Charlie McConalogue
Ceist:91. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Education and Skills when the value for money review of small primary schools will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50478/13]
Priority Questions
Schools Review
My question relates to small schools, particularly the value for money report which the Minister has in his hands. How long has he had that report and why has it not been published? Small schools are under severe pressure and particular concerns have been raised about minority ethos schools where minority denominations are under particular pressure. Any change to a small schools policy would be particularly difficult and dangerous for them. Could the Minister outline the current situation with regard to that?
I thank the Deputy for his question. I am currently considering the report of the value for money review of small primary schools and I am doing this in consultation with my Government colleagues. My intention is to publish the report on completion of this consideration process. I am not in a position to give a precise publication date at this time. I think I received the final report in February or March but I can come back and give the Deputy that information.
I do not believe it is good enough that this report has not yet been published. I do not see why the Minister should have been sitting on it for possibly nine months at this stage, nor do I understand why he cannot outline to the House when it will be published.
It has been in his hands. Why has he not published it and why is he not consulting with other political parties and the educational partners? While he has been sitting on this report, the pupil-teacher ratios of two, three and four-teacher schools have been cut every year. This issue is of major concern to those schools. Speaking on behalf of Church of Ireland schools, Dr. Ken Fennelly indicated that, if the Government sought to wind down schools of fewer than 56 pupils, minority faith schools would be disproportionately affected.
It has been reported in the media that a threshold of 85 pupils has been set as the minimum number for schools. Will the Minister confirm whether this is the case? Will he also confirm that he will publish the report? Our party believes we must support those schools, not leave a threat hanging over them.
The Deputy has overstepped his time.
I remind the Deputy that the report in question was commissioned by his former colleague, the then Minister Mary Coughlan, a former representative of the Deputy's new constituency of County Donegal. The report contains a set of proposals. It took a long time to be completed and checked. Discussions are ongoing because of the sensitivities to which the Deputy referred and I am not in a position to tell him when the report will be published.
I am not particularly worried about who commissioned the report. I am concerned about what it contains and what the Minister will do about it. Anyone can commission a report, but the Minister is responsible for how he leads the education system and treats our smaller schools. What we have seen from him has been a reduction in schools' capitation and the removal of the minor works grant, although the latter was given a temporary reprieve this year. Under his stewardship, the number of pupils needed by schools to retain their teacher numbers has been increased every year. According to today's Irish Independent, one in five schools is concerned about whether it will be able to retain its number of teachers. The Minister professes publically that he does not wish to close schools at a time while he is making it more difficult for them to exist. He is creating a double jeopardy. By allowing a question mark to hang over schools, parents of children who are now starting out are wondering whether their children will be able to complete their primary education in those schools.
Please, Deputy, allow the Minister to reply.
As such, many of our primary schools question whether they will be able to continue existing. The Minister's continual delay of the report's publication without a reasonable explanation accentuates everyone's concerns.
Please, the Deputy's time has concluded. Everyone must stick to the new regime.
I have listened to the concerns raised by many representatives of rural Ireland, including my colleagues in the Labour Party and Fine Gael. Complex issues are involved. I have tried to provide within the constraints in which we found ourselves three years ago. We made a reduction, or a disimprovement as it were, in the pupil-teacher ratio of small schools in order to provide a degree of certainty and to enable school communities to plan for the future, which is the very point the Deputy made. I outlined what the situation would be over three years so that school managements and communities would be aware of it and could make whatever choices they desired as regards other schools in their areas. There are no further proposals for changes in the pupil-teacher ratio.
Special Education Review
Jonathan O'Brien
Ceist:92. Deputy Jonathan O'Brien asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will provide an update on the working group established by the National Council for Special Education on its proposal to develop a new model for the allocation of teaching supports for children with special educational needs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50480/13]
In June, the Minister decided to go to the Cabinet to seek an additional 500 resource teaching posts to maintain this year the number of hours that children had last year.
