I invite the Minister to address the committee on the main topic, that is, the report of the heads of the education and training boards Bill 2011.
Heads of Education and Training Boards Bill 2011: Discussion
Has my speaking note been circulated?
Yes.
I will try to get through it as quickly as possible to provide for time for a discussion.
We have spare copies if anyone wants one.
I thank the Chairman and the members of the committee for dealing with the draft heads of the Bill. It is an innovation I hope to maintain with legislation because we have found it to be remarkably helpful. I wish to introduce my two colleagues. On my far left is the drafting person, Mr. Dalton Tattan, and beside him is Mr. Martin Hanevy, assistant secretary responsible for schools. Mr. Tattan has been the main drafter of this work and I wish to pay compliments to him at the outset. As the committee is aware, it is a consolidation of nine tranches of vocational education legislation involving more than 600 statutory instruments and many other things as well.
The approach I took in referring the heads of the draft Bill to the committee before they go to the Parliamentary Counsel's office for drafting represents a new way of doing business with legislation. It has given Members and other interested parties an earlier opportunity to consider the proposed legislation and to influence its final shape through engagement with the committee or directly with officials of the Department. I believe this approach has resulted in a more inclusive process which will and should facilitate a speedier legislative process when the Bill is published and which, ultimately, will lead to a better final product. In the process, it will also engage the creative energies of the committee members as legislators. I realise that the committee made several specific recommendations and I will address these presently. However, all of the suggestions and recommendations received through the committee and directly will be considered during the drafting process. Some of the observations relate to wording or drafting points and will be refined and clarified in the drafting process.
Several issues have been raised on which I wish to reflect before deciding if any change is warranted. Committee members will get a further opportunity to engage with the legislation when it is published. I express my thanks to everyone who contributed so constructively through their engagement with the draft heads. While there are other issues the committee may wish to raise with me, the primary purpose of my attendance today is to discuss the report of the committee on the heads of the education and training boards Bill 2011.
There is a benefit in distinguishing between those matters in the committee's report which relate to the content of the draft legislation and which go to its drafting and other matters which relate to how the education and training boards will operate in practice but which do not form part of the draft legislation. Therefore, I will divide my presentation along these lines.
I refer to matters in the report which relate to the content of the draft legislation. I note that of the six key recommendations that the committee believes must be addressed before publication of the Bill, two impinge on the drafting of legislation and I wish to address these first. Key recommendation No. 4 relates to head 31, subhead 7, which provides for the Minister for Education and Skills to direct the Irish Vocational Education Association, IVEA, to perform a co-ordinating role to assist in the joint exercise of functions by the education and training boards. I accept the recommendation of the committee to replace the word "direct" with "request" in head 31, subhead 7. On reflection, this is a more appropriate form of phrasing given the nature of the relationship between the IVEA, vocational education committees, VECs and the Department. In addition, I propose to remove the power to direct the IVEA contained in that subhead. I wish to explain my thinking. I am keen to have a system whereby there is co-ordination between the 16 new bodies and this should be done in a rational way. I maintain the IVEA has a key role to play in this area. I know the word "request" will be taken in the spirit in which it is intended.
I fully support the view of the committee that when drafting future legislation, every effort should be made to include complementary policy changes in one Bill. This is the approach my Department seeks to take as a norm. However, while this draft Bill and the Seirbhísí Oideachais Leanunaigh Agus Scileanna, SOLAS, legislation are significant and complex tranches of legislation at different stages of progression, the education and training boards Bill is a fundamental enabling step for the SOLAS development. In the circumstances, rather than delay the progression of this Bill, I have decided to seek the views of the committee and other interested parties on issues pertaining to this Bill while the drafting of the heads of a scheme for the SOLAS Bill is ongoing. I am pleased to report that we are making progress in this regard. Both Bills are being prepared by the Department and I have asked the officials to co-ordinate the preparation of both Bills but without slowing progress on this key first step on rationalisation.
I turn to other matters in the report which relate to policy regarding the education and training boards but which are not part of this draft legislation. The decision on the locations of the headquarters of the new education and training boards was an operational decision required to inform the redeployment of chief executive officers. I made this decision on the best information available to me and in consideration of a range of factors. These included the need to ensure that the location of a VEC headquarters would, to the greatest extent possible, facilitate staff redeployment under a redeployment scheme within the context of the Croke Park agreement and the need to operate at lowest cost having regard to the accommodation available in existing locations. In some cases, the potential locations were closely matched and I had to make a decision on balance. I am conscious that the choice of headquarters location can be a matter of acute local political interest. No doubt, had I decided to chose alternative locations, including some lobbied for since my decision, there would have been a clamour from some quarters for me to reverse my decision and do what I have done. I believe it is time to move on from this issue but I would be pleased to answer questions on it.
I have decided to maintain a number of sub-offices where staff redeployment from the head office of an existing VEC to the head office of the relevant education and training board is precluded by the distance as provided for under the Croke Park agreement. Where the headquarters of an existing VEC has not been selected as either a head office or a sub-office, redeployment of staff will be possible under the Croke Park agreement. However, it is expected that such offices will remain open for some time and that the approach to redeployment will be measured and considered. Effectively, the Croke Park agreement allows for redeployment from one place to another within a distance of 45 km. The selection of sub-offices at this point in the exercise is dominated primarily by that consideration.
I wish to make clear that my Department will not be forcing a one-size-fits-all approach to staff deployment and office accommodation with the new boards. We will be receptive to any reasonable and sensitive arrangements that represent the best fit for the needs of the areas served by the new board. I note the committee's concern that in some manner the allocation of resources by the new boards within their areas should be legislated for. The draft Bill sets out to merge the existing 33 VECs and their administrations into 16 new entities. This policy decision is not intended to alter in any fundamental way the provision of existing programmes or the services available to individual communities. Resource allocation to schools, centres and programmes will continue to be driven by national norms. Each of the new boards together with the chief executive as the Accounting Officer must account for the use of resources provided to that board for education provision in the entire area which it covers. Existing processes within the Department for resource allocation in respect of educational establishments under the auspices of any education and training board will continue and the board or chief executive will be accountable for deployment of any such resources for the purposes for which they have been allocated.
Similarly, resource allocation by SOLAS will reflect national and regional policy. Through the provision of a strategy statement, annual service plans and an annual report the draft heads will as heretofore provide for informing local communities and being accountable locally for resource usage as well as meeting national accountability requirements.
Recommendation No. 6 concerns the development of a national adult literacy strategy. The programme for Government contains commitments to the improvement of adult literacy levels in two key areas. As part of its labour market policy, the Government considers literacy and basic workplace skills a national priority, with literacy training incorporated into a wider variety of further education and training programmes. The Government will also address the widespread and persistent problem of adult literacy through the integration of literacy and vocational training and through community education under its lifelong learning policy.
Since the White Paper on adult education, entitled Learning for Life, in 2000, adult literacy has developed and expanded significantly. Over 400,000 people have availed of an adult literacy course in that period and annual investment has increased from €10.6 million up to €30 million. SOLAS will have strategic responsibility for all further education and training, including adult literacy, and all further education and training will ultimately be delivered by the 16 education and training boards. Developing the framework for SOLAS involves working towards the full integration of the separate further education and training sectors.
The education and training programmes to be provided through SOLAS will be modernised over the whole sector to become more relevant, accessible and effective. On this basis, I believe that policy development for literacy is best dealt with as part of the work of establishing SOLAS. In addition, Ireland is participating in the programme for the international assessment of adult competencies, PIAAC, organised by the OECD, which involves surveying adults between the ages of 16 and 64 years in their homes on a range of skills including literacy, and results will be available in October 2013. The data from PIAAC will form an important part of policy development in the area of adult literacy.
