Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

SELECT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 21 Jun 2000

Vol. 3 No. 8

Estimates for Public Services, 2000.

Vote 26 — Office of the Minister for Education and Science (Revised).

Vote 27 — First Level Education (Revised).

Vote 28 — Second Level and Further Education (Revised).

Vote 29 — Third Level and Further Education (Revised).

The Chairman, who is unavoidably absent, sends his apologies. On behalf of the Select Committee, I welcome the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Woods, the Secretary General of the Department, Mr. John Dennehy, and his officials.

The purpose of today's meeting is to consider the Revised Estimates for the Department of Education and Science which have been referred to the Select Committee by the Dáil. They are as follows: Vote 26 — Office of the Minister for Education and Science; Vote 27 — First Level Education; Vote 28 — Second Level and Further Education and Vote 29 — Third Level and Further Education. A proposed timetable for the consideration of the Estimates has been circulated. Is the timetable agreed? Agreed. I now invite the Minister to make his opening statement.

I welcome this opportunity to discuss the Education Estimates for the year 2000. This committee provides an important forum to reflect on education policy and priorities and the allocation of resources. These Estimates are the first of the new millennium and the first Estimates in the context of the National Development Plan 2000-2006.

The plan lays the foundation for Ireland's continuing economic and social development. It sets out the Government's ambitious development strategy, supported by a multi-annual investment commitment in the key areas of infrastructural development and the productive sector, the promotion of social inclusion, education and training. As Minister, I am deeply committed to the development of education in Ireland. Education is the engine which drives the Celtic tiger. It is through education that we as a people now have the wealth and resources to develop a truly inclusive society. That is what the Government is doing. We have never in our history invested as much in education as is being invested this year. We have made education a top priority for our term of office. On my appointment, I set as my key priorities the urgent tackling of literacy, numeracy, special needs and disadvantage. We will press on with major developments at the leading edge of education, research and development but this time we will ensure that those who are disadvantaged or who have special needs get extra special support and attention. We had special problems in the past but today we are making great progress throughout the country in tackling these problems and we are going to do much better.

Over the past three years, the Government has achieved success across a number of fronts in education from pre-school to adult education and beyond. We have increased the education budget to £3.294 billion, a 43% increase on the 1997 Estimates, and increased the provision for capital projects in the education sector to £423 million, an increase of 350% over the 1997 budget allocation for building projects and new equipment. We have provided £32 million this year for third level research and development activities in addition to the moneys available in the education technology investment fund when, as recently as 1997 there was no targeted funding for research and development activities in higher education. We have also provided £2.5 million this year as part of a £12 million programme for enhancing the resources in schools for teaching the physical sciences, including chemistry, physics and science. We have provided £13.35 million this year for the largest ever programme of teacher in-career development, which represents a 100% increase on the 1997 allocation, and, in addition, 60,000 teacher training days on ICT since the beginning of 1999 have been provided as part of the schools IT 2000 programme.

We have enacted the first ever Education Act and implemented many elements of the Act, undertaken a wide ranging review of school attendance legislation culminating in the Education (Welfare) Bill which is progressing through the Oireachtas and published the first ever Teaching Council Bill and the first ever White Paper on Early Childhood Education, which is a blueprint for the development of early education. We have allocated an additional 2,500 first and second level teaching posts and will allocate a further 1,500 teaching posts over the course of the Partnership for Prosperity and Fairness. We have reduced the pupil-teacher ratio to 18:1 at second level and 20.4:1 at primary level and ensured that every child with special needs in every school has access to remedial teaching. We have also ensured that every child with a special need has an automatic right to have this need met in the education system and that, since September 1999, the pupil-teacher ratio in all special schools and special classes catering for children with disabilities has been reduced to the level recommended by the special education review committee.

We need to broaden and deepen our culture of research and innovation. This is a key element in ensuring that we successfully meet the global challenges which face us. Rather than simply exploiting technologies developed elsewhere, we must become a world centre for excellence in research development and technological innovation. The Government has clearly set out its intentions with the sheer scale of research funding provided under the national development plan. The amount of over £500 million provided in the plan specifically for research in the education sector alone is particularly remarkable when, as recently as 1997, there was no targeted funding whatsoever for research activity in higher education.