That was because there was an increased demand for resource teachers. At the time, the Minister established a working group under the chairmanship of Mr. Eamon Stack. I am seeking an update on that working group.
The National Council for Special Education, NCSE, has established a working group to develop a proposal, for consideration, for a new model for the allocation of teaching supports for children with special educational needs, based on the profiled educational needs of schools.
Mr. Eamon Stack, the NCSE chairperson and former much respected chief inspector in the Department, has been appointed to chair this working group. I received an oral briefing from the chairperson on the progress of the work of this group to date on 2 October 2013. The group expects to complete its work by the end of spring next year.
The NCSE consulted widely with interested parties in developing its policy advice and I understand that the working group has also consulted a range of interested parties, including parents and representative groups, as its work has progressed. I look forward to a considered debate on this matter when the proposals are finalised.
I am somewhat concerned because we were under the impression, although I do not know where that impression came from, that the working group would report back as quickly as possible. Everyone in the House thought the group would come back with recommendations. We have subsequently found out that is not the case and that it will report in early spring 2014.
In response to a parliamentary question tabled by Deputy Kyne, the Minister said it would probably take another 12 months for it to be implemented. I am concerned because when the Minister announced the 500 additional resource teaching posts last year he said it was a one-off and that there would be budgetary implications as a result.
The Minister has also stated that the current model is not sustainable, is flawed and needs to be changed. We know the current model is unsustainable and flawed, as well as being weighted more in favour of schools that can afford to get tests done privately, so there is an urgent need to have the recommendations implemented as quickly as possible. At this stage, however, we are probably looking at the 2015 academic year.
When I made the decision to reverse what previously had been Government policy and to maintain the status quo rather than reduce it back in June, it was a move that was welcomed by all concerned. On foot of that decision, I knew I would have to find the resources for that from elsewhere within my budget at that time. We were able to do that successfully without diminishing the provision of services elsewhere.
I could have given the impression that I was going to get an earlier report. I got a work-in-progress report but I was never under the impression that they would come up with an alternative model by the end of this calendar year. If I conveyed that impression to the Deputy, then I apologise. I was certainly briefed by the chief executive and others that it would take at least until the spring of 2014. Mr. Eamon Stack told me that he had made good progress with all of the interested parties and groups involved. From his own constituency work and as his party's spokesperson on education, the Deputy will be aware of the variety of concerns. The allocation model we have is over ten or 15 years old. A lot of research has been undertaken both here and abroad in that time. On the basis of what we now know collectively, including such research and the report that was sent to me, the NCSE is considering whether there is a better and more effective way of allocating resources to children with special educational needs. Based on the progress made to date, I am told that they will have a substantive report in spring 2014 but I cannot be any more precise than that.
I thank the Minister for his comments. I agree completely that the current model is flawed and needs to be re-examined. That is why we welcomed the establishment of the working group under Mr. Eamon Stack. We await its recommendations in due course. Now that we are looking at early spring 2014 - probably a further 12 months for it to be implemented, whatever the recommendations are - we cannot have another situation where students are facing cuts in hours, as they were in May and June this year. It is all well and good to say that a working group has been established, will report in spring 2014 and that its recommendations will be implemented, but in the meantime students should not have to suffer as a result of that delay.
Until such time as the report has been published and a new model has been implemented, the commitment given this year regarding the maintenance of hours at current levels and the additional 500 posts, which have been welcomed, must be honoured.
I share the Deputy's view. It is my intention to maintain the status quo until such time as there is roll-out of the recommendations on the new model, assuming that we accept them. Following discussion of these recommendations in this Chamber the changes will be made. I do not propose to change the status quo until such time as we are in a position to implement a replacement.