I thank the committee for its constructive and useful input into this Bill which represents a positive development for the future of this sector and for our education system. I look forward to further engagement with members of this committee when the Bill begins its formal legislative passage through the Houses.
I thank the Minister for his presentation. Our engagement with Department officials and with the IVEA education officers who made presentations on the Bill has been both a worthwhile and useful exercise. I welcome the Minister's acceptance of our recommendation to replace the word "direct" with "request". The IVEA presentation was well made and we are all conscious of the important, overarching role it plays.
It is clear from the Minister's comments this morning that the sub-offices have a finite time in which to operate. This will cause concern to many people who will have to move from the locations in which they work currently. Another issue I have raised through parliamentary questions and this committee is the question of ensuring that existing entities, like County Leitrim VEC, will not be submerged in a larger entity of Mayo, Sligo and Leitrim. It is on the periphery but we want to ensure that no existing VEC structure will be disadvantaged in the new entity. There should be some weighting to ensure that the interests of the smaller communities are protected. I have used Leitrim as an example because it has a population of less than 30,000. It is important to safeguard it and I am sure members would have similar views about other areas.
The Minister's presentation finished on the important area of adult education. The presentation made to this committee by the Adult Education Officers' Association was very enlightening and it described the huge progress and investment that has taken place over the past number of years. The nature of that education provision is one that cannot be highlighted to the public at large because the provision for many of the learners in the literacy area is made very quietly and without fanfare. Those of us who have had an opportunity over the years to attend graduations in this area have always found it heartening to speak to participants and people who gained significantly due to the provision of courses which did not get the publicity afforded to other areas of education.
The Minister will nominate or prescribe four representatives of community interests to local education and training boards. Favourable consideration in that regard should be given to designating an adult learner to the boards and also to nominating a member of NALA, the National Adult Literacy Agency, which has done very good work, over the past 12 to 15 years in particular. I urge the Minister and his officials to include a representative of NALA as a nominee. We look forward to further engagement on this as the Bill progresses.
Perhaps the Chairman would like me to take questions from several members at a time but in deference to Deputy Smith, I will answer his questions directly and, perhaps, anticipate questions from other members.
On reflection, the recommendation to use the word "request" rather than "direct" was wise and we are going with that for that reason. I agree there is only a finite time for the sub-offices. This provision was introduced specifically to enable the Croke Park agreement - in terms of redeployment to be done within the terms of that agreement. It is up to the incoming new CEO to decide on the placement of a presence across the area of the training board. That will be an operational matter for him or her. In anticipation of possible questions, we are still in the process of working out an agreed system for selection of the CEOs. Effectively, there are approximately 19 permanent CEOs in contest for approximately 15 places. We hope, through working with the Labour Relations Commission this coming Friday, that a process of selection and identification will emerge that will enable us identify the incoming CEOs. This will, hopefully, address many of the concerns that have been brought to the attention of Deputy Smith and other members of this committee, particularly in areas where merges will take place. It will also address concerns as to where people will work, what they will do and all the other concerns that people have, particularly where three VEC committees come together into one entity.
For the majority of users of the services currently provided by the VECs and soon to be provided by the training boards, there will be little or no change. The post-primary schools will stay where they are, the teachers and pupils will stay and the adult courses currently being provided will continue to be provided. Hopefully, the change will not create much of a disruption in terms of access or geography for those consumers. With regard to offices that already exist, given the current nature of the property market, there will be no rush to dispose of property by existing VECS. However, I do not want to anticipate or cramp the managerial independence and autonomy of the new CEOs and committees to get the best and most efficient deployment of the buildings and resources they have.
I will turn to the second point raised by Deputy Smith, which is one that concerns me greatly, the issue of adult literacy and how we deal with adults who have left the formal education system. As Minister for Labour in a previous government when AnCO and subsequently FÁS was in operation, there was a tug of war between the Department of Education and the Department of Labour, later the Department of Enterprise and Employment. If an adult emerging into the world of life as an adult could not read, that was seen as a failure of the education system and as having nothing to do with the Department of Labour. Therefore, AnCO or FÁS did not get involved in teaching adult literacy. At the same time, the labour market was such that nobody could aspire to being employed unless he or she had the basic skills of reading and writing. There is some history in this regard. For example, countries in Europe that had conscription found that conscription into the army for a period of time was a second chance education. The British Army, with which people here would be somewhat familiar, picked up a large section of people who came into the army unable to read and provided, under the guise of training in an adult framework, basic skills. It is logical and sensible that we make literacy and numeracy an integral part of training people for the world of work. Therefore, this training will be very much part of SOLAS and I see the delivery of that training being provided in part by the training boards in due course.
There may be some merit with regard to the nomination of representatives of community interests to the boards, but I must take a balanced view as I can only make four nominations. I would like to see them very close to employers because employers will specify the skills they want in order to retain and develop employment. We will consider any suggestions people have to make and we will come back on Committee Stage to discuss them.
On the literacy question, I am encouraged by the Minister's presentation. An education psychologist based in West Dunbartonshire in Glasgow speaks about the total eradication of illiteracy. Unfortunately, in Ireland we only speak about tacking illiteracy and, therefore, what the Minister is doing is encouraging. The statistics for adult illiteracy are stark, showing 24% in that category; often that is assumed to be an elderly population but that is not so. We have spoken previously about the importance of adult literacy policies throughout the education system and in every training board and educational outlet.
A recent presentation from NALA outlined to us how FÁS, in its previous existence, had not had an adult literacy policy which seems to be a huge omission. I am delighted to note that what the Minister is proposing will address that issue. I would hope, in time, that this policy driven approach would percolate right down through the education system in order that anybody who comes in contact with anybody in the education system or retraining would have a high level of literacy component to it. Literacy has to be tackled at both ends. It cannot be focused solely on the child but on his or her family. A literacy issue in the home has long lasting effects. Is that something that should happen over a period, given that literacy is a foremost component of training and retraining in our education institutions? Should checks balances be in place to assess how the policies have worked? Adult literary is difficult to gauge. It is positive that more people are engaging in adult literacy programmes, but it can be difficult for a person to admit to literacy problems as it is easy to hide them. Over a period, will it be possible to assess whether we have been successful in tackling this most debilitating of educational disadvantage issues?
I warmly welcome the fact that the Irish Vocational Education Association will have a role in assisting the education and training boards. There must be value for money audits to take into account customer satisfaction. Education training boards must take responsibility for the provision of the education they provide. There must be a role for community education and literacy as Deputy Aodhán Ó Riordáin has said. That is crucial.
We have seen much duplication heretofore. That must be a thing of the past. I welcome the provision of education and training boards but they must be community based and of value in the community.
There has been much duplication. There was a turf war over education but I think that is over, given that education is in the space of traditional, primary, post-primary and tertiary education and allied education. I envisage that SOLAS in its final incarnation will play the same role for further education that the HEA plays for higher education. One of the tenets of that role will be to ensure there is not wasteful duplication. I put people on notice that October 2013 may be another wake up call for literacy as that is when the OECD equivalent of the PISA survey, the PIAAC, reveals the actual numbers. I recall in the last Dáil, Mr. Seán Haughey, as Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills, had responsibility for adult education. There was a reluctance to give an estimate on the record of the scale of literacy on the basis that if one does not measure it one does not know the scale of the problem. However, he did give an estimate of the number and it was scary. If memory serves me correctly, it was of the order of 300,000 which would be in line with the Deputy's estimate of 24%. If a person cannot read or write in the modern world they cannot get a job - it is as simple as that. It is a basic skill. That is not a reflection on anybody and we have to accept that. It is something that has happened, for all kinds of reasons, and we have an obligation not to deny it, but to deal with it.
