Vol. 827 No. 1
129. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Education and Skills when he expects to publish the value for money report on small schools; the reason for the delay in publication; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2275/14]
143. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Education and Skills the progress to date in addressing the specific issues of rural schools; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2279/14]
Small primary schools are the lifeblood of local rural communities. They have given outstanding outcomes in respect of both the academic achievements of the graduates of those schools and the social coherence they have created. They are under constant attack by people in ivory towers and the Minister appears to be one of the cheerleaders in this campaign. The Minister has had a value for money review carried out on these small schools. Will this review be published before the local elections?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 129 and 143 together.
The current configuration of small primary schools has been examined by my Department in a value for money review, commissioned by my predecessor, former Deputy Mary Coughlan, which I am considering in consultation with my Government colleagues. The Government is mindful of the impact of small schools on dispersed rural communities and will take this into account in considering any planning framework for future provision of schools. My intention is to publish the report of the review on completion of this consideration process. I am not in a position to give a precise publication date at this time.
The Minister tells me he is unable to give a precise date. I would be more than willing to accept an imprecise date today. Does the Minister envisage that the report will be published within one, two or three months? I would be more than happy were the Minister to give me the date within a month. That would be a fair and happy compromise, because I can understand that things get delayed for a day or two.
My second question to the Minister pertains to a request for a meeting with him made by the chairman of the education committee in Northern Ireland to discuss the vulnerability of small Protestant schools in County Donegal in particular under the rules for small schools introduced by the Minister regarding pupil-teacher ratio.
He refused to meet that significant and senior politician in this country. Why was the Minister unwilling to meet Mr. Mervyn Storey, MLA, to discuss the plight of small schools in County Donegal?
I am not immediately aware of such a request, but I will make inquiries. I have no difficulty in meeting anybody in that regard, particularly in the area about which Mr. Storey has expressed concern because I have met others regarding it. I do not doubt the request was made to the Department, but as a former Cabinet Minister, the Deputy will realise a Minister does not see every request.
I did, every one of them.
Did you?
Yes, always. If somebody, particularly a politician, wanted to meet me, I certainly would have made sure that I saw it.
The Deputy was a very fortunate man to have had so much time to do that.
I just made the time.
I am sure the Deputy did.
Hard work. I had to travel a lot more than the Minister.
I admire the Deputy's tenacity. I will revert to him when I am in a position to tell him when the report will be published so as not to mislead him.
I presume the Minister will accept that Ireland is predominantly a rural country and that in the past decade and a half we have seen the complete decimation of rural communities. Shops, businesses, pubs and communities have been decimated. The only remaining focal point is the small rural school. The report commenced three years ago and has been with the Department for approximately 12 months. Does the Minister not think the communities involved deserve to know what is in that report and that it should be made available for discussion to let it feed into any discussion rather than the other way around?
Ireland was very much or predominantly a rural country, but that started to turn around in 1961 and it is now predominantly an urban country in many respects. That is having an impact in many ways. Changes in retail policy, transport and other areas are having a major impact not just on Irish society but also in countries such as France, Italy, Spain and many others. We are no different; we are affected by the same factors. I recognise the central importance of a school in any community but particularly in isolated rural communities such as those on the islands that could not function without a school. I do everything to ensure island communities have access to a school and there is no question of their not having access to a school. One could ask why one island has two schools less than one mile from each other but that is another matter. I want to have the report published as soon as possible. I want to ensure it is available in order that people can see what it states. Perhaps we should have a debate and a discussion about what the implications are. I would like that to happen.
The Minister has said the request for a meeting was not brought to his attention. The meeting was requested on 13 September. I telephoned the Minister's diary secretary and asked that the importance of offering this meeting be stressed. I was in continuous contact with the Minister's office. When I received a letter refusing a meeting, I wrote to the Taoiseach and telephoned his secretary a number of times to explain the importance of this issue. I mentioned the request for a meeting on the floor of the House on the Order of Business with the Taoiseach. The Minister is telling me that after all of that, nobody at any stage told him a senior politician, the chairperson of the education committee in Northern Ireland, was seeking a meeting with him. He needs to put a better system in place in his office. Can he tell me what he will do to ensure the next time an elected politician in Northern Ireland requests a meeting with him his staff inform him? I do not blame the staff because they obviously act on the Minister's instructions.