Special Educational Needs Service Provision
Finian McGrath
Ceist:93. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will ensure that all pupils with Down's syndrome in mainstream schools receive adequate resource hours. [50605/13]
Will the Minister ensure all pupils with Down's syndrome in mainstream schools receive adequate resource hours? I ask this question because there are many families of children of Down's syndrome in particular who are concerned about the lack of resources and adequate services for their children. It is important to highlight this issue. A number of parents are currently engaged with the courts on the issue of resource hours allocation for their children. There is a crisis in this area, which needs to be accepted and dealt with by the Minister.
As a former primary school teacher, the Deputy will be aware that pupils with Down's syndrome who have a mild general learning disability, in addition to mainstream class teaching support, receive support from learning support teachers allocated to schools by my Department through the general allocation model. Those pupils who are assessed as having a more significant, moderate or severe general learning disability receive an individual allocation of resource teaching hours. This individual allocation is made by the NCSE.
The recent NCSE report on supporting children with special educational needs recommended that under a proposed new allocation model all children, including those with Down's syndrome, should be allocated additional resources in line with their level of need rather than by disability category. The NCSE also recommended that in the short term, pupils with Down's syndrome who are in the mild general learning disability category should continue to be supported by schools' learning support allocation in the same way as other pupils with a mild GLD.
I thank the Minister for his reply. On the allocation of resource hours, many children with Down's syndrome, because they do not fall into a particular category, are not receiving the hours that would assist them in making greater achievements at primary school level.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. Does the Minister accept that all children with Down's syndrome and other disabilities have a right to an adequate resource allocation? Is he aware that within the primary teaching system there are 121,353 pupils in classes of more than 30 pupils, within which are a number of children with Down's syndrome and other disabilities who are being impacted by this issue?
On access to services, a lack of educational psychologists to carry out psychological assessments is causing a huge problem for many families, with many being forced into the charity sector to have them done. Will the Minister agree that this is unacceptable and that in a modern democratic inclusive republic all people should be treated fairly?
I agree with the Deputy. We must try to do that within the limited resources available. As I said, the NCSE report recommends that a new model be established. Until such time as its detailed recommendations on that model have been received, I am not in a position to increase the number of categories as suggested by the Deputy.
With regard to overcrowding in classrooms, I have asked the building unit of my Department to provide me with statistical information in that regard. The pupil-teacher ratio should not result in classes of more than 28 pupils.
If that number is exceeded in any instance, I will want to know why. It is one matter if two classes are accommodated in one room, but it should not otherwise be happening. The problem is that we do not have the information readily to hand in the building unit in Tullamore. It has been suggested, for example, that up to one third of all classrooms are overcrowded. I have asked for the complete information and will publish it as soon as I receive it.
It is important that we obtain that information. I was given a figure of 121,353 by a group of disability bodies, which was the information given to them. It is an issue the Minister must address seriously. In recent days two mothers of children with Down's syndrome have been granted leave to challenge the law on resource hours for children with that condition. We must not go back to the old days where parents of children with disabilities had to go to the courts to secure the resources their children needed. That type of court action costs the Minister a great deal of money, which he does not have. The uncertainty is causing great hardship and distress to parents, who just want the services to which their children are entitled. I acknowledge that much good is being achieved by the provision of resource hours. All parents of children with disabilities are seeking is a quality education service.
It is ten years since the provision of services for children with special educational needs was given formal recognition by the former Minister for Education and Science, Mr. Noel Dempsey. At that time, just under 1.5% of the total departmental budget was allocated in this area; the allocation now is in the order of 15%. A great deal of research has been undertaken in the meantime and the thinking, as contained in the report from the NCSE, is more orientated towards resourcing the profiling of schools, which we can now do with a greater degree of accuracy than before, and resourcing those schools in a manner that enables them, by the deployment of those resources, to reach out to all children with different levels of learning abilities and disabilities.
That is the type of space we are trying to carve out, but it is not easy. As I said, the report that is due next spring will be discussed in this House and implemented. Parents should not have to go to court to obtain what we all want for our children, namely, the best possible education.