The National Adult Literacy Agency, NALA, appeared before the committee and it probably talked the committee through the ways in which it deals with the reluctance of people to come forward and how they conceal from their families the fact that they cannot read and write properly. That whole area, with which many members are familiar, will have to be dealt with. This legislation plus SOLAS making literacy central to training and retraining will begin to address the problem. How successful that is remains to be seen.
Value for money audits and customer satisfaction are very important. It is important that regular audits are conducted.
I apologise to the Deputy for not responding to that issue. That will have to be an integral part of feedback within the new boards. They will have to measure what they are doing and the response of the customers - the learners. One of the first audits will be to measure the literacy levels of some of their trainees.
Will the Minister expand on the role of business in the new boards? I have been involved with Springboard for some time and I am very impressed by its work. The objective at all times is to train people who had skills but which are no longer required. Can we ensure that their skills will be required? Is there a way of tailoring the skills to the jobs in the case of the boards? Will the boards be forced to interact with employers or the development agencies? The objective is to create skills in order that those who lack those skills, not just literacy, will be suitable for the jobs market and that will need a business input on the boards.
I have two questions for the Minister. In restructuring the VECs, the Minister referred to the need to operate at lowest cost. How much will be saved by merging the VECs into 16 boards, bearing in mind the sub-offices and the travel expenses of members of committees to meetings of VECs, given the longer distances?
I welcome the fact that we are participating in the programme for the international assessment of adult competencies, PIAAC, next year. The Minister is correct that it will be a wake up call, because up to now, one in six drops out before the leaving certificate examination. There is likely to be a knock-on effect in low literacy levels, not to mention in the older age group. What exactly will be different about SOLAS? There has been much good practice, which the Minister will recognise, such as work based literacy models which are excellent. I saw drug addicts who were being rehabilitated in the Liberties working in a training course and getting literacy in context at the same time from which they benefited. There have been models of family literacy. Others have mentioned the need for literacy to be community based. In that context, will the new SOLAS model link in with other sectors? As we are aware, literacy problems occur in families between the ages of nought and six. There is little gain in a new agency targeting adults if it is not linking in with where the problem starts at ground level. What will be truly different about SOLAS given the good practice heretofore with NALA and the VECs, although they do not solve the problem completely?
To answer the question of my cousin, Senator Quinn, the role of business is essential in my way of thinking. Let us consider the earlier titles of the committees we are currently rebranding. They were vocational and related to the world of skilled work. That was the sense of the world at that time. To a certain extent, this has been lost or diluted. The German model attracts me because there is a close fit between the needs of industry and the delivery of the education system. It seems to me that there are some educationalists, especially in the world of third level academia, who believe that getting close to business is somehow to devalue the nature of the ivory tower of academia. The State puts so much taxpayers' money into the system that we must get a return based on employment capability. Industry must be able to discuss these matters with the providers of education so that the delivery of skills is in a form and manner that makes sense with regard to their capacity to deploy those skills in the marketplace. This is a cultural thing that has not, as of yet, impacted within the country.
My colleague, the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, is articulating this point. We will see the launch of Pathways to Work shortly. This will fundamentally change the social welfare system in the country. Previously, there were two sets of relationships. There was the relationship between someone who lost a job and the PRSI system. Such poeple went to a payment office, were checked out for whether they were in benefit and their eligibility was ascertained and measured for a payment based on the length of time, the size of the family and so on. That was the only interaction between the old Department of Social Welfare, its local offices and the applicant or citizen. Possibly, but not necessarily, that citizen would then decide to get a job. They would go to FÁS or try to get a job or training but there was no formal, structural link between the two separate transactions. If someone decided to go on a job, they would come off the social welfare payment and go on a FÁS training payment and if they did seek a job, whether short-term or long-term, they came out into the labour market and may or may not have got a job. If the person did not get a job, getting back on the social welfare payment was problematic. As the committee members, all of whom are public representatives, are aware from talking to people with relatively low skill levels, in many cases such people would be making a perfectly rational assessment if, since a job may last only for two or three months but they would have to wait six weeks to get back into the system, they deemed it simply not worth their while to go off one payment system and start on another while not having a job that would last for any length of time. That system will now end.
At Cabinet yesterday we discussed a single payment system for everyone. That system will apply to a person, irrespective of what it is they are doing. A person will be profiled and assessed in terms of their skills level and what they need to augment to get back into the labour market. A person will be given a payment relative to their entitlements, needs and dependants. They will be assessed relative to age, current skill levels and where they are. For example, if a person is 25 years of age they will be informed that they need to get back into the skills area and upgrade their skills from level four or five up to level six or seven to get a job and that a course is available in the local VEC, what was formerly the AnCO training centre or in the institutes of technology.
To answer Senator Healy Eames's question, SOLAS will co-ordinate the provision of this range of courses. However, the fundamental difference in the new system to which I am referring is that if I have lost my job and I present looking for payment to support myself and my family, etc., and if I am assessed in a certain way and I take the view that I am not interested and that I simply want the money, then such a transaction will be fundamentally changed. There will be a cash penalty.
At issue is a society of rights and responsibilities. If one is sufficiently young, able and intelligent to upskill one has an obligation and a responsibility to avail of the opportunities that present. It is a free society and if one chooses not to do so one diminishes one's rights in terms of the amount of support one gets, especially after the expiry of one's stamps, to use an old phrase. This is the fundamental change. It will take time to implement and not all the changes will take place at the same time throughout the country but this is the direction in which we are going.
This is based largely on the Scandinavian labour market activation measures with a good deal of associated provision of training. At issue is a combination of rights and responsibilities and the provision of opportunities in return for financial support. The word "springboard" comes from the terminology used in Scandinavia where the social welfare system is a safety net not a double bed. The system there prevents one from falling through the floor but the expectation is that one gets off it as quickly as possible and back into the labour market. This is the direction in which we are trying to move. It will take time to change the system. Our information technology systems are behind the curve in this regard because they do not talk to one another. It will take several years but if and when we get it right we will be able to operate a single stream of payments and a profiling of the skills set of an individual and we will be able to direct that person to the appropriate provider of the skills.
Senator Healy Eames asked about the savings that would materialise when this comes into place. The administrative costs of the 33 VECs at the moment are approximately €40 million. The estimates suggest approximately €3.2 million in cash terms over a period of three or four years. There will be other savings in terms of getting rid of surplus property and so on.
Do the savings or the costs amount to €3.2 million?
The savings will be €3.2 million annually. That is our best estimate at the moment and that is what we hope to achieve. There will be additional savings depending on the disposal of property but it will be of that order. There will be other savings that cannot be measured in cash terms. It will be more efficient, effective and it will have a greater outreach.
I want to bring the attention of the Minister back to the heads of the Bill. I wish to make several points relating to the submission of the Joint Managerial Body, JMB. The JMB represents more than half of all voluntary secondary schools, approximately 400 schools, and more than 50% of schoolgoing children at second level. It has a long history of providing education dating back to before the establishment of the State. To a certain extent, I am speaking on behalf of the JMB because I read its submission and I believe it made several fair points.
Although the proposed legislation is positive it makes no reference to the JMB. Since the JMB is such a large provider it needs some clarity and some equitable inclusion in the new Bill. Several other points were made. I draw the Minister's attention to head 10 dealing with the jurisdiction of the functions of the new education and training boards, ETBs. In essence, any decision that an ETB makes will have an effect on the voluntary secondary schools in its area in certain cases. Head 11 makes no reference to a position for the JMB in the composition of the board. This relates back to the argument that the JMB caters for more than half of all schoolgoing children and this issue should be examined.
