Vol. 935 No. 1
27. Deputy Thomas Byrne asked the Minister for Education and Skills the status of the review of the delivering equality of opportunity in schools, DEIS, programme; if he will put in place the measures suggested by the ESRI review of the programme, namely to taper funding and enhance supports for urban DEIS schools; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2011/17]
The question relates to the DEIS programme. The issue with the programme is that it has not really been expanded at all since it was established by the Fianna Fáil Government in 2006, with no new schools admitted to it since 2009. The Minister has been telling us there is a review of the programme under way. We had expected an announcement before Christmas on the programme's expansion. The Minister's own action plan called for this to be achieved in the last quarter of last year, I believe, but it has not been achieved. There are many schools that qualify for the programme but which cannot participate because the opportunity simply does not exist or because they cannot be admitted.
I thank the Deputy for raising this. As he rightly points out, the new action plan for educational inclusion will be published in the coming weeks. This follows a detailed review of all aspects of the so-called DEIS programme, including the range and impact of different elements of the school support programme, the potential for innovation within and between schools, and its scope for increased integration of services provided by other Departments and agencies, in order to improve effectiveness.
The development of a new assessment framework using centrally held CSO and departmental data for the identification of schools for inclusion in a new programme is also included in the review process. Implementation of actions arising from the plan will begin in the 2017-18 school year.
The ESRI report referred to by the Deputy, entitled "Learning from the Evaluation of DEIS", was commissioned by my Department to inform the current DEIS review. It provides an overview of available information on the impact of DEIS supports for schools. The report considers a number of important aspects relating to current practice in DEIS schools, including the potential to taper supports to schools and the need to continue to target more resources at urban band 1 schools. This report, together with the wide-ranging consultation conducted, will inform the final measures adopted under the new plan for educational inclusion.
I welcome the Minister's commitment to putting a new or expanded scheme in place in September but all the while he is perpetuating socio-economic gaps in educational outcomes by maintaining the cap. In recent years, there have been schools that simply could not participate in the programme. Students are losing out as a consequence. It is a deliberate policy. How long does it take to put a new assessment system in place to determine DEIS status? Does the Minister know how many disadvantaged schools do not have DEIS status? How many new schools, which are in newly developed areas in many cases, do not have such status? Since the cap was imposed on the programme in 2011, a number of new primary schools have been built. Thirty new primary schools were established between 2011 in 2013 and they are simply out of the loop. Many of them are suffering on. Educational outcomes and students are suffering.
This matter is urgent. The Minister needs to send out a signal as quickly as possible. It is very worrying that this is being delayed past the deadline set out in the action plan. I am worried it will be delayed again, beyond September of this year, the deadline the Minister has suggested.
The impact of the DEIS programme has been positive. We have seen positive improvements in both literacy and numeracy in the schools but they have not closed the gap. It is clear that the programme is effective but it needs to do better.
On the question the Deputy raises, there has been no new school in the programme since 2009. It is in that year that the embargo was imposed.
I said that.
Until we apply the new model, we will not know the exact number of schools that will come up for inclusion in the 2017-18 year. I have, however, secured resources in the recent budget to provide for an increased number of participating schools and also to fund some new initiatives that would respond to some of the issues the Deputy rightly adverts to in the ESRI recommendations on the issue.
Can the Minister outline to the House the number of schools the funding is expected to cover? Can he guarantee that schools that have the resources at present will not lose them as part of the review?
We have not got the numbers at this stage. That will depend on the application of the detailed model, which is based on CSO and departmental data. We are however, making provision for a significant number of schools, but that number will be finalised only when we complete the research.
28. Deputy Carol Nolan asked the Minister for Education and Skills his views on the school transport review. [2013/17]
I wish to raise again the issue of school transport and the current review issued just before Christmas. Could the Minister of State outline his response to the review?
I thank the Deputy. As she knows, the programme for Government committed to a review of the concessionary charges and rules element of the school transport scheme. It was commenced in June 2016 and published in December of that year. As part of the review process, I established an Oireachtas cross-party working group, of which the Deputy was a member, to feed into it. That group met to discuss school transport issues. The review published in December made recommendations on both the charges and the rules element of concessionary school transport.
As outlined in the review, there have been a number of reports on the school transport scheme over the years, and the current scheme is based on a detailed value-for-money review published in 2011. This is very important. I have said this on many I was dealing with a full review published in 2011. Therefore, the current review did not deal with the range of issues dealt with in the 2011 report. It could not because the 2011 review was a full value-for-money review.