State Examinations Reviews
Charlie McConalogue
Ceist:94. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Education and Skills his response to continuing concerns among teachers and parents regarding junior certificate reforms and the need for independent assessment of examination papers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50479/13]
My question relates to the issue of junior certificate reform, particularly the need for independent assessment and marking of examinations. Parents and teachers alike have expressed their concerns regarding the changes proposed by the Minister in this area. I understand the initial advice from the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment to the Minister was that the junior certificate should remain an externally assessed examination that is set and certified by the State. The Minister, however, seems to be going down a different path. I am asking for a commitment, as part of junior certificate reform, that there be independent assessment and that it remain a State-certified exam.
Extensive quality assurance measures will be included in the new junior cycle. These include subject specifications with clear learning outcomes and samples of student work outlining the standards expected; an assessment and moderation toolkit; a junior cycle for teachers team which will provide continuous professional development programmes for teachers, principals and deputy principals in educational assessment and moderation; and the introduction of standardised tests for all students in English reading, mathematics and science, and in Irish reading for Irish-medium schools. The State Examinations Commission will set and mark the final examinations in English, Irish and mathematics until such time as the new assessment methodologies are embedded. The commission will provide the final papers and marking schemes for the other 18 subjects which teachers will use. School moderation will provide for standardisation. The results awarded by schools to their students will be monitored by the Department and anomalies will be highlighted and acted upon. A dedicated website, www.juniorcycle.ie, can be used by parents, teachers and students to access resources.
The Minister indicated that the State Examinations Commission will, initially, continue to set the paper and assess the exams in the case of three subjects.
Will the Minister give a commitment that we will continue to have a State-certified junior certificate examination and that in future we will also have independent assessment of junior certificate examinations?
Let us consider the position. My party fully supports the need for junior certificate reform and the reasons behind it. That is why we initiated the process of consultation and reform which the Minister is now carrying on. However, the move to make the junior certificate examination a low stakes examination, a move we support, can be done without making it an examination which is not assessed by the State and which is not a State-certified examination. We need to retain that aspect of it.
Teachers and parents will make the point to the Minister. A person is not supposed to examine his own work. Teachers have made points about examining students' work, but we should recognise that in marking examination papers, teachers are also marking themselves in some ways in terms of how their classes have done. Students, parents and teachers need to have confidence that if a student is doing an examination in Carndonagh Community School, the result can be benchmarked against the result that a student gets in another school in another part of the country.
Deputy, I will come back to you. Let the Minister respond.
We cannot have a situation whereby the credibility of that benchmark and examination is lost because of the approach the Minister is taking.
You are stretching your time.
I put it to the Deputy and to the wider teaching community that the decision taken to abolish the examination - I welcome the support for it from across the House - was a big step, just as the abolition of the primary certificate in 1968 was a big step. No one would suggest that in 2013 we should go back and introduce a written State examination for 12 year olds in primary school. That was the norm and, sadly, it was the final State examination for far too many people. We do not want young people to leave school at 15 years. They do not need a State examination. The need moderation and they need to be measured in respect of the progress they are making an education, but not necessarily by a State examination. That said, we understand the sensitivities and this is why, for a period, as the process is bedded in, the State Examinations Commission will set the examination and mark it in the three critical areas, that is, English, mathematics and Irish. Over time, that will evolve.
The first cohort starting English will enter first year next September. It will sit an examination in 2017 after the next general election. Over time, up to 2020, the process will be rolled out. As we travel that journey together we will make the changes that are necessary on the basis of evidence and the constructive engagement that we are getting all the time from the teaching community.
It is important to point out that the initial advice to the Minister from the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, following consultation, was that we should keep a State examination and that it should continue to be set by the State and marked and assessed independently. The Minister has gone down a different route. I heard him say at one of the teaching conferences in the spring this was a personal political project of his.
It was a decision.
A personal political decision. I recall the Minister describing it as a personal political project. The Minister is outlining that in the first three years the first three subjects will continue to be independently assessed.