The objectives are stated under head 22. There appears to be a lack of clarity relating to whether it will be consulted on certain items. The JMB seeks clarity so that there is no local nuances created whereby it is not included. The Bill does not state explicitly that it will be included in consultation and so on. Head 27 relates to the statement of strategy. The JMB has asked to be consulted on the strategic aims and objectives of the education and training boards. This goes back to the fact that it is an important provider in the area and any exclusion of representation on the education and training boards will affect education provision in the area. For example, in the most recent allocation of approximately 1,000 extra PLC positions in the further education area, only 15 were given to the voluntary secondary sector. It is about trying to create a more equitable playing field for this sector, acknowledging that it is a major provider of education at second level and about ensuring it has a fair crack of the whip when it comes to consultation. I know the Minister has read the submission, but I urge him to take cognisance of some of the points I have made.
From my reading of the submission, I do not think it is about the voluntary secondary schools trying to protect their territory. They have a wealth of experience and knowledge as they have been doing this longer than any of the other providers have been. It is about asking for a bit of fair play and a levelling of the playing field in the future ETBs.
I thank the Minister for his presentation. I acknowledge the great work the VECs and FÁS have done in the past. I raised in a submission the issues about which I have concerns. I agree with Deputy Lyons that the proposals for nominations to the boards of management do not adequately reflect current stakeholders. The current proposals provide for a disproportionate number of elected county councillors, as can be seen on page 26 which illustrates the proposed composition of the boards. It shows there will be ten people from the county council and local authorities, but only two staff members and two people nominated from each of the national associations represented. This is disproportionate. I would also seek gender balance, which is something we have tried to have on VEC boards. I suggest that student representatives should also be appointed to the boards.
What role does the Minister see this body having in primary education? Will the Minister consider ensuring that patrons representatives are also appointed to the boards of management? Costs for boards should be minimised and expenses should be curtailed in line with voluntary boards of management of primary schools. The primary school boards are a wonderful model. That model is based on community, has parent representatives and nobody claims expenses. Front line staff, tutors and posts must be protected. I am also concerned that students accessing VECs and training bodies should receive high quality career guidance. Their needs should be met so that when they enrol in courses they are not then shifted off here, there and everywhere. The courses should be tailored to meet their needs.
Human resources, administration and support staff should be rationalised and shared between VECs. Each VEC training board should provide a cost-benefit analysis of what it will cost to educate and train students per year. I refer here to administration costs. I had the experience of working with a VEC where there were approximately 12.5 administration staff, yet I know that in three primary schools there would only be three administration staff. Questions need to be asked in this regard. Teachers and tutors employed in the new VEC training boards must be up-skilled so that quality, relevant and up-to-date courses are provided to students. Both programmes and tutors must be up to date. Once again, my main concern is the make-up of the board of management.
In response to Deputy Lyons, I am aware of the concerns of the joint managerial body, JMB. However, we must understand the historical background to all of this. Back in 1930, one of my predecessors was told by his uncle, John Marcus O'Sullivan, who happened to be the Bishop of Kerry, that the hierarchy would agree to the establishment of the vocational educational structure on condition that the Department and the schools it was setting up would not compete with the voluntary sector, because there would be no fees charged for academic subjects within the VEC structure. Therefore, there is a suspicion going back historically, but most people have long since forgotten the reason for that suspicion. Incidentally, my predecessor signed that commitment for the bishops stating that the VECs would not teach academic subjects. It was only with the breakthrough in the 1970s that we got community and comprehensive education, which was welcomed by everybody. The man who laid the foundations for that was the late President Patrick Hillery. He did not get the credit for it, but he was the person who made it happen, along with Seán O'Connor in the Department of Education at the time.
I provide that history vignette to assure people that this is in no way an attempt by the State or by the local education training boards to muscle in on or take over territory that is currently covered by the almost 500 voluntary schools. There are 730 post-primary schools in the country and they have been there for the longest period of time. These now have a common curriculum, which took significant time to establish. The junior certificate was the first area in which we got a common curriculum between the vocational and non-vocational sectors.
In terms of policy, we are tight for resources. Deputy Mitchell O'Connor spoke about VECs being perceived as having more resources than the voluntary or primary sector. We see the local education and training board as providing support services to the educational infrastructure in its area, where any participating school, JMB or other group seeks that assistance. There is no attempt being made to force the services of the education and training board on them. For example, we see the services of the ETB being used where a panel is required or where a replacement teacher or substitute is required when somebody calls in sick early on a Monday or, for example, where a storm occurs over the weekend and affects the primary or the voluntary school and they do not have a maintenance crew available. Principals frequently talk about their obligation to try to fix something of that sort. The VEC, given its scale and size, and now the ETB, will have the capacity to deal with such issues, if requested. Likewise, they could provide technical support for IT to schools. Currently, many of the VECs have significant back-up support for IT.
As to how these supports will be deployed, availed of, delivered and charged, that is a matter for future discussion. However, the proposal for changing the name to education and training boards was done to reflect what they will do. Some people are concerned that because they are also providers in their own right, the ETBs with the current VEC schools and, by extension, the community schools, will be torn between a conflict of loyalties. That is not necessarily the case.
This brings me to the point made by both Deputies Lyons and Mitchell O'Connor regarding the composition of and representation on the 18-member boards. Deputy Mitchell O'Connor's and a number of other submissions, including that of Educate Together, suggested that for ten out of 18 members to be local councillors was too many. Other people with VEC experience argue that it is the democratic link between the school system and the citizen. This is a matter we can debate and discuss. Some people suggested that in larger areas, for example, Mayo, Sligo and Leitrim, - from the River Shannon to Belmullet is a vast area in terms of providing democratic cover - we do not have to follow the one size fits all model. They suggested that perhaps we could have 21 members on the board in such areas. These are matters we can debate and I am open to suggestions. I am also open to suggestions on the representation of other management bodies or education providers on the board.
We must get the balance right between the delivery of the daily education service currently provided by the VECs in their schools and the likelihood that the VEC will, for reasons of capacity and experience, be the majority patron of the 20 new post-primary schools in those areas. We must ensure the delivery of that service through its own schools does not compromise the provision of a framework of educational support. I welcome the idea of student representation also, whether through USI or the Irish Secondary Schools Union. However, there is a need first for school councils to be properly established and recognised. Lip service is paid to that concept in many places. It is preparing young adults in the school system for responsibilities as young citizens.
I call Deputy John Halligan and Deputy Seán Crowe. Before continuing I remind members that we have had a message from the broadcasting unit that telephones are causing a major problem. We discussed the matter at the beginning. It is members' own records that are spoilt if they do not either move them away from the microphone or ensure they are switched off because the recording cannot be carried out properly.
I welcome the Minister's drive to deal with problems of literacy. We tend to forget the high level of numeracy problems in Ireland. In opposition he was good at bringing to the forefront the problems of literacy and numeracy. Statistics show that as wealth grew, literacy and numeracy problems grew with it. That is incredible. Social Justice Ireland commissioned a report and produced statistics indicating that 24.7% of people have literacy problems
I happen to know people in my area who deal with those who have literacy and numeracy problems. The problem is targeting individuals and sections of the community. In some countries, literacy organisations have gone into the areas of greatest deprivation and poor quality of life and found high levels of literacy problems there. While the problem is across the board, this is where a high level of literacy and numeracy problems were found. In other countries, where people go to social welfare offices and post offices and cannot read the signage and advertisements, it had no effect whatsoever in getting help for those who wanted it. I recall the Minister saying some years ago that those who are targeted and identified want to do something about the problem. It is a stigma which they can overcome if they know there are people to help them.
