Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 21 Jan 2014

Vol. 827 No. 1

Priority Questions

Pupil-Teacher Ratio

Charlie McConalogue

Ceist:

124. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Education and Skills the percentage of all primary schools with fewer than five mainstream teachers; the cumulative effect of the budgets he has introduced on the pupil-teacher ratios in these schools; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2609/14]

In light of the Minister's promises when Opposition spokesperson for education to protect pupil-teacher ratios in schools, I would like him to give an outline of the percentage of all our schools which have five teachers or fewer. Also, what has he done - or not done, more to the point - to protect pupil-teacher ratios in those schools since he came to office? I ask him to give a cumulative account of exactly what has happened with respect to the pupil-teacher ratios in schools with one, two, three and four teachers.

I thank the Deputy for tabling this question. Under budget 2012, there is a phased increase in the number of pupils required to gain and retain a classroom teaching post in primary schools that have 86 or fewer pupils.

The Department's published statistics show that there were 1,532 schools, or 48% of all primary schools, with fewer than five mainstream teachers. Such schools would have up to 114 pupils. One hundred and twenty-five schools were due to lose a classroom post as a result of the budget 2012 measure, and this was reduced to 79 schools following the appeals process. That would probably have indicated, in most cases, that there was due to be an increase in population rather than a decrease. The average class size in these 79 schools is currently 21.3 pupils. This compares with the national average of 24.7 pupils. A further 42 schools did not gain a classroom post as a result of the 2012 budget measure.

The Government recognises that small schools are an important part of the social fabric of rural communities and will continue to be so.

I thank the Minister for his response. He has indicated that 48% of all primary schools have fewer than five teachers, yet we constantly hear the refrain from him and the Government that in office he has managed to protect the pupil-teacher ratio. However, he is admitting to the fact here today that since he came to office he has very significantly increased the pupil-teacher ratio for schools with one, two, three and four teachers, accounting for 48% of all primary schools. In September 2011 a two-teacher school needed 14 students to retain its two teachers, a three-teacher school needed 51 students to retain its three teachers and a four-teacher school needed 81 students to retain its four teachers. Under the Minister's stewardship the number of students those schools need to retain their teachers has increased by six for two-teacher schools, by five for three-teacher schools and by five for four-teacher schools also. Why has the Minister targeted the smaller schools in particular, which, as he said, make up nearly half of our primary schools? Alongside that, we have seen cuts over two years to the minor works grants and summer works scheme, the cumulative effect of which is that many of those schools are in crisis and many are considering whether they have a future.

Both my predecessor and I had to take into account the rapidly changing nature of the budgetary position on the one hand and the fact that the overall primary school population was growing and is continuing to grow. The measures that I introduced were balanced against that particular background and the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The pupil-teacher ratio in those schools is much more favourable than it is in schools generally.

The Minister is showing a complete lack of appreciation of the demands in those schools with fewer teachers. In many instances multi-class teaching is taking place. One teacher could be taking up to three classes. In such schools it is important, therefore, that the pupil-teacher ratio is lower.

What is the Minister's agenda in putting the burden of the cuts on the half of schools that do not have the capacity to take it? They have fewer families going to the school and more classes per teacher. After withdrawing the minor works grant and for the two years when the summer works scheme was not in place, there was a five-point increase in the pupil-teacher ratio while larger schools have not had an increase in the pupil-teacher ratio. The Minister has loaded it on the half that finds it most difficult to survive because resources are more stretched. That is the impact of the Minister's policy and he needs to assess it. The cumulative effect over the past three years of the Minister's stewardship is that smaller schools around the country are struggling to survive and many wonder how, and if, they have a future.

I came into office at a time of great difficulty because of the financial circumstances in which this country finds itself and against a background of a growing student population. I had to try to balance the concept of fairness and equity across the system. That I took the measure consciously in 2012, and gave notice of it for three years, of which this will be the last, was a signal to those schools in respect of how their pupil-teacher ratios would be altered. It involves multi-class arrangements in one room but that is the choice that has been made by the school in that area. The capitation grant still assumes 60 pupils in those schools and that has not been touched. It is a considerable resource.