In no way do we want the junior certificate to be a terminal examination. Much progress has been made to ensure students get to leaving certificate level. However, we want the learning to be centred around the student and absorption. I see no reason why we should go down a path whereby the credibility of the benchmark, assessment and examination is undermined and the Minister should engage seriously in that regard.
I am aware of the view the of Minister but he should listen to other people. As we start the process the Minister should give confidence to people such that the process will not be undermined. Without the Minister admitting that, he should say that he will listen to those concerns and ensure they are responded to. Otherwise, that confidence will not be there.
A State examination at 15 years of age can have a detrimental affect on people, as we already see with the existing junior certificate. We need moderation and we need to assess the progress students are making but we do not need a State examination to do that. We need to have continuous discussion and understanding and review progress as we go through the process. If changes need to be made based on what the outcomes are delivering, then we will make those changes.
However, as regards the final destination of one State examination at the end of second level or post-primary education when aged approximately 18, this is what many other countries have, including Scotland, Finland and New Zealand, and is a place where we should be.
Industrial Disputes
Jonathan O'Brien
Ceist:95. Deputy Jonathan O'Brien asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will provide an update on the efforts that are being made to resolve the ongoing industrial relations dispute with the ASTI; if he will provide assurances that his Department’s focus will be on reaching a fair settlement with the ASTI and to resolve the outstanding issues that have arisen from the Haddington Road agreement; and if he will acknowledge that teachers are being increasingly overwhelmed by new initiatives that are being implemented at a time when schools are enduring unsustainable cutbacks in resources and services. [50548/13]
As the Minister is aware, the ASTI's executive council will recommend to its members the rejection of the recent outcome of the discussions between the union and the Department of Education and Skills. The Minister may not wish to comment on this issue in advance, which I can understand, but the second part of my question again pertains to junior cycle reform. Does the Minister recognise that serious concerns have been expressed by teachers, which must be taken on board and which must be addressed in the best interests of students?
I am acutely aware of the difficulties faced by all public servants, including teachers, regarding the necessary measures the Government has been obliged to introduce. However, these measures must to be viewed against the backdrop of the Government's efforts to recover from the serious financial and budgetary situation that continues to face this country and to restore stability to the public finances. The context of the Haddington Road agreement was the need to address the major and unprecedented financial difficulties facing the State. At this stage, all public service unions, with the exception of the ASTI, have accepted the terms of this agreement, that is, approximately 300,000 workers.
The current position is that ASTI members have not accepted the agreement and are not operating the changes to the supervision and substitution scheme provided for in the agreement that the other two teacher unions are operating. Given that situation, I have indicated, as has my colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, that the continued payment of the supervision and substitution allowance to ASTI members is unsustainable. The Government has provided time and space for the recent discussions between officials from my Department and the ASTI in a final effort to resolve this issue and it is now a matter for the membership of the ASTI to make its decision on the outcome of those discussions. However, I would be less than frank if I did not make the point to Members that the payment of the supervision and substitution allowance cannot be continued.
It is now a matter for the membership of the union to make its decision regarding the outcomes of those discussions. I wish to take this opportunity to restate the significant benefits that will accrue to ASTI members if they accept the Haddington Road agreement and will outline them for the benefit of the House. First, there will be improved levels of payment for newly qualified teachers. Second, there will be a review of the usage of the 33 additional hours required by teachers under the Croke Park agreement negotiated earlier. Third, a firm timetable will be provided on the establishment of an expert group to examine casualisation in the teaching profession, particularly at second level. The fourth benefit will be the introduction of additional assistant principal posts to support the management of schools. This is what is on the table for those members who I understand will be voting from 1 December until approximately 15 December. I welcome that the ASTI have agreed to re-ballot its members on the Haddington Road agreement and I hope those members will accept the benefits of the agreement.