A major effort must be put into an advertising campaign to encourage people to come forward. South Africa moves away from the written word and advertises on radio and television. This enables those who cannot read to find a telephone and somebody to whom to go. I urge the Minister to target areas to identify where there are high levels of literacy problems. That would be a worthwhile exercise as he could allocate the relevant resources to the areas of greatest need. Some effort should be put into targeting individuals. The written word is not working because people cannot read. We need to consider what other countries are doing such as television and radio advertisements.
I apologise for being late but it was unavoidable. I welcome the fact that there was a long discussion on the Bill and that we had an opportunity to invite groups. There is still much confusion on the selection of a headquarters. It is time to move on but there is much confusion on the rationale.
On the issue of restructuring, I was surprised at the Minister speaking of the need to address the low scale of operation of particular VECs. There was confusion about how he selected those areas. A key part of the restructuring is the actual savings it is hoped to make. There was a reference to a saving of €3.2 million over a period - is that five years or three years? I am not sure how the areas were selected. Did the preplanning take into account leases on buildings? Are there long-term leases on buildings and, if so, for how long? Are they blue chip buildings and, if so, how many of them are there?
It think it is called NAMA now.
There is no sense of the difficulties that will be experienced. I welcome the fact that the Minister mentioned the need for fluency in Gaeilge by CEOs in respect of daily business. Therefore, the person getting the job will have to show a competency in Irish.
Groups who will be involved in the national learning strategy are involved in community education. They are seen as the poor relation when it comes to funding from the Department and that would be the main bugbear down through the years. Libraries can play a key role but will support be provided? In respect of lone parents, will mentors and role models be provided and supported? We have spoken previously of the lack of books, magazines and newspapers in the home.
On the issue of training boards, one of the difficulties is training and upskilling people. The problem is that the training package has been reduced. I dealt with an individual recently on the carer's course. The cost of the course she wanted to go on exceeded the amount provided for in her training programme. That person is stuck within that progression period. Having looked at it, that is probably a new phenomenon but I expect it will happen increasingly.
I will take the issue of literacy referred to by Deputies Halligan and Crowe. Let us look at what is happening. We have changed the teaching of literacy and numeracy in the primary school system, starting with effect from September 2012. The programme was signed off in July following the PISA results that backed the Department. Some colleagues attended a meeting when the officials appeared before the committee in autumn 2010 and talked about it. Much preparatory work has been done. More time is being made available for the teaching of literacy and numeracy in the primary school system.
Some members may have been lobbied on the removal of the modern languages initiative in primary schools. That was a pilot programme that lasted for 12 or 13 years. It was deemed by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment as not to be terribly effective. It was not rolled out after 12 years and its removal gave me a saving which went back into funding the literacy and numeracy programme.
Probably the biggest single change has been in teacher training in that courses in the traditional teacher training college, now the colleges of education, will go from three to four years. The fourth year will be focused primarily on pedagogical skills rather than academic third level subjects. The Teaching Council carried out an assessment of Mary Immaculate College and felt that the balance had strayed into the third level academic area, which is interesting and useful. However, honours history, in terms of the War of the Roses, is not something about which a person in senior infants wants to get excited. The skill of the teacher with that extra year is what we should be talking about. There are many professional educationalists in the room. All the evidence shows that the skill on the part of the teacher is a main driver of outcomes. This is not confined to primary school education. The whole system of the H.Dip. and second level education was a bit hit and miss. That will be a two year course rather than a single year course and, again, will concentrate on teaching skills. In the third level sector promotion and advancement among lecturers in certain colleges, such as Cork, University of Limerick and DCU, will depend on their teaching skills and demonstrating that they have acquired those skills. That is part of it.
Many years ago when I was leader of the Labour Party I recall making a constituency visit to Clonmel, where I met the managing director of Tipp FM. He described to me what I thought was an innovative outreach literacy programme whereby the station advertised that people with learning or reading difficulties could go two notches up to - I do not remember the frequency - perhaps from 98 to 99, to listen to a reading programme. In the privacy of the reader's home, or bedroom if the problem was being kept secret from his or her parents, he or she could follow the book as it was being read aloud on the programme. This dealt one of the problems of literacy, namely, that many adult illiterates are unable or lack the opportunity or the courage to ask for help, for a host of reasons that will be familiar to those of us who deal with them as constituents. We have to address the issue and that is one way of doing so. I envisage SOLAS working with the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland to consider ways of mobilising the network of commercial radio stations. In regard to the point about notices, it is like shouting at people who are deaf. That addresses the question of literacy and the issues raised by Deputy Crowe regarding libraries and mobilisation would fit into the same response.
On the selection of the headquarters, I inherited from my predecessor a configuration of 16 new entities. That was a brave measure in my opinion and I salute my predecessor in that regard because it went further than some of the players wanted. The IVEA and others wanted 20 or 22 bodies. Having taken that ground, I decided to build on it rather than changing it. However, I looked at the boundaries of the 16 entities and, to be honest, I played the GAA card. One proposal had south Tipperary going in a different direction from north Tipperary but County Tipperary is now one entity. Community representation makes one entity in respect of it. I was conscious of the potential for tension but approximately 80% of the configurations suggested themselves and there were choices in the remaining 20%. They could be done either way and there was not much difference between the alternatives. At the end of the day I wanted to conclude that debate as quickly as possible. I investigated factors such as population centres, ownership of property and headquarters and types of lease. I also looked at transportation routes and natural hinterlands. For example, County Kerry's isolation is the reason it reverted to a single entity. County Donegal self-selected itself in the configuration of the previous ones. We attempted to hold the line on the 16 and achieve what I considered a more convenient and convivial combination because people would relate better to the Tipperary entity as distinct from being linked with Waterford city. One could argue that there is a transportation corridor in south Tipperary which leads from Clonmel, through Carrick-on-Suir to Waterford, except during football or hurling matches. We tried to make decisions that were as rational as possible but where it could go either way I made a decision and wanted to move on to the next stage.
The structures of the proposed changes are addressed in detail, which is appropriate, but there is little commentary on values. In education, values are particularly important at a time when we are reformulating legislation. We have historically associated certain values with the VEC sector, such as its deep roots in 19th century European technical education, the classroom experience of materials-based subjects side by side with academic work, art and music education and its inclusiveness. At an important juncture such as this I would like to see a statement of values, perhaps in a preamble, which reminds us this is not an isolated incident. This kind of provision has a long history and the statement or preamble should encapsulate at least some of that. Those values might animate or underpin the new structures. A lot of people go into teaching because of their disposition towards human development.
Arts is a particular sector of education but artistic endeavour is being neglected within the Irish education system. I hope the Minister will have an opportunity to address this issue. The provision of music was specifically mentioned as a requirement of an educational structure in older legislation dealing with VECs. Some of the great old colleges of music in Cork and Dublin, the latter of which is now part of DIT, evolved under the former technical education committees that preceded the legislation of 1930s. We sometimes think of the vocational sector as being born in the 1930s although there was already a century of practice by that stage. The enrichment and values that were accrued during that century matter. Given the scope and spread of VECs, as well as its history of innovation, might we consider practical ways of addressing elements of the primary school arts in education curriculum where there are considerable deficits through dance, drama, mime, music and the visual arts? Teachers are doing their utmost but they lack resources. There is an opportunity to use VECs to address the deficits in provision for arts in education, which can go the heart of creativity, learning and human development.