It has been reduced every year.

No, I am referring to the threshold of 60, which has not been touched.

Apprenticeship Programmes

Jonathan O'Brien

Ceist:

125. Deputy Jonathan O'Brien asked the Minister for Education and Skills when he will reverse the decision to charge fees of up to €1,433 to low-earning apprentices for the college part of their courses; and if his attention has been drawn to the hardship this is causing. [2681/14]

The question is straightforward and I await the Minister's reply.

The annual student contribution is levied on apprentices and students attending institutes of technology. This contribution has been levied by institutes of technology in respect of apprentices since 2004, with FÁS - and now SOLAS - paying 70% of the contribution and apprentices themselves paying the remainder. As part of budget 2014, SOLAS will cease making this payment to the institutes of technology and apprentices themselves will pay the full pro rata annual student contribution, rather than 30%.

The charge is €833 for the vast majority of apprentices scheduled on an off the job phase in an institute of technology in the academic year 2013-14 but is more than this for a small number of apprentices attending phases that are longer than the typical ten to 11 weeks. Apprentices will pay the same contribution as students, apportioned for the time they spend in the institutes. Unlike students, apprentices are paid a training allowance by SOLAS for phases of their training spent in institutes of technology. The allowance is equivalent to the wages they receive from their employers for on the job phases and is unaffected by the budgetary changes. Although apprentices are not eligible to receive student grants, the value of their training allowance would be greater than the maintenance available under the student grant scheme. This decision was taken against a difficult budgetary background and there is no scope to revisit it.

The Minister of State is trying to make a comparison between apprentices and students. There is a difference because apprentices must pay fees but they do not have access to the same services, such as the students' doctor and other facilities in institutes of technology, as students. This policy flies in the face of what the youth guarantee is trying to achieve. The youth guarantee is designed to maximise the number of young people entering the workforce yet this additional fee being placed on apprentices will make it more difficult for people. It is a minimum of €833, rising to a maximum of €1,433. Apprentices are in full-time employment and part of it involves off the job training but we are talking about some of the lowest paid members of the workforce.

It is a significant hardship on those apprentices so I ask the Minister of State to reconsider the proposal.

There has been a precedent for this and it was never a case that the total fee was paid for the apprentices, as they always paid 30%. They were familiar with the concept of paying for at least some of the costs of attending institutes of technology. Comparing the typical allowance for an apprentice while completing the institute of technology phase, it ranges from €293 to €647 per week, depending on the trade involved and the phase of the apprenticeship. That compares with a standard student maintenance grant of €31 per week. I do not agree that this will act in any way as a disincentive to people taking up apprenticeship models, and the model we have in this country has been quite successful. The qualification received by apprentices is of a very high quality and it is of use not alone in Ireland but across the world. We have seen how we excel year after year in our world skills competition. Apprentices are receiving a very high quality qualification and I do not agree that this imposition will somehow act as a disincentive to engage in the process.

The Minister of State may not agree with me but Ms Emer Costello, a party colleague of the Minister, Deputy Quinn, certainly agrees with me. She recently attended a launch of the TEEU union relating to a campaign to get this measure reversed. During the launch she described this as "ill-conceived" and a "retrograde step", and she questioned the timing of it, given that we are awaiting a report on the future model of apprentices in the State. There is large-scale disquiet out there. Mr. Eamon Devoy, general secretary of the TEEU, has stated that he requested a meeting with Department officials and the Minister. I do not know if he was referring to the Minister, Deputy Quinn, or the Minister of State, Deputy Cannon, so perhaps that could be clarified. He has not yet been granted the meeting but the union wants to sit down and discuss the issue. Mr. Devoy has gone on record to say this is a matter which could lead to industrial action. The matter needs to be proactively addressed, so has the request for a meeting been made by the general secretary of the TEEU? If it has, why has the Minister refused to meet the union on the issue?