As a lot of Members are offering, I will take Deputy Denis Naughten's question now.
In fairness, I am entitled to the same response and the Minister should not amalgamate the two answers. I would like to let him respond on the issue.
Okay, but I cannot let the Deputies in. It is as simple as that.
I intended no disrespect to Deputy Ó Cuív in regard to the efforts he made to contact the Department or to emulate Mr. Storey. I simply said that I do not recall such a request being brought to my attention, but I could be wrong on that. I do not blame anybody else, but I do not recall such a request. I get many requests, as no doubt the Deputy did also as a Minister. I will make inquiries and will be more than happy to meet the person. I have no difficulty with that.
Would the Minister accept that if there is large-scale closure of rural schools, children as young as four will have to be bussed over long distances on poor roads, and will he agree that this is not an acceptable situation? Will the Minister consider clustering schools together so that they can share resources and boards of management? This would be of assistance and allow real efficiencies for schools. Can the Minister assure us that the value for money report will be published in advance of any Cabinet decision? It is pointless to publish such reports after the Cabinet has made its decisions. At that stage there is no point in having a discussion or debate, because the Minister's hands and Cabinet's hands are tied. Will the Minister give us this assurance?
It is certainly my desire that the report be published as soon as possible and that it be considered by the wider community before any policy decision is made.
130. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Education and Skills his views on recent reports that guidance counsellors are spending 59% less time on one-to-one student counselling than they did just two years ago; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2345/14]
No doubt the Minister is aware that the reason we are counting from two years ago is that in the budget, and starting the academic year 2012-2013, the Minister removed what had previously been an ex-quota allocation, which provided that at secondary level there was specific allocation for guidance counselling teachers and hours of which students could avail. This was removed and schools were left to fend for themselves and to find resources from within their existing budgets.
Since September 2012, guidance provision is organised by school management from within the staffing schedule allocation. In this way principals have discretion to balance guidance needs with the pressures to provide subject choice. I acknowledge that bringing guidance within quota is challenging for schools, but the alternative was an increase in the 19:1 pupil-teacher ratio. My Department helped shelter the impact of the budgetary measure for DEIS post-primary schools by improving their pupil-teacher ratio to 18.25:1.
The survey quoted by the Deputy is focused on guidance counsellors and, in particular, on the time spent by them in a one-to-one setting giving career guidance and student counselling. It is important to note that guidance is a whole-school activity that does not just involve the guidance counsellor. Wherever possible, group work and class-based activity should be used to maximise the amount of time available for those pupils who are in most need of one-to-one support.
The Minister does a fine job of making it sound as though secondary schools have a choice. He uses the word "discretion" and says they have the discretion to balance needs. The reality is that the Minister removed their choice and their ability to deliver this service. Does the Minister believe the role guidance counsellors carry out is important and has a real impact on students? It offers real assistance in terms of students' mental health, particularly for those experiencing difficulties within the school system. It also has a real impact on guiding students towards the next level and third level.
Let me bring some figures to the Minister's attention. For example, 9% of students who start first year at university do not progress to second year and 16% of students starting at institutes of technology do not progress to second year. Apart from the difficulty this creates for those students, it is also a significant cost to the State. The advice these students get from a guidance counsellor is critical.
Figures from the Irish career guidance survey indicate the time allocated for one to one sessions with students is only 41% of what it was prior to the cuts. Will the Minister revise the very short-sighted cut he introduced and examine the impact it has had, the damage it does to students and their futures and the knock-on costs at third level and reintroduce the previous allocation in order that career guidance can be restored?