A special meeting of Kerry Education Service was held yesterday. I received correspondence which I will bring to the attention of the Minister.
We will not go into a whole new area. We have other matters to address.
It is brief. The correspondence states the consultation process should have included discussions on the need for SOLAS, its role and its core values, vision, aims and objectives, as well as the appropriate staffing structures for the new entity. Kerry Education Service also has reservations about the use of SurveyMonkey if it is the only consultation mechanism for a significant change process.
The Deputy's comments primarily concern SOLAS, which is not the subject of the Bill before us today. We discussed the issue earlier today and we do not have time to return to it.
I am speaking in general terms. I welcome the emphasis the Minister puts on numeracy and literacy problems, particularly in the adult sector. This is largely a hidden problem in society. There is a role for retired people who may want to get involved in a voluntary capacity. Perhaps this could be arranged between the Department of Education and Skills and the VECs. I am sure a lot of these people will come forward. They are very competent people and they would certainly be interested in this. I am sure they will have a major role to play in addressing the problem.
I thank the Minister for his input heretofore. We welcome the thrust of the Bill and, especially, the efforts with regard to SOLAS, the new agency to replace FÁS, which was initiated by the last Government. I expect that co-operation and sharing of information and facilities with the Department of Social Protection will ultimately provide activation for the unemployed. I hope the €20 million announced in budget 2012 for activation measures will greatly advance this concept and turn it into a working model, so that we can comment in 12 months' time on its success or otherwise. However, there is no point in crystal ball gazing. The process will come to a conclusion shortly and the agency should become part and parcel of the workings of both Departments.
With regard to the criteria that were set out for the VEC amalgamations, I hate to be parochial, but looking at the list, one could be forgiven for thinking the location of a Labour Party Deputy or Senator was pivotal in the decisions on locations that were arrived at - if not for the main offices, this certainly was the case for sub-offices.
To return to the point made by Deputy Crowe about leases and so forth, I have some examples from Tullamore. That building was recently kitted out and a 20-year lease was entered into, of which 16 years remain, at an annual rent of €122,000. The offices were kitted out to the highest standard at a cost of €637,000, and VAT of €185,000 was paid up-front, yet this has not even achieved the status of a sub-office. It cannot be said that this is a cost-saving mechanism when it will cost as much again, if not more - a lot more, I would contend - to bring Portlaoise to a standard that is on a par with that of the Tullamore office. It has been said there are break clauses within the leases. Legal advice was given that the costs associated with effecting the break clauses would also be monumental. As I said, I apologise for being parochial, but this is something on which I receive information on a regular basis, not only from members of the VEC but also from members of the local authority and many public representatives who are worried about what was supposed to be a cost-saving mechanism. The previous Government came forward with proposals for 16 rather than 22 offices. This is something on which we wanted specific savings. Will I have to take the freedom of information route to get to the bottom of this?
I ask the Minister to conclude as there is a vote in the House.
I will take Deputy Cowen's questions in reverse order. While he articulated a specific concern in his own area, everybody else could raise something similar. I should have added in response to Deputy Crowe that another factor driving combinations was the traditional constituency political linkage. Thus, Carlow-Kilkenny, Laois-Offaly and Cavan-Monaghan were linked together, because it was an association that people were already familiar with, rather than creating new entities. I just wanted to put that on the record.
There is a vote, but we have time to leave when the bell stops. The Minister will have a chance to finish these few questions, if he is happy to stay.
Deputy Conaghan mentioned that we might consider a statement of philosophical or educational values in the context of the legislation. This process started life as a rationalisation or reduction in the number of existing entities, and it then became an opportunity to consolidate the existing legislation, as I said earlier. We may consider a statement of values. In fact, a couple of the submissions that came in, not from this committee, raised similar and related issues. This is something I will consider.
I do see the possibility, given the scale and size of a local education and training board, of providing some support, assistance and infrastructural help to the primary school system with regard to the arts, music and so on. I stress that this facility would be made available for participating primary schools or Joint Managerial Body schools - the free voluntary sector - to opt into, rather than feeling they were obliged to participate.
I take Deputy Fleming's point about retirees and literacy, and there may well be an opportunity in that regard. We can discuss those matters in greater detail when I am back here to deal with the SOLAS legislation. It is premature at this time.
In reply to Deputy Cowen, it has taken us longer than we had anticipated to identify the people who will come in as the designated CEOs for the 16 entities. I hope that process will be concluded quickly. As I said at the outset, the matter is going before the Labour Relations Commission on Friday of this week. Once those people are identified, many of the things the Deputy is talking about will become their responsibility, including the determination of the best way to use the properties. There will be a need for the local Laois-Offaly education and training board to have a presence in Tullamore, given the size of Tullamore, and there will be a presence. Those decisions - the scale of the presence, the personnel, the activities, and all the rest of it - are properly operational matters that in the first instance should be identified by the CEO and signed off on by the new education and training board for Laois-Offaly. However, I recognise what the Deputy is saying. The details of breaking leases and so on are matters that management will have to consider and on which it will take sensible decisions in due course.
That concludes our discussion on the heads of the Bill. We will return, if it is all right with people, for a short while after the vote. The Minister must leave here at 11.40 a.m., so we will probably have 15 or 20 minutes to discuss issues. We will suspend until after the vote, provided there is only one.
Sitting suspended at 11.05 a.m. and resumed at 11.20 a.m.
We will resume in public session for approximately 20 minutes. We have the Minister's presentation. Do you wish to go through it quickly, Minister, and then we will take questions and answers afterwards?
It might be more productive if the Chairman were to take a round of questions and I will respond to them.
I will take what I have so far. I will call Senator Power first. We will take four or five at a time. Deputy Anthony Lawlor, Deputy Griffin and Senator Healy Eames are the next three on the list.
I wish to raise the issue of disadvantaged schools. We were informed in a document on budget day in a headline at the back that there would be protection of disadvantaged schools. Of course the reality since then is that this has not materialised and it could not be further from the truth. The Minister was with me in the Seanad following the budget and we discussed the example of Darndale junior national school which faces a 50% increase in class sizes and the loss of five teachers. The situation is similar in other junior schools, as Members are aware. I visited St. Laurence O'Toole national school, Sheriff Street, which is in a similar position - six teachers are to go there.
I appreciate decisions had to be made in the budget but this was the most socially regressive option on the table. Not only is it a great social injustice for the children concerned but it is mad economically because in the longer term this will cost more in terms of education. We discussed adult literacy here earlier. Given the small classes in Darndale, they are starting to reach the average level in literacy standards for the first time. It is a fallacy to have discussed adult literacy and helping people to catch up earlier in the session while discussing cuts for children now.
The Minister came to me in the Seanad and discussed alleviation measures. Backbenchers spoke on radio programmes last week about this no longer being an issue and suggested that it has been fixed and that it is off the table and sorted. I hope the Minster can confirm as much today but according to the presentation he has given, this is clearly not the case. The Minister stated that he is not in a position at the moment to give details of how schools will be affected and that he is awaiting a report on the impact. I urge the Minister to take this off the table. It is a crazy decision that will cost a great deal more in the long run. I hope the Minister will be in a position to reassure the committee today in this regard.
We only have limited time so I call on Members to keep it to questions if they can.
I did not finish the first question.
I gave you a little extra time because you did not contribute earlier.
I wish to deal with the issues of guidance teachers and languages in primary schools. Will the Minister give some clarification on whether guidance teachers will lose their jobs as a result of being amalgamated into the general school system? Will guidelines be sent from the Department to principal teachers with regard to the guidance role and the way in which pupils get guidance in future?