I am not aware if such a request has been received but if it has, I would be more than happy to meet Mr. Devoy and discuss the concerns of the union. It would never be an intention to disincentivise people from engaging in the apprenticeship process and it will play a very large role in securing the economic future of our country. As the Deputy pointed out, the review has been under way and we will shortly publish the outcome of the review before extending the apprenticeship model into far wider areas than that with which it is currently associated. The supports available to people engaging in apprenticeships while they undertake the institute of technology phase are adequate at this time. As our country's economic recovery gets under way, we would be open to revisiting the decision at some point in future. As my colleague pointed out earlier, with the constraints imposed on us currently in terms of departmental expenditure, we have had to make some difficult decisions. This is one decision and perhaps we may be able to revisit it at a future time.

Special Educational Needs Service Provision

Mick Wallace

Ceist:

126. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Education and Skills if 170, of the 390 new special needs assistant posts announced on 3 December 2013, were allocated before the end of 2013; when the remaining 220 posts will be allocated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2699/14]

Will the Minister tell us when the remaining special needs assistant, SNA, posts will be allocated? He is probably aware of reports of autistic children as young as eight years old being locked in so-called withdrawal rooms for hours without supervision. This is indicative of the consequences of imposing caps on special needs assistant resources.

I thank the Deputy for his question. The previous Government capped the number of SNA posts at 10,575 in December 2010, with that cap remaining in place until December 2013. The number of pupils in our schools has continued to increase since. In December 2013, this Government agreed to increase the cap on SNAs by 390, increasing by 170 posts to 10,745 at the end of 2013, and by a further 220 posts to 10,965 at the end of 2014. The total number of posts currently allocated by the NCSE is 10,588 posts. The NCSE will decide, based on the number of valid applications received, on how many of the remaining posts need to be allocated to schools to meet pupil care needs.

The additional posts provided will enable the NCSE to continue to allocate support to children who need it in order that they may fully participate in and benefit from their education.

The caps and cuts in the past few years, which were imposed amid rising demand, have forced schools to spread SNA supports more thinly. In 2010, 13,000 children were accessing such supports. The number has risen to 15,000. Although the Government has maintained the funding, the Minister knows support has been thinned out because of the extra demand. A parent from Wexford wrote to me recently stating that parents have lost all faith in the involvement of the Department of Education and Skills, the NCSE and NEPS in ASD units as they regard them to be a powerful cartel working to a mutual agenda. The parents believe this agenda concerns itself with cost saving and a growing ideology that is forcing their children and families further and further to the outskirts of normal society. Reports on the extra use of isolation rooms are frightening. That children are put into these rooms unsupervised from many hours beggars belief in this day and age. Does the Minister not believe so?

This particular question does not necessarily deal with that issue. However, I am aware that there is a question on today's Order Paper on the matter of isolation rooms, if we get to it. All I can say is that the SNA posts are allocated by the NCSE only where there is a valid application submitted by a school in respect of a child with qualifying needs and where the needs of the child cannot be supported by the existing SNA allocation in the school. On some occasions, but not all, the view of particular schools was that an SNA could facilitate the support services required for a new challenged pupil in addition to an existing pupil. That meant that one SNA was now looking after the needs of two pupils. This was raised at a meeting of my parliamentary party. What occurred was presented by the parent of the original pupil as a 50% reduction in SNA support. There are times when allocation, presentation and perception can mean different things to different people. As far as the school in question was concerned, the SNA support was capable of being shared by two people. I have asked the NCSE to develop a new model for the allocation of resources because the number of SNAs has grown from approximately 2,000 when the system was first introduced to nearly 11,000 now. Such exponential growth simply cannot continue.

Let me return to the issue of isolation rooms. I understand they were funded by the Department at some stage; I do not know how they could have been built otherwise. There are no national guidelines to govern their use. Boards of management are actually making the call on them and, very often, there are no parents associated with the ASD units on the boards of management. Decisions of boards of management, as one might understand, are really dominated by the concern of the school in general and are very often at the expense of children with autism.