Our ability to provide for specific skills needs as they arise is another key component in building long-term economic success nationally. The Government's response over the past two years has been rapid, substantial and flexible when dealing with identified needs in the information technology, teleservices and professional trades areas. Specifically, recent initiatives in the education area include a £75 million investment plan in response to the needs identified in the first report of the expert skills group whereby an additional 5,400 places, predominantly in the engineering and computer hardware and software areas, are being provided, a joint initiative involving the universities and IBEC in association with the Higher Education Authority and my Department whereby ,500 postgraduate places are being provided in conversion courses in the ICT area and expansion of the accelerated technician programme, which is a joint industry/institute of technology programme to 1,100 students in a range of skills shortage areas.

Obviously we have not solved all our labour supply problems. There is no magic wand that produces trained people at a moment's notice. However, the Education and Science Estimates for 2000 contain clear evidence of our continued and determined commitment in this area. In our programme for Government, we set out the objective of achieving computer literacy in all schools. The current Estimates make provision for the next tranche of funding — £7.1 million — for the schools IT 2000 project. This is one of the most ambitious State funded programmes in the world which has already begun to have a major impact. It is our intention to have a permanent infrastructure, not just of hardware and software in our schools, but also the teaching skills which will put us to the forefront of international developments. Ireland's success in attracting inward investment in science and technology based industries is a strong endorsement of the quality of graduates coming from our second and third level institutes who are entering the workforce.

The development of the post-leaving certificate courses has been one of the great successes in recent years. It has been helped enormously by the removal of fees and by the introduction by the Government of student support grants. From September onwards 24,900 full-time PLC places will be approved. I am pleased to announce that, given the success of PLC courses, I am arranging for an immediate in-depth review of the PLC sector. This review group will examine and make recommendations regarding the organisational, support, development, technical and administrative structures and resources required in schools and colleges with large scale PLC provision having regard to best practice in related areas in other countries.

The total number of apprentices now registered nationally is 23,000. My Department has initiated a massive investment programme to provide extra workshop capacity and has also provided significant additional funding and staffing resources to address the training needs of apprentices. As a result of these measures, the total number of apprentices catered for in the education system has increased from 4,000 in 1997-8 to 6,700 in 1998-9 and to 7,200 in 1999-2000. Next year it is planned to have places available for 8,500 apprentices. In addition, for this summer my Department has arranged special courses to provide training for 700 apprentices, bringing this year's apprenticeships to almost 8,000. Everything possible is being done in co-operation with the institutes of technology to meet the increased demand for apprentice training places. I am making whatever resources are required available to ensure that this vital area of training is fully supported.

Despite the successes and economic developments of recent years, the Government is keenly aware that much remains to be done. I am especially concerned at the continuing evidence of literacy and numeracy difficulties in children leaving Irish schools and in the population generally. This cannot be allowed to continue. As I mentioned on a number of occasions, I have made this a particular priority for my time in office. We have always prided ourselves on the quality of our education. Yet, despite the high quality of our teachers and relevant education and training programmes, there are unacceptable levels of illiteracy in the population. I want to ensure that no child will leave primary school without an adequate standard of literacy and numeracy. I am fully committed to developing effective strategies to address literacy problems at all levels. Every citizen must be equipped with the basic skills they need to allow them to participate fully in and contribute to society.

My objective is to raise standards of literacy and numeracy by beginning at the levels of individual children and individual schools. In allocating resources, I plan to focus particularly on the lowest functioning pupils and on the schools where the largest proportion of pupils achieve at a very low attainment level. It is in these cases that the increased resources I am making available can make a significant improvement in educational outcomes. With these children and in these schools we must focus on reading. Reading is still the main avenue to education and occupational and social success. Reading is essential not only to success in our daily lives but also to further learning throughout life, which is vital to our economic and social development. The Government already has a range of strategies in place to support those pupils who are low achievers or who have serious difficulties with learning or numeracy.

The revised primary curriculum places a major emphasis on the development of literacy skills. It focuses especially on the prevention of reading difficulties and on the development of emerging literacy skills. It also focuses on the development of phonetic awareness in pupils and is being supported by a comprehensive programme of in-service education for teachers. By the end of this month, all teachers at primary level will have completed intensive in-service training to tackle literacy as part of the new programme of in service for the revised curriculum.

