In its own way this reflects the progress that has been made, with €500 million being spent this year alone. Last year 1,200 schools had building programmes. To date this year, I have announced 65 schools going into the building programme. Next week I will be announcing 200 schools, in the context of small and rural schools and of extra classrooms, etc. We have already announced 740 schools for the summer works this year and there will be other ones arising over the next few months. That, in itself, shows a commitment to improving the physical structure, not just because of under investment over a number of years and the fact that some of our schools are over 100 years old, but it also reflects the changing needs of the new curriculum and the inclusion of children with special needs with the extra demands which that has put on schools, including the attempts to support the teachers in that situation.
I will take the issues addressed in the motion in the order of the priorities of the Government over the past couple of years. No doubt children with special needs have been and are a priority for the Government. That was not in the programme for Government. It was not in the programme for Government that we would put 5,000 extra teachers into our schools over a number of years, nor that we should focus our attention on children with learning difficulties, but we have achieved that. It is important it is recognised because priorities change as society changes. That is why where it may not address a complete commitment, it is necessary to consider what we have done with the money and resources available to us. We have focussed on those children with special needs.
When one sees that one in five primary school teachers is now dealing with children with special needs and learning difficulties, one realises the significance of the investment in this area. It is a case of dealing not just with a child where there are more severe difficulties but even the child who was always in danger of falling behind in the classroom, that is, the child who was not able to catch up with the teacher and who continually fell behind for years. The needs of such children can now be identified at an early stage. The teacher in the classroom, the best person to recognise it, can identify the child and ensure that the learning support teacher or resource teacher in the school is able to give the child the support and early intervention to ensure that problems do not continue and arise later. That is the type of intervention which I hope will contribute to ensuring that students remain in school at a later stage and that there will not be the continued drop-out experienced in some areas by some children at second level.
The National Council for Special Education is a very significant development in supporting children, their families and schools. The special education needs organisers, SENOs, over 70 of them locally based, are making the links between the schools, the parents and the services. It is new and I accept it has taken time to bed down. People are now beginning to realise that this is a real resource because they can get to know the person concerned and ensure that the child's individual needs are met, whether it be through resource teaching hours or receiving a special needs assistant, of whom there are 6,000 — 7,000 people but 6,000 whole-time equivalents — in the schools at present. It can also pertain in the use of technology which is beneficial in enabling so many children in special education to reach their potential. The SENOs have made a significant difference for children, recognising that our schools are being very open and welcoming of children with special needs and the particular difficulties and challenges which that poses for the schools and the teacher in the classroom.
Reference has been made to the role of the special school and to the fact that in other places they have been shut down and that others have stated they should be shut down. The special schools should be at the core, as a centre of excellence, for the expertise which they have developed over the years. I have visited a special school for children with behavioural difficulties, a special school for children with intellectual disabilities, a special school in the CRC clinic, a special school for young people who are deaf-blind and as a result cannot speak and various other special classes and special schools around the country. The care, attention and devotion that those teachers give to the children concerned cannot be found anywhere. They have developed a level of expertise over the years in recognising the best technology available, the best methodologies available and the best support structures needed.
We are actively working on a pilot programme with two of those special schools to see how they can not only develop and strengthen in themselves to meet the needs of their children but also be able to reach out and provide a resource to the other schools in the area. That is why I wish to see it develop. In the UK they made a serious mistake in that they shut down the special school and they are now living to regret it. Many parents want their children to be in the mainstream class, then some of them realise that not all children are suitable for the mainstream class and the mainstream class is not suitable for all children. The special schools have a very special role to play and I will continue to support it and ensure they feel that they will be even more highly regarded as we move forward.
The area of autism is also developing. I would be the first to state it is an area where we need to do a great deal more. There has been a considerable increase in the number of special classes and special schools for children with autism. It is a growing issue into which we will continue to put investment and special supports.
The second area of commitment and priority, both by me and my predecessors, has been disadvantage. Everybody would recognise that where one has resources and when one has extra teachers, one puts them where they are needed most, which is in disadvantage. Over the years all of the results have shown us this is so. There are approximately ten schemes dealing with disadvantage. The idea behind the DEIS programme is to co-ordinate those schemes and to ensure that those with the most serious educational disadvantage are the ones who would benefit most. It has taken some time for the education research centre to work out, on the basis of the information supplied from the schools, which schools should be included in this. It has taken time because it is crucial that we get it right.
Quality control continues. People check whether the form is completed correctly because substantial benefits can accrue to the schools, namely, extra resources of over €40 million and 300 extra posts across the system. A total of 600 primary schools, 300 urban and town, 300 rural and 150 second level schools will benefit from this plan which is in the final stages of implementation.
The key measures will focus on the schools, for example, targeting early childhood education, extending the home-school liaison programme, the school completion programme, ensuring there are more administrative principals, giving recognition to teachers and principals who have made a commitment to disadvantaged schools by allowing them to take paid sabbatical leave, and different measures working with the other agencies to enhance student attendance, etc. They will be put in place immediately. I am not waiting until next September; as soon as this is finalised I will roll out those supports.
The key point in all the studies and surveys on disadvantage is that schools cannot work alone. Families and society have a significant bearing on education. Senator Norris referred to the reading report which was a study in community disadvantage rather than simply learning disadvantage. The same is true of the study I launched in 2004 to cover illiteracy and innumeracy in disadvantaged schools. In schools where the pupil-teacher ratio was 11:1 literacy and numeracy were worse than ever because there were no books in the children's homes. Nobody read to the children, there were no language skills or nursery rhymes. They ticked the box for between zero and nine books. That shows that there is only so much a teacher can do in the classroom with significant resources and commitment but without the support of the wider community, particularly the parents.
We have included family literacy in the delivering equality of opportunity in schools, DEIS, programme and greater emphasis on the home-school community liaison to support the teacher in the classroom. I hope that key change will make a difference to young people coming from a position of economic and educational disadvantage. Economic disadvantage does not mean educational disadvantage. People from Leitrim often tell us how economically disadvantaged they are but they have the highest participation rate in third level education in the country. In areas of Connemara which claim rural and economic disadvantage there is a strong tradition of commitment to, and participation in, education.
The real disadvantage is in urban areas. Last week I visited two schools in Tallaght which have wonderful principals and young dedicated staff who want to make a difference. They are trying to work with a small group of parents, many children and serious family problems. The saddest meeting of my past year was with the little girl in that school who asked me if she could sleep in the school at night. That was not because the school was an oasis for her but raised many questions about what was happening outside. The principal knew about the problem and was on top of it. Those are the kind of circumstances that create educational disadvantage. We will make the investment and put the teachers in place but that must be coupled with family support which is the aim of these programmes.
It is not necessary to set up a five or six year programme for class size as there is in the third level or research programmes. One cannot run a capital programme for a year at a time because it is no use leaving a school without a roof because there is no money to finish it. That is why a capital programme must run for five years. One cannot tell a researcher to study the next cure for cancer for only a year and say one does not know how much money there is for the second or third year of research.