Without a shadow of a doubt, there is something seriously wrong. Such rooms are actually being banned in parts of America and Canada at present because they contravene the human rights of children. The Minister should ban their use until he researches what is actually taking place and comes up with a national strategy as to how they should be used, if they are to be used at all.

The Deputy's original question was about the number of SNAs. He has raised a new issue that is related on which I do not have a briefing note. I will make inquiries and revert to the Deputy on it.

School Textbooks Rental Scheme

Charlie McConalogue

Ceist:

127. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Education and Skills the reason the new book rental scheme is not available to all schools; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2610/14]

My question is to ask specifically why the new schoolbook rental scheme is not available to all schools. I ask the Minister to highlight in particular why schools that set up their book rental schemes in the past year or two, on the advice of the Department and with the encouragement of the Minister, in many instances going into debt in the process, are being excluded.

The Minister is now excluding them from the scheme and only awarding funding to those schools which have not yet taken that initiative. It is very unfair, as they deserve to be included in the scheme.

First, let me clarify that the Department will continue to provide a book grant as usual for all primary schools. This grant can be utilised for the purpose of updating or expanding a school's existing book rental scheme. I commend all schools that have used the grant to help to build book rental schemes during the years. Their efforts mean that the high cost of school books is being significantly reduced for parents. At my request, the National Parents Council surveyed its members for their views on currently operating book rental schemes. Parents have reported that where book rental schemes operate, they are open to all parents in 95% of cases and that the cost per child is under €40 per year in a considerable majority of schools. Perhaps most tellingly, the survey has found that 93% of parents believe book rental schemes help with the cost of educating a child. Clearly, ensuring book rental schemes are available to all parents must, therefore, be our aim, an aim I am sure the Deputy would share.

I understand it feels unfair to those schools which have invested time and money to establish such schemes that they now cannot benefit from the additional funding secured as part of the budget. Of course, it is unfair, but, equally, maintaining the status quo was deeply unfair to many parents. Those parents who had no access whatsoever to book rental schemes needed more support for a variety of reasons. With the limited funding available, targeting this funding to make sure every parent in Ireland has access to a book rental scheme at some level was the greatest good that could be achieved. The sum available, €15 million over three years, is relatively small, which is why I made my decision. I am aware of the many representations Deputies on both sides of the House have received on this matter, but I was listening to what parents were saying to me about the cost of sending children to school, which is why I responded in this way.

The Minister has said it feels unfair; in fact, he agrees that it is unfair. When he presented this initiative as part of last year's budget, the implication was that it would benefit all schools. That meant that schools all over the country had the expectation they would be included in the scheme, but 76% then found out that they would be excluded and get nothing. It is easy understand why they felt that was unfair. Most grant schemes are based on need, but the Minister is not trying to assess the needs of individual schools. There is a big difference between those schools with long-established book rental schemes covering all subjects and years and those schools which may have only set up their schemes in the last year or two, some of which got into debt in doing so. The Minister is now leaving such schools with that debt and excluding them from this new seed capital scheme. In essence, he is punishing them for having taken the initiative in setting up a book rental scheme.

I remember a banner displayed at a recent Labour Party conference which made reference to cutting the costs to parents of sending their children to school. Little did parents know that 76% of schools would be excluded from the new book rental scheme. It is ironic that the Minister makes the claim that he is cutting costs for parents, while at the same time the Government has cut the back to school allowance by 50%, as well as the minor works grant, and stopped the summer works scheme for two years. These cuts have meant that the very parents to which the Minister refers have had to dig deeper into an ever decreasing pocket to try to come up with the money that the Government has taken from them.

I understand the point of view the Deputy has articulated. I do not disagree with the perception of unfairness for some schools which had the wherewithal, the leadership, the passion or the commitment of parents who had the resources to dig deep into their own pockets to provide for a book rental scheme. My response was to do something every Deputy who had held the education portfolio in opposition in recent years had done, namely, to listen to the voices of parents who had complained about two things in the context of the cost of sending young people to school - the cost of books and uniforms. I will leave the issue of uniforms to one side for now because we are dealing with the issue of books today.