Chaplains are available, especially in some religious based schools but this is not the case in VEC-type schools. They may have been used for guidance. Will we balance it out? In other words, will we remove chaplaincy from the religious schools or balance it out in some way so that it is equal across the board? Did the Minister examine the options available to him instead of guidance cuts? I have spoken to several schools and radical options that could be considered include the removal of the transition year and raising the age at which children start to attend primary school. Has the Minister considered these options?
We all agree that the best time to teach languages to children is at a young age in primary school. I know of children of five and six years of age who pick up languages quickly; they are like sponges. The future for school goers involves working on an international basis and language is a key part of this.
I am keen to ask about the modern languages programme as well. I raised this matter in the Dáil during the Topical Issues debate before Christmas. Can the Minister provide an update on the matter?
The changes to small schools are having a major impact on rural areas, especially along the western seaboard. Under this proposal, some 13 out of 14 schools will lose teachers in the Gaeltacht areas of Kerry. Many other schools throughout the county outside the Gaeltacht areas will lose teachers as well and this problem is replicated along the western seaboard.
I have been in contact with the Minister's office in respect of this issue in recent weeks. This proposal is being brought forward because it will remove disincentives to amalgamation according to the Department. Nevertheless, the Minister must recognise there are certain cases where amalgamation is simply not an option. Certain schools are geographically isolated and do not have an amalgamation partner for consideration. The policy will condemn these schools to a future of high pupil-teacher ratios or there will be numerous classes in one room. In many schools there will be four classes in one room with two teachers, by no means an ideal scenario. A situation could arise whereby there are 55 children in a school with only two teachers and, therefore, 27 or 28 pupils in a room spread out over four classes, which is far from ideal in this day and age. The exceptional cases must be identified and protected from increases. There must be a recognition of the special status of Gaeltacht areas and an exception should be made for them so that if the numbers in a school dip below the requirements, a buffer zone would be in place whereby Gaeltacht schools can retain their teachers.
The retrospective aspect of this policy is shocking. The least we can do is to allocate teachers based on projected enrolments rather than the level of enrolments from September 2011. This is only fair to the schools and the children in particular. Ultimately, this is about the children and the future of the country. The allocation of teachers should be based on the enrolments for next year as opposed to last year.
Minister, are you happy to take more questions?
I will take those three contributions in order to give decent answers and so that I am not accused of running away. No final decisions have been made about DEIS schools but let us be clear about what was intended. This was not an attack on DEIS schools, although it was perceived as such. This was an identification of some DEIS schools that had more resources than similar DEIS schools in other areas. This was done in the context of a budgetary strategy which was changed and which, therefore, highlighted the distortion in the way in which the whole thing was presented. This is why I recognise readily that we had to revisit it. There will be economies in the overall area. Final decisions cannot be made yet because I have not yet received the report from the Department about the case-by-case impact. Nevertheless, there will be some reduction for the simple reason that we must make some reduction.
The same applies with small schools. Small schools have considerable advantages over other schools in terms of pupil-teacher ratios. By the way, they are not all in the west or Gaeltacht areas. I am trying to deal with a degree of equality throughout the system. At one stage there were 6,000 primary schools in Ireland and the system will be 181 years old this year. School closures and amalgamations have been taking place throughout the years. We seek to remove a disincentive for amalgamation. There has been plenty of notice and there is no retrospective element in this regard. The ratio is moving from 12 to 14, two extra pupils per area. Some schools are located in areas where amalgamation is an option, but the incentive to amalgamate is not there because there is no net gain, only a net loss. I am old enough to remember the controversy over Dún Chaoin in the Deputy's constituency, where the issue became that of Dublin forcing closure on rural Ireland. That is not where any of us want to go. What we have done is to give notice to communities that have small schools that the pupil-teacher ratios cannot remain at their current level. Of course we look at the implications of what this means for schools. A partial study on this area shows that the majority of schools that would lose a teacher would lose a teacher due to a fall in natural enrolment rates, not due to the pupil-teacher ratio. A school may lose a teacher, but the school will not close because it has lost a teacher and no teacher will lose his or her job. That teacher will be redeployed, assuming he or she is in a permanent, full-time job. I know the issue is very emotive, that there is significant concern and I understand the pressure members are under as a result.
We are dealing with an issue faced by many countries. I was at a meeting of senior inspectors from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who are dealing with exactly the same sorts of problems in rural schools. We have also looked at some practice and suggestions as to how they are dealing with these issues in Australia and New Zealand. In the second decade of the 21st century, we must start looking at ways in which we can provide quality education to rural Ireland where the population density is low. At the same time, we must maintain standards.
The Minister must recognise that there have been amalgamations in the past and this is forcing the issue further.
Deputy Griffin should wait. I will let him comment at the end. We must be fair to everybody else.
Let me deal with the third issue, the question of guidance counsellors. Of the approximate 730 post-primary schools, some 42% do not have a dedicated guidance counsellor. Guidance counselling provision is within the school and is a statutory requirement of the schools. I have asked the Institute of Guidance Counsellors to assist us with a wording we will include in the circular that is to be issued to the schools. That circular will point out that guidance counselling will remain a statutory requirement and obligation on the schools and that it is a matter for the principal to decide how to deploy resources. I will speak at the Irish Primary Principals Network, IPPN, conference in Citywest on Friday and will attend a function there on Thursday evening when David Puttnam will speak. All of the communications we get from schools around the world, including Finland which is held up as the example, suggest that we give as much autonomy and discretion to the principal and assistant principals to deploy resources as they best see fit. That is precisely what we have done in this regard.
We will draw principals' attention to their obligation to meet their statutory requirements and at the same time will give them the flexibility as to how they deploy their resources. Having read Bryan McMahon's son Maurice's book, Mr. Mac, every school teacher is involved in the pastoral care of his or her pupils. Most teachers will notice a change in behaviour and performance of a 15 or 16 year old in the classroom long before the need for pastoral care. If standards deteriorate suddenly or if the quality of homework changes or the pupil’s attention changes, that manifests in the classroom at the same time or before the young person may seek help from the guidance counsellor.
With regard to career guidance, I intend to look at the possibility of mobilising the local education and training boards to provide up-to-date career guidance to schools. It is a more "mechanical" function. I will regret using that word. It is something that is more factually based than the pastoral care side of counselling. I dealt earlier with the question of the modern languages programme, a pilot programme running for 12 years that has been deemed not to be effective. It has not been rolled out further so I have closed it down and saved the resources. Frankly, I want our pupils to be fluent in Irish and English before they are fluent in the other languages they may wish to learn.
I would have thought that what Deputy Griffin meant by retrospection was what I meant in the example I gave last week on Question Time concerning a school with which I am familiar. The school needed 49 pupils in order to have three teachers for this school year. It has 50 pupils, but the element of "retrospection" included in the new guidelines now means it would have needed to have 51 pupils on 30 September. There are a number of schools caught in that dilemma and I assume that is what Deputy Griffin was speaking about. All of us have received correspondence on this issue. I am familiar with some cases in my locality, some of which have new buildings. The Minister indicated to me on Question Time that there would be an appeals mechanism. The new process of assessment needs to be issued to schools immediately so that they know where they are going, because when uncertainty sets in, schools can lose potential pupils.
I remind members that the agenda for today was the Bill and that we said we would fit in these additional matters if we had time. The Minister's schedule was arranged months ago. The simple matter is that we must finish in nine minutes. I ask members to make their questions short.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a few important points on the issue of small rural schools. The announcement in December 2011 of the new teacher retention numbers, based on the numbers at the previous September 2011, has disadvantaged certain schools. I ask the Minister to reconsider this. For example, Tuairín national school in Béal an Daingin in Connemara needed 76 pupils last September to retain its four teachers. That figure has now moved to 81. The school had 78 on the roll in September, but there were three four year olds in the community - the birth certificates prove it - whose parents were advised not to send those children to school until they were more mature. I ask the Minister to reconsider this special case and the other schools on the verge. These schools could not have had a crystal ball in September to help them know what the Minister would do in December or they could have enrolled those children in the school in September.