I recognise what the Deputy has said and I am familiar with the statistics he quoted. When I am - or my successor is - in a position to increase the number of guidance counsellors in a school, I will happily do so. I would not return to the situation where guidance counsellors were outside the quota and could only be deployed for certain purposes by the principal and leadership of a school. They must be part of the total team. If we have more guidance counsellors in the school system, they should be part of the team because offering guidance and counselling is a whole school responsibility, not demarcated around one individual. This has been the finding of successive reports. I accept as a non-professional educationalist without qualifications that this is the right way to go. When resources become available, we will increase them for the very good reasons cited by the Deputy, but with regard to returning to the situation as it was, the answer is no.
Education is a whole of government responsibility, but this does not detract from the fact that it is primarily the Minister's role.
Yes.
Although everyone in a school has a guidance and counselling duty of care to students, guidance counselling is a profession which has developed very steadily and incrementally over a number of years. Guidance counsellors are now highly trained professionals who are able to give a service which is much wider and more rounded than it was in the past when the role was more about giving career guidance. The impact of the cut, whereby after two years only 41% of the previous number of one to one sessions take place, is a drastic reduction in a very crucial service. The Minister needs to examine the issue. It is not acceptable that when students need the service and knock on the door of the guidance counsellor, he or she is not available because he or she is in a classroom, which is the case in many instances. Students cannot access the service. As we have seen from the figures at third level, it is having a very real impact in terms of students not going down the avenue best suited to them when they leave secondary school. I ask the Minister to revisit this issue in the next budget and not leave it for his successors to pick up on.
I have noted what the Deputy has stated and I will bear it in mind when the next budget comes to be discussed.
131. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will extend his Department’s support for book rental schemes in order that more schools and pupils can avail of it; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2350/14]
133. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will review his decision to exclude primary schools with existing book rental schemes from the new €15 million investment in this area; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2324/14]
137. Deputy Jonathan O'Brien asked the Minister for Education and Skills his plans to address the issues raised in his proposed book rental scheme in view of the manner in which the information regarding existing schemes was collected by his Department. [2342/14]
154. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will ensure that all schools are treated equitably with regard to book rental schemes; and that those schools which proactively introduced schemes will not find themselves disadvantaged by not being awarded the financial support being made available to those setting up schemes. [2322/14]
I wish to follow up on what my colleague highlighted with regard to the seriously discriminatory policy the Minister is pursuing in the allocation of resources for the provision of the school book rental scheme. As I have stated, it is an inequitable and very unfair policy and the mechanism by which the Minister is implementing it needs to be radically reviewed to ensure fairness and equity throughout the scheme.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 131, 133, 137 and 154 together.
The matter has been dealt with and I can only repeat what I stated, that I responded to a request from parents to reduce the cost of sending children to school. They identified two areas, namely, books and uniforms. I will leave the issue of uniforms aside because I have asked for a survey to be conducted in this regard and when I receive it, I will return to the House and answer questions.
With regard to books, in the interests of fairness, I want every school to have a book rental scheme. Approximately 20% of schools were without such a scheme. I received an extra €5 million per year for three years - a total of €15 million - to fill the gap in the figure of 20%. Was it unfair to those who had struggled to put in place a school book rental scheme? Yes, it was, but it was very fair to those kids in schools which had no book rental scheme. I had to make that choice and I made it in the way I did. The book grant of €7 million a year goes to all other schools and this will continue. If I get extra resources, it will help to augment the scheme in some schools which commenced a book rental scheme in two, three or four areas.
It will be equalised. If I can improve the scheme in the future I will, but I wanted to ensure that every parent struggling with the cost of sending his or her child to school had the choice of paying €40 a year under this scheme as distinct from the €150 to €200 it could cost for books.
I am amazed that a Labour Party Minister has acknowledged in the House that what he has introduced is unfair. He said in reply to Deputy McConalogue earlier to justify this announcement that there was unfairness prior to the introduction of this scheme because other schools were introducing it. However, this is an opportunity for the Minister to ensure fairness in every school and he can pursue this agenda. Why is he pursuing such a highly discriminatory policy? He is penalising schools that have put in place a much needed book rental scheme from their own resources and he has also given no recognition to the variety of schemes currently in place. I tabled a parliamentary question and sent a letter to the Minister about a school in my constituency which offers a book rental scheme only for one subject and has done so for only the past two years, but is getting nothing under the new scheme. That is unfair and inequitable and the scheme needs to be revisited.