With regard to the charges for concessionary school transport, the recommended course of action was to continue with the current position whereby charges remain in place for those in receipt of concessionary places. I agree with this recommendation on the basis that those applying for concessionary transport are making a conscious decision to do so and understand the implications of this choice at the time of application. That is made quite clear to applicants.
The report also recommended that the number of concessionary places be reduced in line with the rules introduced in 2012 on a phased basis. Previous plans to advance this option were put on hold pending the completion of the review. Upon consideration of the review and discussions with the cross-party working group, however, I decided there should be no planned programme of downsizing in the coming years, except in line with normal operational decisions within the current scheme.
I thank the Minister of State for that response but I am very disappointed with it. I was a member of the cross-party group. I expressed very clearly to the Minister of State the concerns of rural communities.
It is clear that this issue does not arise in the Minister of State's constituency. If it did, he might be more active on it. What is occurring is not good enough. I expressed my concerns. The cross-party review group did not even have an agenda. At the meeting, I expressed very strongly the views of many people across this country, not just in Offaly. It is not good enough that 6,882 children were affected by cuts to concessionary transport. The Minister of State made a commitment that no child would lose his or her seat on a school bus.
We have communities that are disadvantaged. In one case in Donegal, a bus is running across a mountain, leading to health and safety issues. This is as a result of the review and the Minister of State's inaction on the issue. I call on him to examine the matter. Clearly, it does not concern his constituency, but it concerns thousands of children across the country.
The Deputy was out of order to discuss my constituency. I happen to be the Minister of State for the whole of the country, not just for Waterford, Cork or Donegal constituencies.
The Minister of State is not showing that through his inaction.
I take representations from every Member, including many from the Deputy's party-----
The Minister of State did not.
-----who have been successful in their applications to me.
People are unclear regarding concessionary transport. The problem is that, although it has been dramatically increased in recent years to approximately 25,000 people, the scheme is still based on the amount of money that is made available to my Department. I make this point consistently - I am not in a position, nor would I want to be, to stop any child from being transported anywhere. Some 115,000 children, including 10,000 with special needs, are transported everyday and 99% of families are happy with the scheme. There are difficulties, and I am doing my best to deal with them.
If someone, or Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin combined, demanded a further €20 million, €30 million or €40 million to be invested in the scheme, that would be fine and I will be able to deal with all of it and ensure another review-----
I thank the Minister of State. He will have a further opportunity to respond.
-----to allow everyone to get school transport, but that is not the case as it is.
I want to stick rigidly to the times.
I thank the Minister of State, but I am disappointed by his response. He has evaded the issue again. I sent a comprehensive submission to the Minister of State on this issue but received no feedback. I brought up a group of parents who told the Minister of State about how it had been impacting on their lives. It is a further attack on rural communities and evidence that the Minister of State is not doing his job. He is the one who came to the Chamber and made the commitment that no child in receipt of a concessionary ticket would lose a seat on school buses, yet thousands have.
The Deputy is completely wrong. I made a clear commitment that any eligible child who was entitled to school transport would get it. There are no children who are eligible for school transport who do not get it. The concessionary scheme was set up to deal with eligible children. If places on buses became available because eligible children could not fill them, children in the concessionary scheme could have them. The Department is, to the best of its ability, transporting 25,000 children under the concessionary scheme who would otherwise not be entitled to school transport.
Of course there are faults in the scheme, but the Deputy should remember that I am just seven months in this job, the issue is a major one that affects many people and I am trying to deal with it. Everyone who has needed to meet me has done so. Indeed, many Members of the Deputy's party have met me. Sometimes, we were able to deal successfully with some of the issues that they raised. As Minister of State, however, I am bound by rules, regulations, legislation and financial wherewithal. To the best of my ability, I try to ensure that no children - concessionary or eligible - lose their positions on school transport.
Thousands have.
29. Deputy Thomas Byrne asked the Minister for Education and Skills the status of the implementation of the new coding curriculum in schools; the reason for the delayed roll-out of the new coding courses; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2012/17]
This relates to the short coding courses at primary and secondary levels. What is the Minister's vision for putting coding on the school curriculum? It has become a buzzword in some circles. What does the Minister mean by it, what impact will it have on the curriculum and what will children actually learn?
I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue, in which respect there have been developments across the primary and post-primary sectors. The Action Plan for Education includes a commitment to developing a new subject specification for leaving certificate computer science, which will help to harness and develop student interest in this strategically important discipline.
In this regard, the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, NCCA, recently commenced the curriculum development process, with a view to the subject being introduced to schools from September 2019 following a period of professional development for teachers of the subject. The formulation of curriculum and assessment arrangements is a complex and intensive process. It can involve research, analysis, action research or piloting in schools and extensive consultation with stakeholders, including students, parents, teacher unions and others. This is then followed by a period of professional development for teachers. I am exploring whether the projected timescale for leaving certificate computer science can be adjusted so that implementation in schools can commence sooner.