I thank the Minister and note he has made much of the issue of substitution and supervision. As he noted, the union members themselves will decide the outcome in this regard. However, the Minister must also see this issue in the context of the bigger picture, in which implementing junior cycle reform is being discussed. The Minister is aware that Sinn Féin is very supportive of what is proposed by the Department but teachers have real concerns in this regard. They believe themselves to be advocates for students and do not wish to be judge and jury either. This is the reason an issue has arisen in respect of the State examination and how to move to the new model. As the Minister stated in response to Deputy McConalogue, we are starting a journey and will take that journey together. However, one cannot start a journey on the wrong foot either and one must consider the current position in post-primary schools.
A number of initiatives have been introduced since the Minister came into office, some of which were highly progressive, such as anti-bullying procedures, new mental health guidelines and transfer options for first-year students. However, one must also consider the additional workload these initiatives placed on teachers and compare that with the cutbacks that have been taking place in the education sector.
The teaching profession is very demoralised. Cutbacks are affecting front-line services and additional initiatives and responsibilities are being placed on the teaching profession while at the same we are trying to transform the junior certificate by means of reform of the junior cycle. Many teachers are worried that the necessary resources and training are not being put in place to enable them to carry out this reform.
We have started on a journey. There has to be agreement about who will set the destination and I have set it, based on the advice I received. I take the political responsibility for that decision. As I said in Wexford, the best way to get to that destination, the best route and the speed at which we should travel, is open for discussion. Based on today's timetable, the final journey will not be complete until we reach the cohort of students who will be in third year in 2020. Nobody could say this is a rash or precipitous implementation of a policy. It is my hope that long before we get to 2020 we will see the continued recovery of the Irish economy. There is further evidence today of a further drop in unemployment and increased economic growth. It is my hope that this will provide the extra resources which will be needed as we progress with the other subjects. I have listened to the concerns of teachers in the first instance about being asked to assess their own students in a formal examination to replace the junior certificate. As I said in reply to Deputy McConalogue, that is why the State Examinations Commission will be in place for a period of time to ensure that in Irish, English and mathematics, both the examination and the marking will be done by the State Examinations Commission. We are listening to what I agree are the legitimate concerns of teachers. We will provide more resources as they become available. I am confident we can do that constructively.
I refer to the working group set up to examine the issue of junior cycle reform. On 12 November 2013, the Minister wrote to the ASTI general secretary, Mr. Pat King, about the establishment of this working group. I believe the working group will consist of representatives of the unions, school management, the Department and the NCCA. I am open to correction but I understand an initial meeting has taken place. How long will the group be in place and will it deal with all the issues which have been raised. Junior cycle reform is beginning next September and teachers are not prepared for it. In a recent ASTI survey, 50 schools reported that with the current level of resources at their disposal, they do not think they are sufficiently equipped to roll out the junior cycle reform. Teachers have said they are not opposed to this reform and every Member of the House has welcomed it. We have to meet in agreement at some point.
I respect the profession of teaching and when teachers express concerns I listen to those concerns. However, we are talking about a cohort starting in first year on one subject next September. Resources are already available to facilitate and assist this. The big change is not in the teaching of English in the manner it is currently taught but rather the difference is in a combination of project work which will account for 40% of a student's total result at the end of third year. Exam-based papers will account for 60% which will be set and marked by the State Examinations Commission. The change we are discussing will not take place for another ten or 11 months and it will be confined to one subject in first year with a different form of moderation in 2017.
What about the working group?
The working group is part and parcel of the clarification that the ASTI sought after the Haddington Road agreement was rejected. It is one of four items we have identified as being clear from the point of view of ASTI members and what will be a benefit for them if they vote for the Haddington Road agreement. The ASTI is in a formal dispute with us at the moment and the working group will not meet until the current difficulties are resolved.
Does this mean the working group will not meet?
I understand it has been agreed in principle to establish it but I will confirm that for the Deputy.
To the best of my knowledge a formal meeting of it has not taken place and probably will not take place until this current issue is resolved.