It was amazing to pick up local newspapers the length and breadth of the country and read that backbench Deputies from both Government parties had heralded this announcement in the budget as a massive success. They said every school in their constituencies would benefit from this cash injection into the book rental scheme. It was a fabrication because, as the Minister acknowledged, only 24% of schools will benefit. He has the opportunity to ensure fairness across the board and I ask him to revisit the scheme to ensure we have a fair and equitable system.
About whom are we concerned in the context of fairness? I am concerned about parents in poor areas and kids in poor households whose parents simply do not have the wherewithal to buy the books they need. That was my starting point in the measurement of fairness. I acknowledge that it was a choice and, in some cases, parents have put their hands deep into their pockets following the leadership of school principals or senior teachers to put a book rental system in place. It certainly appears to be unfair to those people who have worked hard and engaged in fund-raising.
It is unfair.
It appears to be unfair and I can see how they would feel that. However, for the past 15 years the newspapers have run back-to-school stories about the cost of uniforms and books.
Why did the Minister cut the allowance?
We have started to do something about this.
The Minister cut the allowance.
If I secure additional resources I will attempt to equalise the position, but Ireland is not a fair society, and in the days before the crisis hit some schools could raise money for book schemes of various kinds. The Deputy and I have visited such schools, but not every school was able to do this. I am trying to introduce fairness for every parent and child and this is the first step on that road.
I accept that the Minister gave money to schools that needed and deserved it, and that is a benefit. He also acknowledged the anger among schools. I received a letter from the principal of Mercy School Wexford, Pat Gately, who was going mad about the fact the school was under a great deal of pressure to set up the scheme. He deals with many parents from a lower socioeconomic background and he was struggling to make it work. The scheme has been set up in such a way that some parents get the books free while the better-off parents subsidise them. Meanwhile, some schools did not set up a scheme because they did not need it. They have children from higher socioeconomic backgrounds and did not see a great need for it but now they are going to avail of the scheme.
I acknowledge it would be difficult to organise, but will the Minister consider the schools which went to the bother of setting up their own schemes and are now finding it difficult because they have to deal with significant numbers of children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds? It might be possible to give some assistance to these schools.
I am prepared to examine the scheme at the end of the year, but I will have to do so within fixed resources. I have €5 million per year for the next three years and an annual book grant of €7 million. The Deputies opposite have the same option as me of investigating whether we have complete information. If a school has a full book rental scheme up and running, it may not get any money under the book grant scheme and we will use some of the €7 million to skew it towards schools which have started book rental schemes but which have not completed their preparations in the manner suggested. There are different ways of doing this, but the amount of money is fixed. If Deputies or schools are prepared to come forward with suggestions for completing book rental scheme preparations, I will be open to them provided they understand the constraints under which I must operate, namely, that the total amount for next year is €12 million, comprising €7 million from the book grant scheme and €5 million from the special rental scheme. At the end of the day I want all parents to feel their children have access to book rental schemes they can afford.
The policy of ensuring every school has a school book rental scheme is commendable and we fully support it. However, we part ways on the question of how the scheme will proceed. It is based on very crude information and the only question asked was whether the school operated a school book rental scheme. Any school that answered "Yes" was excluded from the new scheme, even though some of these schools were struggling to maintain their rental schemes or operated schemes that were not particularly wide ranging. That information should have been sought in the questionnaire because we are now looking at a total of €15 million in the next three years. The Minister previously stated the €15 million allocation would be sufficient to ensure that by the end of year three every primary school in the State would have a school book rental scheme. He may be able to confirm whether that is still his estimate or whether the figure will be significantly less. Is anything available to help schools which are in the early stages of implementing school book rental schemes and which may only cover one subject? Is this something that can be reviewed at the end of year one? Perhaps further information on the types of school book rental scheme in place can be gathered in the next 12 months to ensure that if additional money is available in year two, the scheme can be extended to schools which have already started schemes but which have not got them to a stage where they are fully operational. Is that something to which the Minister is willing to commit?