At junior cycle level, a short course on coding developed by the NCCA is available to schools on an optional basis. This course looks to build on the coding skills that primary students may have experienced while offering insight into possible future studies in computer science and software engineering.
At primary level, the NCCA, at my request, is considering coding as part of a wider review of the curriculum, including the introduction of computational thinking and flexible and creative thinking skills into the mathematics curriculum. A new primary school curriculum for junior infants to second class is planned for implementation from September 2018. As part of this, I am exploring the introduction of an initiative in the area of coding at primary level. There is also a transition year module relating to having fun with computer programming and games.
In addition to these initiatives, a large number of schools are running voluntary coding programmes through initiatives such as CoderDojo, which we should learn from to improve the outcomes of the education system for our children.
There does not seem to be a vision for this. Computer science will be rolled out at leaving certificate level in approximately three years' time, but the short courses at junior certificate level are almost non-existent. Twenty-two schools will run them next year. To my knowledge, they will not be ASTI schools, given the industrial action. For this reason and because the Department will not have rolled out enough courses, a large number of children will not have the opportunity to take them.
The Minister needs to express an expanded vision of what he means in this regard at primary level. In fairness, the introduction of coding gets headlines, but there is little or no coding in schools at the moment according to the Minister's answer. There has been slow progress with computer science at leaving certificate level even though it could be a useful subject. The Minister has started the ball rolling with the NCCA. The more I look at that, though, it is a very drawn-out process in respect of primary level. Much more work remains to be done and more substance and results are required. Otherwise, we will fall behind. The Minister is relying on what people are doing voluntarily. Many parents have the initiative and ability to do this work with their children, but many kids will lose out because they are from different demographics and so on.
It is important to highlight the fact that the Department has, since before my time there, had a strategy in place to integrate digital into the education system. There are two major elements to this, the first of which is the roll-out of ICT programmes for children. The second is the availing of ICT's potential in the teaching of all subjects. There is a strategy to develop this aspect and I am reviewing the situation, given that we are approaching mid-term, to determine whether we can introduce new targets and accelerate action.
I accept the Deputy's comments on the delay or slowness. Actually, it is not a delay, as the NCCA is working to a programme. However, it is a slow process that involves background papers examining best practice, the introduction of a draft specification, taking feedback from those at the coalface, finalising the specification and undertaking teacher training. There is a supply chain, as it were. When I sit down with the NCCA, I will determine whether there are elements of that chain that we can shorten. Each element is important and I do not want to sacrifice quality by pushing for delivery alone. I will try to determine whether the process can be accelerated, but I assure the Deputy that we will include in our 2017 programme additional digital initiatives in our education system.
The difficulty, not just with the educational agenda, but also with the skills agenda, is that each country appears to be pulling down the shutters. Consider Brexit and Trump. Everyone is looking after himself or herself and we are falling behind. The situation requires urgency and I encourage the Minister strongly. We should not interfere in the NCCA process, which must be non-political, but it appears to be unwieldy. The programming languages that we learned at school are completely obsolete now. Some were obsolete while we were learning them, if truth be told. The world is changing constantly.
That is the point. We need to keep up to date. The NCCA process is very good. It is very well intentioned and the right body of people are involved in it but it is taking too long in this fast moving sector. Britain is already ahead of the game in that regard and parents in this country are already ahead of the game but, as usual, the State is behind the curve. We need to ensure all students are up to date because we will face severe challenges and we must improve those skills and widen the skills base. This is a very important part of the process but it must move quickly.
First, I reassure the Deputy that we are not falling behind, in the sense that at third level we are at the top in Europe in terms of the take-up of STEM. Our performance in the recent PISA results in both mathematics and science is very strong but there is room for improvement. The Deputy is correct to recognise that this is an area where action is needed. Recently Brian MacCraith produced recommendations on integrating STEM into the education system and I have committed to publish a response within the first half of this year and to follow it up with actions. A total of 21 of the recommended actions he has advocated are being put in place. I share the Deputy's view that if we can at all, we must accelerate the process, but we must be conscious that quality is crucial at the end of the day.
30. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will consider a proposal on behalf of mental health activists to make it mandatory for schools to insert an advertisement for Pieta House and its services on the inside cover of all school journals as a national mental health initiative and in particular to normalise accessing mental health services for young persons; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2014/17]
It is a tragic fact, but a fact nonetheless, that this country has one of the highest rates of youth suicide in Europe and also a very high incidence of self-harm among young people. It is a complex, multifaceted problem to address. A very simple proposal has been made by supporters of Pieta House and endorsed by Pieta House itself. The proposers and people from Pieta House are here with us in the Gallery today. The proposal is that an advertisement for Pieta House's services, the helpline for young people with suicidal feelings engaged in self-harm or experiencing suicidal bereavement, would be in the journal of all school students. It is a cost free, simple, practical proposal that the Minister could implement.
I will ask my officials to look at the possibility of doing what Deputy Boyd Barrett suggests. By way of context, it is down to individual schools to decide what material they put into their journals. There is not a central direction in respect of the material in journals that schools put together. It is up to the schools to develop them. What we do is provide guidelines for schools, both primary and post-primary schools, and emphasise the importance of connection to resources outside of the school. It is consistent with what Deputy Boyd Barrett said that we should look at how young people can get access to that information.
I am aware that already the HSE and my Department have been involved in some advertising campaigns which reference website such as spunout.ie, reachout.com and letsomeoneknow.ie, which in turn have links to Pieta House and other services of a similar nature. There is merit in doing that but I am conscious that schools ultimately are the leaders in the way in which they deal with the needs of the children in their care and they design the precise way they will implement the guidelines the Department sets.
That said, I am very keen to increase the impact of what we are doing in this area. We are rolling out guidance counselling this year, next year and in the years ahead. We are increasing NEPS facilities by 25% under the programme for Government. We are introducing well-being as a subject at junior cycle. There are a lot of trains, if one likes, leaving the station where we need to make sure that those resources we are putting in have a very strong impact on children who are struggling with mental health issues.
I welcome the Minister's positive response and the indication that he takes the proposal and this issue seriously. On another day I might debate the under-resourcing of mental health services for young people with the Minister for Health. The Minister has responded positively to this simple, practical and cost-free proposal. The Minister is probably aware that Pieta House is a fantastic charity. A total of 20,000 people have used its services in the past decade, with 5,000 using the service in 2015. Pieta House does not charge anything for its services and one does not need a doctor's referral to get through to it. This is an ideal opportunity to do something, essentially, to normalise access to services which support vulnerable young people who have suicidal feelings who are self-harming so that it just becomes part of the everyday environment that the services for Pieta House are available and young people know where to get them, and that there are no obstacles to accessing the services. I appeal to the Minister to ensure the information is made available in the way outlined in the proposal. I take the point that he cannot impose such an approach but could we issue guidelines suggesting it is done and request that schools would take up this very positive proposal?
I will ask my officials to examine how this can be best approached. What we are trying to do is make sure that the school environment is one in which young people feel safe, supported, confident, resilient and have the ability to look for help for themselves and the confidence not to feel there is any stigma attached to looking for help and having the resources available either from directly going to a counsellor or other person within the school who can refer them on. We are very keen to have that sort of support for young people and the Deputy's suggestions are worthwhile in that context. I will get my officials to assess how we can integrate Deputy Boyd Barrett's suggestion.
I again thank the Minister for the positive response. Several of the recommendations of the Children's Mental Health Coalition highlight this sort of thing as being critical to helping young people with those issues. They include the need for more mental health promotion, for capacity of the primary care sector to increase accessibility of child and adolescent mental health services and for local alternatives to inpatient services. Again and again the coalition underlines the need for that accessibility for young people in particular. Every schoolchild has a homework journal so if we could progress the proposal and the information was there in front of them it would be a huge contribution to supporting vulnerable young people when they get into difficulty and ensure there are no obstacles or stigma attached to accessing the services of Pieta House. I look forward to working with the Minister to progress the issue, which I hope we can do together.
My Department is represented on the task force chaired by the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, which specifically targets youth mental health. We are very keen that we come forward with initiatives through the education system that can support what is a very serious challenge for us. I look forward to developing the issue. I have undertaken an audit of our activity in this area with a view to sharpening the impact of what we do.
31. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will take on board concerns represented by the Union of Students in Ireland and other representative groups if an income contingent loan scheme is established on the basis of the Cassells report; his views on whether it is a viable solution to third level funding as a graduate debt of more than €20,000 will create a two-tier system of higher education, furthering inequality in society; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2015/17]
The question relates to the Cassells report on funding for higher education. I wish to hear the Department's views on a proposed student loan scheme that could potentially add €20,000 of debt to graduating students.
The report of the expert group on the future funding for higher education sets out a number of funding options for the sector with income contingent loans being just one of those options. Other options include a predominantly State-funded system or a State-funded system supplemented with continuing student fees.
