer?
I do not concede it is a backward step. The Department awards approximately €36,000 for home tuition. While I do not suggest we should count the cost in money terms, it underlines the commitment. The inspectorate made recommendations on foot of the fact that people with few qualifications were engaged in home teaching. Some exceptions were made in cases when parents have been unable to get a qualified teacher. I do not want to read out the full list but it is important to recognise its existence. In some instances people have suggested that a qualified nurse or psychologist might be suitable. The reality remains that the benchmark here is for a qualified teacher. I do not believe it is a backward step. It is in keeping with the demands of the inspectorate and more importantly it is in the best interests of the children concerned.
There are some preschool children who are non-verbal and not toilet trained. Would the Minister of State not agree that these people need special help from people who are experienced and have the training appropriate to their needs? The recent changes will result in the appointment of only people with a teacher qualification. Such people might have a BEd only and no experience of or qualifications in autism, which appears to be acceptable to the Department. However, another person with relevant experience and qualifications is not accepted. I ask the Minister of State to review this with a view to allowing the flexibility required in order to provide children of that age with the best possible support and the tutoring they require.
I accept the Deputy's genuine concern. However, I must remind him why this change was brought about. Before the inspectorate made its recommendations there was a list of people providing tuition, including people without a leaving certificate or post-school qualifications and who had not previously worked in a school. It is a big forward step to insist that people with the minimum qualifications as a qualified teacher should in the first instance be the people to provide that tuition. I accept there may be occasional circumstances in which the parents might have involved a psychologist or someone from another area of expertise. However, those are the exceptions. I must hold the line given that 130 people are providing tuition without qualification, which concerns me.
School Closures.
Ulick Burke
Ceist:5 Deputy Ulick Burke asked the Minister for Education and Science the procedure he will follow, in conjunction with all the partners in education, on the terms of a school (details supplied); the timescale involved; if he will clarify his opening statement in reply to Questions Nos. 510 and 536 of 23 June 2009, and that pending the establishment of the new school, the school will operate under the existing management and administration model; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26882/09]
As the Minister indicated to the Deputy on 23 June 2009, the patrons of the school in question have informed my Department that they will be closing the existing school in 2012. When trustees or a patron body decide to close a school, the Department's main concern is to ensure that the best interests of the pupils are looked after and that there will be sufficient student places in existing schools in the general area for students who would have normally enrolled in the closing school.
Given the budgetary constraints and the timescale involved, it was not possible to construct a new post primary school building in advance of the closure referred to by the Deputy. Accordingly, my Department has agreed in principle to enter into a lease arrangement for the existing school building and site. It is my intention that departmental officials will consult with the relevant stakeholders regarding the issues of patronage and the other practical arrangements relating to the establishment of the new school entity as soon as the leasing arrangement has been finalised.
Pending the establishment of the new school, the existing school will continue to operate under its existing management and admissions model. In the longer term, the purchase of a site and the construction of a new school building is the intended solution for this location. However, this must have regard to the availability of financial resources. At this point, it is not possible for me to indicate when a new school building will be ready for occupation.
I welcome that the Minister of State and the Department have agreed in principle to lease the existing Seamount school in Kinvara. We need clarity on an agreed lease with the Sisters of Mercy and the trustees. They have given a ten-year extension to the period of the lease to allow the school to continue. They want to leave the idea of trustees of the school. There is confusion as to who will be responsible for the appointment of trustees during the period of the lease. Under the 1998 Act it is clear that the trusteeship of Seamount during the lease period is the responsibility of the trustees of the existing school as a voluntary Catholic school. Correspondence involving the acquisitions section of the Department shows confusion and indicates responsibility for identifying and recognising the new trustees for this enterprise will reside with the Department of Education and Science. I should appreciate if the Minister of State would give clarity as to who has responsibility for the appointment of the trustees in these circumstances.
I thank the Deputy for his interest in this issue. I acknowledge his role in finding a solution. Consultation on the lease is continuing and I hope this leasing arrangement can be put in place by 1 September, provided we can get agreement following consultation with all the stakeholders. Consultation is also taking place regarding the trustees and until we finalise the discussions on the lease it will not be possible to bring this issue to finality. As I understand it, the Department of Education and Science will have the primary role in determining who will be the patrons. The Department is open to submissions and will actively engage in consultation on the issue.
Will the Minister of State guarantee that there will be full consultation with the education partners at local level in the Kinvara area? Will the terms of the lease currently being negotiated relate to the Department of Education and Science and the trustees and only them? The idea has been floated that there might be an outside patronage group involved.
The Department is hopeful that the lease issue will be finalised in time for the coming academic year, commencing on 1 September. While the Deputy did not raise the following issue in his question, the commission on school accommodation has recommended a new school building and that issue and others such as whether it will be a coeducational school, patronage and the number of possible pupils need to be addressed.
We are open to active, constructive engagement and consultation on the patronage issue. Obviously, the Deputy's input in this regard will be invaluable.