I welcome the review of the DEIS programme in urban schools, but I urge the Minister to consider offering the same in rural schools. I argue that these schools have a more complex situation. In Connemara Gaeltacht schools -----
We do not have time to deal with individual schools.
This is very important.
I will have to move on the debate.
I am coming across unemployment of 80% in homes in this area and low literacy levels. Now with the great early intervention through the DEIS schools, the children are teaching the parents how to read. The scores are going up. Schools here deal in multiple classes. I have taught in multiple classes in a rural school and have supervised teaching practice there. Multiple ability levels -----
The Senator must make her final point.
I ask the Minister to review this. I agree with Deputy Griffin on the complexity involved in Gaeltacht schools. The Minister must seek local solutions. He is changing the learning support and resource provision in rural schools. In the case of three schools, Leitir Mór, Leitir Cealla and Tír an Fhia, where the resource and learning support teacher are one and the same person----
I call on Deputy Fleming. Senator Healy Eames should not discuss individual schools. We cannot do that.
I just name them to explain my example. One teacher there is both the learning support teacher and resource teacher. However, the Department is now changing this to two teachers, which will cost the State money. I ask the Minister to reverse that.
On 17 January the Minister mentioned in the Dáil that it is anticipated 70,000 more pupils will come on stream over the next five years. I find it hard to comprehend, therefore, the targeting of our smaller schools in rural and Gaeltacht areas. These schools are a focal point in rural communities and help keep the fabric of rural society together. We are faced with enough -----
Has Deputy Fleming a question?
I believe retrospection on numbers is very unfair. I ask the Minister to reconsider the case of the rural schools in this regard. He should go back to the drawing board on this. With regard to the Gaeltacht schools, in 2007 a comprehensive linguistic study was carried out on language in the Gaeltacht areas. This found that the Gaeltacht areas had only 20 years to maintain the Irish language as the first language unless the proper structures are put in place. The provision regarding guidance counselling is a retrograde step, considering the problems of modern society.
We will have plenty of time to discuss the issues ourselves. This is a time to put sharp questions to the Minister.
A modern language is necessary. I do not have to elaborate on that. We are all aware of its importance in the context of jobs and in the global context.
Will the Minister carry out a review of the decision on rural schools in light of the soon to be published value for money report? The Minister has enacted some of the greatest changes in policy on rural schools without any debate and without the VFM report. I am referring to DEIS, Gaeltacht and geographically isolated schools, such as Leenane school, as I mentioned in the House a couple of weeks ago. I agree with other speakers on the retrospective issues such as Scoil Tuairín, which I mentioned two weeks ago in a Dáil debate. On the issue of teacher redeployment, where three teachers are going from Ceantar na nOileáin, they have to go 24 km to 28 km before they can get another school but there are no schools in the locality within that radius.
I do not know if I am permitted to give a list of schools which are thankful for the Minister's announcement re DEIS.
No.
It is refreshing, given that cuts in previous Administrations are not up for discussion, that we have a new way of dealing with situations. On the issue of the 70,000 new students within the system, how does the Minister envisage the system absorbing such a large intake right across the board? I refer to the issue of guidance counsellors and chaplains for which there is an allocation of €9 million as stated in a reply to a parliamentary question I tabled. As Deputy Anthony Lawlor has indicated, there is an issue about the deeds of trust within community and comprehensive schools. How does the Minister feel that could be unpicked or is it a necessity that we would unpick it?
The Minister said he got it wrong in regard to DEIS and he has announced a review. He said any savings that would have to be made would be across that sector. Why is it in that specific sector and not across the education system as a whole, bearing in mind that he has accepted that he made a mistake in respect of this area?
Does the Minister have time to answer the last question?
I will come back to this committee quite happily so do not confuse my brevity of reply as scarcity of knowledge. I do not have to repeat that we are in receivership. I do not have to repeat that we are not in control of our sovereignty. I do not have to repeat that we are dancing to the tune that was sent to us following the collapse of the Irish economy. That is history. People forget the fact that we are not free yet. There is a troika in town that says one has to get the numbers down and reduce the gap. The gap between what we are spending and taking in is twice the budget of the Department of Education and Skills. We would have to close the Department of Education and Skills twice in its entirety to meet the reality of that suggested by those who want to burn bondholders which would cut off credit from banks. That is the scale of the problem. Therefore, there is not a single corner anywhere that cannot be looked at and there are no sacred cows. Everything has to be looked at. I accept the imbalance in regard to disadvantage. I have answered that question and I will not repeat it again.
Small schools are no different from any other school. They have to take a share of the burden with everybody else. There is an appeals mechanism and individual schools can demonstrate that there are certain factors, criteria and circumstances that make them different. There are schools that are not rural or Gaeltacht schools that are losing teachers because the numbers of pupils are falling.
To respond to Deputy Ó Ríordáin, a cohort of 70,000 students will come into the system in the next six to seven years. We nearly got it wrong. It was only through the extraordinary intervention of the then Minister for Education and Science, Ms Mary Hanafin, and the Department and providers that we were able to head that off. I pay tribute to those involved. Lessons have been learned. We have changed totally the procurement system within the building unit in Tullamore and we are getting the help of VECs to act as project managers. We have redeployed architectural and professional services from other sections within the public service who were available and not overused. The issue that still keeps me awake at night is whether a child, born this morning, will present to a field or a school in four years time. We have to ensure that the latter is the case.
In regard to guidance councillors and chaplains, there are deeds of trust in which legal commitments are made in some schools where there were amalgamations, not necessarily in the VEC schools. We have to look at that issue. My task is to try to maintain a quality of education on the one hand and look at every provision in place and which, in good times, were good, such as the modern languages initiative. However, we are not in good times, we are in hard times, and we have to try to keep the day job going, which is the delivery of the quality of education and concentrate on the areas where we have been negligent, such as literacy on which we have had a long discussion. Those are the building blocks of education. If we do not have those we cannot proceed.
I have another appointment but I am happy to come back to discuss these matters as the committee so decides. I thank the committee for the input into the heads of the Bill. The response has been very informative. It will now go to the Parliamentary Counsel for drafting. I hope to have it ready for delivery in this session and, hopefully, enacted by the end of this extended parliamentary session in July in order that it can become operational in autumn 2012. While that is the aspiration, it depends on the Parliamentary Counsel.
I thank the Minister and his officials. I thank the Minister for responding to the last few topics which were not part of the main meeting. I appreciate the Minister is happy to come back a second time. The purpose of today's meeting was to touch on the issues - that is what members wanted - but we shall have a full meeting on the matter at a later stage.
I request that meeting take place as soon as possible.
That is agreed.
It should be sooner rather than later because we need adequate time to discuss the issue.
That is not a problem. The Minister is free to leave.
There were four DEIS reports.
A question was asked on the Deputy's behalf. We will have them shortly.
I would appreciate if committee members got a copy of each one.
There are a number of reports that I have asked to be sent to the committee. For those who were here last week, it was clear there would be little time to discuss these issues. We will try to get them all on the agenda because they are topical issues. It was clear to everybody that we would just touch on them but the Minister made it clear that he is happy to come back at any time that suits our schedule but not today. I thank members for their time and effort.
The joint committee adjourned at noon until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 1 February 2012.