As the Deputy is aware, the report is currently with the Oireachtas joint committee for consideration where each of the funding models will be examined and the process will include input from all stakeholders. I understand the Union of Students in Ireland is one of the groups which has made a submission.
It will be important to obtain political and societal consensus on achieving a sustainable funding model for the higher education sector in the future and my Department and I continue to work with the committee as it undertakes this important job. However, it is important to recognise, as the Cassells report has done, that doing nothing is not an option and that other measures to improve equality of access would also be necessary to complement any of the options outlined.
Funding overall for the higher education sector is a key concern for me, particularly in light of the additional pressure that will fall on the system over the next decade or so. That is why I am pleased that I have for the first time in nine years secured additional funding for the sector with an extra €36.5 million being made available this year and a projection for the coming years of increased resources amounting to €160 million in the next three years.
This includes an increase in the funding available to students from disadvantaged backgrounds and other under-represented groups to assist them in overcoming financial barriers to accessing and completing higher education.
In addition, in budget 2017, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and I announced a policy review with the aim of designing and implementing a sustainable and predictable multi-annual funding model for higher and further education and training involving increased employer and Exchequer contributions from 2018. The review will be undertaken as part of the overall response to meeting the anticipated skills needs in the economy over the coming years in line with the policy framework set out in the national skills strategy. It will include an analysis of the business case for enhanced investment in the higher and further education and training sectors and of the most effective funding mechanisms to deliver outcomes in respect of our ambitions in this area. In this context, it will identify key elements of the new funding model and of the expected impacts, including those on employers. It will also include consultation with stakeholders. It is expected that the review will be published by the end of April 2017 and will complement the ongoing work by the Oireachtas Committee in regard to the Cassells report.
I thank the Minister for his response. I am bit confused about the review he outlined. It is happening in parallel with the work of the Oireachtas committee in respect of the Cassells report. It seems it will cover much of the same ground. The question will relate to a student loan scheme that is a consideration. It appears that the view of all the major parties is that the student loan scheme is the way to go and that kicking it to the committee is a way of trying to lengthen the decision-making process. In light of the fact that in the UK in 2015, student loan debt was £86 billion and the Union of Students in Ireland has estimated that under a student loan scheme, a graduating student could pay anywhere between €100 to €150 per month in student debt repayments, I want to find out whether the Department is actively considering a student loan scheme and whether the review will look at rolling it out.
It is not true that we are duplicating because any envisaged future outlined by Peter Cassells and his committee would envisage an increased contribution from the Exchequer and an increased contribution from employers. We are advancing that with an April deadline so that we are in a position come next year's budget to indicate a future path for the funding of higher education. In this year's budget based on Exchequer resources alone, we have indicated a three-year path of increased resources. There is no doubt that Peter Cassells's report has also thrown up the issue of whether that will be sufficient and whether we need to envisage changes in the way we now fund higher education.
As the Deputy is aware, his proposals envisage that there will be no fees for someone going into college so it would be free at the point of participation but that there would be a recovery thereafter. He also points out that it would not be like the UK model but would be modelled more on the Australian system. It is important that Members get the chance to tease out the pros and cons of that approach so that we can develop an agreed approach to this issue if that is possible if we feel that this is the way forward and if not, what the alternative would be. I acknowledge that there are difficulties with a loan model but I also see, as the report points out, that there are considerable attractions in it. We need to do the work that the Oireachtas committee is undertaking. I hope we will be in a position come next year's budget to indicate a consensus view as to how we should proceed on the issue.
Australian students graduate with up to $50,000 in debt and I know there are problems there with repayments. The overall point about a student loan scheme is that it represents a commercialisation of the third-level educational process, which I do not think is of value. How would the Department prevent that and prevent banks from capitalising on and looking at students as economic units they can make profit out of rather than looking at the educational benefit that students who have been educated at third level can contribute to our society and economy in the future? Is that something the Department will give active consideration to rather than just looking at the economics of a loan scheme?
I do not think this is envisaged as some sort of commercialisation. At the moment, people pay fees so there are student contributions and students or their parents must find them while they are studying. The report suggests that we look at an alternative where people do not pay anything while they are studying but there is a recovery when their income goes over a certain figure and that this is how they would contribute to the cost of their education. It is not applying some commercial model. It is using a different profile of collecting a contribution from students who participate. The report has pointed out that people who complete a third-level education have considerably higher earning capacity. That is the issue we need to assess. There will be different views in the House. I know some parties have very strong views. The Union of Students in Ireland has a view while others within the universities have a different view. It is our job as an Oireachtas to tease out those views and reach a consensus if that can be reached.