I wanted every child in every school to have access to a book rental scheme because that was what parents wanted and, in many cases, needed. I had the choice of spreading a very small amount of money - €5 million a year - over three years to try to close the gap for more than 25% of the schools in question - based on the Deputy's figures, one could call it 20% - to make sure every parent could send his or her child to school and be faced with a bill of €40 to access a book rental scheme, as distinct from having to buy books. It was a difficult choice, but I made it in the interests of fairness for parents and pupils in these schools. It was necessary to ignore some schools – they were not all well resourced schools or parents, but they had developed schemes owing to leadership from the principal and board of management. If we have extra resources, we will go back to the more recently established book rental schemes. Three years ago and for all of the time the Deputy’s predecessors were Ministers for education, we had no information on what schools, if any, had a book rental scheme. We now know what we are dealing with and we are trying to have a level playing pitch.

The Minister has a very reductionist view of finding information. He asked parents and schools to tick a box as to whether they had a school book rental scheme. Anyone who ticked the box, regardless of whether it was only a seed book rental scheme or long established, is now excluded. The Minister is not taking need into account. He and his party constantly peddle the line that they are trying to address school book and uniform costs.

The Minister is confining assistance with school book costs to approximately 20% of schools. He is not working with those who need such schemes, rather he is excluding them. He has sent a school uniform survey to schools. No money is involved, yet he has said that is his way to address the issue of costs.

If the Minister was serious about addressing the issue of school costs, he would not have cut the back to education allowance by half, taken a minimum of €5,000 annually from every school in the country through the minor works grant scheme, leaving parents to come up with the money, and not taken away the summer works scheme for fixing leaky roofs. Instead, schools have to ask parents for the money, the parents to whom the Minister sent a survey, as his best effort at saving them money. In the past three years he has been the single biggest source of increasing the cost of sending children to school for families.

I could respond to the political rhetoric in the Deputy’s most recent supplementary question, but I will not do so. I was trying to close a gap in 3,200 primary schools and 700 odd post-primary schools but particularly in primary schools to ensure there would be a book rental scheme because parents had said to me that they wanted the cost of school books reduced. I had to work within the limited resources I had received. The book grant still goes to every school. Every school that has a book rental scheme will get a part of the book grant of €7 million. Is it enough? No, it is not. Would I like to give more? Of course, I would like to give more, but I do not have to remind the Deputy of the state in which the country was left by his party before it was hunted out of office.

What about the promises the Minister made?

I do not have to remind the Deputy what I have been trying to do with limited resources-----

The Minister does not remember very much. He did not even implement his own promises.

The Minister should be allowed to conclude.

What I have tried to do with limited resources is introduce a degree of fairness in an unfair system-----

The Minister accepts that the system is unfair.

Yes, I know: it is an unfair system. This is an unfair country.

The scheme is unfair.

We are not even three years in government trying to fix the damage the Deputy’s party did over 40 years.

The Minister could start by implementing his own programme and commitments.

The Minister should be allowed to conclude.

This scheme will result in every school having a book rental scheme. I hope it will improve and that book rental schemes across the spectrum will be of equal quality.

Schools Amalgamation

Catherine Murphy

Ceist:

128. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Education and Skills if, in relation to forthcoming post-primary school plans for Maynooth, County Kildare, he will consider, on a pilot or temporary basis, the amalgamation of the two schools in view of the fact that no planned temporary school buildings will come under the board of management of Maynooth post-primary school; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2746/14]

The Minister is aware of this issue. An existing post-primary school in Maynooth is in one of the areas identified as requiring additional capacity. Parents campaigned for the patronage of the new school, with the VEC and other potential patrons. They had an expectation that when the VEC was selected it would mean that there would be one large school in Maynooth.

The parents’ group sought a particular version of this model. I know the group met with the Minister's officials before Christmas and, subsequently, put forward a letter seeking clarification. The Department came back to the group, stating this can provide a constructive basis for now considering further practical measures and operational policy approaches that can foster a strong sense of a unified identity in the post-primary school. The group wants to know what this means in practice. It is concerned that the response is at a more superficial level than it would want.