I thank the Deputy for his comments and I am broadly supportive of his suggested approach. I will raise the matter with the officials in my Department to investigate whether we can get information on any discrepancy between schools that are benefiting from this initiative, on the one hand, and those which are struggling to improve current schemes, on the other, with a view to achieving equality between schools. If I have more information, I can exercise discretion over the money.
It is welcome that the Minister has recognised the enormous cost of school books and I accept that the scheme is an attempt to address the issue. However, he recognises that it is unfair and, as has been noted both on this side of the House and in his back benches, the issue needs to be examined further. When he examines the figures, I think he will find that some of the schools which were under the least pressure to introduce schemes because of their affluence or other reasons were able to use voluntary fund-raising efforts to introduce other measures which put them at an advantage. These will be the beneficiaries of the scheme. Has he considered making the system mandatory? How does he think iPads and the move away from print books will impact on schemes?
In Lusk, parents of pupils in the secondary school are being asked for €700 for an iPad system, which is obviously cheaper in the long run. Could the Minister consider including e-books and such technology as part of his review of the book rental scheme? Schools are moving in that direction, but it is enormously costly, particularly at the inception.
I thank Deputy Clare Daly for her comments. In deference to the time and the fact that answers have been given already, I will respond to her last point, which is very interesting. We are in the middle of a transition from paper to electronic format. I would encourage schools to do this and we will try to co-ordinate it. Because of the universality of the different systems under which one can use iPads or different types of tablet which are compatible in terms of receiving information - this was not the case in the past when, for example, one had Betamax and VHS platforms for video - there is an argument at post-primary level for electronic storage of much of the material that young students are using, with extraordinary savings. As a non-professional educationalist, my own view is that young infants from two, three and four years of age, and those up to the age of ten, should feel the texture of a book and the printed word in reading and writing, and the physical holding of it. It is about more than merely getting information. It is about getting used to the format in which much information will remain in situ for the rest of their lives, even though they will be highly engaged in digital learning as well. That is why the book rental scheme at primary school level is so important. I will deal with the issues Deputy Daly raised and about which I answered the other Deputies.
132. Deputy Seán Kyne asked the Minister for Education and Skills in recognition of the over 15,000 educational places provided by Springboard, if a new round of Springboard courses will be introduced in 2014; when a call for expressions of interest among course providers will be made; and if the criteria governing eligibility will be reviewed to assist, for example, persons on long-term social welfare schemes such as invalidity pension, to avail of the opportunity provided by Springboard. [2317/14]
When will the new Springboard courses be introduced in 2014? When will a call for expressions of interest be made, and will there be any changes to the governing criteria?
Springboard is a specific initiative that strategically targets funding of free part-time higher education courses to enable the unemployed who have lost jobs in sectors in which employment will not return to previous levels, such as construction, to upskill or reskill in areas where there are identified labour market skills shortages or employment opportunities. That is what Springboard is specifically about, hence its name.
To be eligible for a place on a Springboard course a person must be unemployed, must be actively seeking employment and must be in receipt of one of the range of qualifying social protection payments, be signing for credits or have been previously self-employed.
A call for proposals for courses to be run under Springboard 2014 is expected to be published early next month. Details of courses subsequently selected for funding and the eligibility criteria for participation will be available on the dedicated information and applications website www.springboardcourses.ie from June 2014. It is not expected that significant changes will be made to the eligibility criteria in 2014.
I thank the Minister for the reply. I welcome the fact that a call will be made in February for expressions of interest and that the courses will reopen in June.
The Higher Education Authority reviewed Springboard in February 2013 with a number of feedback reports from participants. Will the small number of concerns about what is a successful course be taken into account in the criteria for 2014?
I do not have the precise detail, but it is our intention to learn from the experience of Springboard. Where there are lessons that can be applied to change the system and consequently improve it, of course we will take them on board. That is why the gap between and February and June is necessary - to see how we can make a good system better.
We have only a few minutes left because we started late. Deputy Broughan, who tabled the next question, is not here. We will go on to the following question in the name of Deputy Boyd Barrett. He is not present.
136. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Education and Skills when the first meeting of the working group on junior certificate reform will take place; the number of hours in-service training which will be provided to each English teacher in advance of the commencement of the new curriculum in September 2014; the way he proposes to address the concerns of teachers regarding the reforms; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2344/14]
As the Minister will be aware, this question was tabled last week. Since then, matters have moved on significantly. The two teacher unions have decided to ballot on non-co-operation with junior certificate reforms. It is the Minister's failure to engage properly with them over the past year and a half that has led to that situation, and I ask for his response to my question.
I thank the Deputy for his question and note his deep interest in this subject matter.
The first meeting of the national working group on junior cycle reform took place on Friday last, 17 January. I would have loved it to take place on the last Friday in June of last year but, unfortunately, one of the unions involved found itself on the other side of the Haddington Road negotiations and we were not in a position to hold that meeting on the last Friday in June. It is expected that there will be meetings of the group every three to four weeks over the next few months and thereafter while the new junior cycle is being phased in. Three sub-groups have been established to address continual professional development, CPD, assessment and school resources.
This new working group will be a forum where the concerns of the partners, not only the teachers' unions but including the teachers, can be heard. Through dialogue, the concerns raised can be addressed so as to enable the successful implementation of the junior cycle to proceed over the next number of years.
The number of days of in-service training that needs to be provided to each English teacher during the phased roll-out of the curriculum was to be three. An additional 1.5 days has now been provided for English teachers, raising the total to 4.5 in all. The in-service training is being rolled out on a phased basis to ensure that it is relevant to teachers in their work in adapting to the new curriculum.
The key issue here has been the way the Minister has handled these reforms from the outset. With change in any organisation, whether private or public, the reforms must be done in partnership, not in conflict. I note the way the Minister went about this from the first day he announced the new junior certificate reform. He announced it without consultation and, indeed, he deviated from the recommendation given to him by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. The Minister made his own call on it and he did it without consultation. He stated that one could go along with it and that was the way it was going. I later heard him describe the decision not to do common assessment under the State Examination Commission and to have teachers correct the junior certificate instead as a personal political project. That is not what reform is supposed to be about. It is little wonder the Minister finds himself in a situation, a little more than six months before this reform is due to kick in in classrooms, in which the two main teaching unions of professionals who are supposed to deliver this curriculum have stated they will not co-operate with him. The Minister lost their faith a long time ago. We now need mediation so that we can get junior certificate reform up and running in a spirit of partnership, not on a bad footing, for what should be one of the most significant changes to the second-level education system in many years.
The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment has been trying for the past 25 years to reform a curriculum which, by general consensus among the educationalists, including many teachers, is no longer fit for purpose in the 21st century. One of the blockages to implementing the desired reform was the cost and complexities associated with a new form of assessment for a State examination. It was a major cost factor. I took the decision, on the advice of officials in the Department and others, that in this day and age we do not need a State examination for young people at the age of 15 because we do not want them to leave school at the age of 15. Once upon a time we had the primary school certificate, which was a State examination for 12 year olds - and in some cases 11 year olds - and that was the only State certificate they were ever going to get in the education system because, sadly, many of them did leave school. It was abolished in 1967 and primary schools have flourished ever since.
The decision to change the nature of the junior certificate examination from a State examination to an in-house examination that would roll on to the leaving certificate was central to enabling us to move to introduce the desired reforms, which have been welcomed by the parents, management bodies and principals.
Do the teachers have concerns? Yes, they do. Are they right to have concerns?
The parents are concerned as well.
No, they are not. They welcome the changes.
The Minister has not been listening to them.
I am prepared to continue to talk with teachers.
The Minister has not talked to them.
He has not.
I have.
That is not the word on the ground.
We will continue to talk. It is not six months but nine months away to next September when first year students will come to do the new curriculum in English and English alone. In June 2017 they will do a paper that will account for 60% of their marks, a paper that will be set by the State Examinations Commission and that will be marked by the State examinations examiners, and will roll on slowly from that point. This is measured, steady progress but in a radical direction. I am proud to say that it is a political project that is overdue and I am happy to be associated with it.