I remain of the view that the optimum configuration for the two post-primary schools for Maynooth, County Kildare, and, indeed, the best provision that can be made for the students in the area, is two fully vertical schools, namely a junior cycle and senior cycle.

I am aware of the desire locally to avoid issues of duplication or intra-community rivalry in the establishment of a second school which has resulted in a new proposal from the local parents' group to amalgamate the two schools, either temporarily or permanently. I believe, however, there are several practical operational policy measures that can be implemented with the agreement of parents and school leadership to foster a stronger sense of common identity and to benefit from the advantages of shared resources, while maintaining two separate school identities.

The Department will be engaging with the Kildare and Wicklow Education and Training Board, ETB, to consider this. In turn, the ETB will be engaging further with the school leadership and parents in this regard.

The Minister said there will be two identities. This is one of the key issues which the parents’ group did not want. The current post-primary school in Maynooth has a great reputation with great progression to third level, on a par with the private school sector, while catering very well for students at the other end of the spectrum with special needs. The school is a good model. Essentially, the community wanted and campaigned for the retention of the one-school model. In its campaign, the VEC gave the impression that this was what it was looking for too. At this stage, parents who participated in this process feel they were misled by the VEC, however.

There does not appear to be a solution other than going back to a ballot of the community. As a physical school will not be in place until this time next year, there is time to revisit this matter to get it right. There is deep upset with the current proposals. People in the community had a strong understanding of what they wanted. Now, they feel the consultation process has not delivered on what the parents said they wanted.

Deputy Catherine Murphy, along with the other three Deputies in that constituency, is well aware of the history of this particular school project, how the selection was made, the process engaged upon by the new school establishment group, all based on the Department’s assessment of the need for additional post-primary places in the growing town of Maynooth. The procedure applied in the Maynooth area was exactly the same as for schools in other similar towns across the country. There was more than one applicant for the running of the new post-primary school, in addition to the existing school which will get a whole new building.

The matter is complex and I am trying to bring along as many people as possible in the interests of the quality of education in the area, as well as best possible community outcomes. We have made progress and will continue to do so. As the Deputy said, there is some time for that progress to be made. Enrolments have already started for this school, so we have to tread very carefully to ensure everyone involved is consulted on how best to proceed. That is what I intend to do. There have been numerous meetings, as the Deputy will be aware, on this matter. We will have more meetings should that be necessary.

I attended and was deeply involved in some of these well-attended public meetings. Together with the other Deputies, I was aware that people were very clear as to what they sought. There was no expectation that there would be two vertical schools within the community on a single campus and I note this is replicated nowhere else in the country. However, part of the fall-out from that decision is that this week the Department of Education and Skills will be dealing with section 29 appeals. At one public meeting I attended recently, the single issue that came up repeatedly from parents was that if the child concerned did not get into the existing post-primary school, he or she would feel that he or she had been rejected. This is no way for a child to start secondary school. In many of his replies the Minister has acknowledged the trauma associated with the major change from primary to secondary school. This is absolutely magnified with regard to those children who did not get places in the school. The issue must be dealt with in a highly sensitive way. Moreover, it must not be dealt with in a superficial manner, but a much more unified approach must be taken. This is what people seek and if that requires another ballot, then so be it.

First and foremost, the prospect of a section 29 appeal because people are refused access to an existing school will be, among other things, an indication that there are not sufficient places in the area to cope with the demand. This is the reason an additional school was provided for in the first place. However, what no one anticipated was that at the end of the process it would emerge that the new school would be of the same ethos and background as the old school. This has surprised many people because they thought the Department was providing what was part of Government policy - that is, a diversity of choice for parents in that area. The issue is both complex and delicate. I will continue to ensure the Department engages constructively to address all the issues, including those raised by the Deputy and other Members on this matter, in order that a satisfactory outcome is achieved, because of the very good reputation the Maynooth community has for education infrastructure in the area. Moreover, I understand its concerns.

Barr
Roinn