The remedial teacher is the backbone of our strategy for addressing the needs of pupils with serious learning difficulties. Since the Government took office, we have significantly increased the number of remedial teachers in our schools. There are 1,463 remedial teachers allocated to primary schools. They provide coverage to every primary school in the country. We have also increased the number of remedial teachers in second level schools. There are now 560 whole-time equivalent posts in second level schools. Since September 1999 the remedial teacher service has been extended to every first and second level school in the country with a pupil teacher ratio of 10:1 or more. Schools with lower ratios are free to apply to my Department for remedial support where they can demonstrate a need for the service.

I will shortly announce new guidelines to assist teachers in tackling literacy difficulties and in helping the children concerned. Since taking office, this Government has undertaken an unprecedented level of development in special education services. Arising from a Government decision in October 1998, all children with special needs within the primary system now have an automatic entitlement to a response to their needs and appropriate to their disability and location. The response may take the form of resource teacher support or child care support or both, depending on the particular needs involved. Already, as a result of this development, the number of resource teachers in the primary system has been increased from 104 in 1998 to 450 at present. The number of special needs assistants helping children with special needs has been increased dramatically, from 299 to 1,095, over the same period. I will continue to allocate further resources in response to need.

The Government established a national educational psychological service agency with effect from 1 September 1999, with services being developed on a phased basis over five years. Our objective is to ensure that all schools have access to the service over the next few years. As part of this process I have increased the number of psychologists in the service from 43 to almost 100 with effect from September next.

The Select Committee will be aware that an international adult literacy survey of 12 countries conducted in 1995 and published in 1997 provided a profile of literacy skills in adults aged 16 to 64. The survey found Ireland scored badly in the overall literacy tasks and indicated a serious problem in functional literacy among Irish adults. It showed that early school leavers, older adults and unemployed people were most at risk from literacy difficulties, with participation in adult education and training being least likely for those with poorer skills. The response of the Government has been quick and comprehensive; provision in the education sector for adult literacy was increased substantially from a base of £0.85 million in 1997, when the Government took office, to £.7.825 million this year. The national development plan provides for an investment of £73.8 million in coming years in adult literacy, which will be supplemented by £1 billion investment under a back to education initiative, providing for an expansion of part-time, Youthreach, PLC and VTOS options. This will become an important bridge.

Regarding disadvantage, I am conscious that we must make education more responsive to and inclusive of individuals who are less advantaged than those with special needs or who have left the system in previous years without having access to the range of opportunities available today. They deserve a second chance. This year almost 13,000 people are participating in second chance education. To tackle disadvantage effectively, we need an all encompassing strategy and we need to intervene early. We must raise awareness of the benefits of early childhood education and we must assist parents in helping their children to learn and develop, raising standards in early education provision and giving priority to those most in need of assistance. I am preparing a multi-sectoral three year programme which will assign a massive £193 million to support people at risk or who are experiencing educational disadvantage. The funding will be assigned at pre-school, primary, post-primary and third levels and in lifelong and continuing education.

I have commissioned a survey of all primary schools by the Educational Research Centre, Drumcondra, and that work is nearing completion. The purpose of the survey is to identify those children who are at higher risk of educational disadvantage and early school leaving. I am making significant staffing and financial resources available in September to support those children who are at risk.

These Estimates contain substantial provisions for a wide range of measures across the education system and provide massive additional funding for social inclusion measures and curriculum reform and modernisation. This is in line with our agreement with the national partners. If I was to summarise the Government's objective for education I would say we want more people to achieve a higher level at every stage, ranging from pre-school to postgraduate work. This is predicated on the idea that high quality education is central to promoting an inclusive society and developing a high skills, highly paid, knowledge based society. The priority is to provide resources where those resources are of most benefit to our students. Provision for education in these Estimates will enable me, together with the many people in the education sector, to maintain and improve the quality of education and to make substantial progress in implementing key provisions of the national development plan and the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.

I commend the Estimates to the Select Committee.

Once again we face poorly presented Estimates that do not offer any programme based analysis of what is happening in education. I have made this point on numerous occasions and every time the same format of Estimates is presented here. We get salaries without any disaggregation and we see no serious look at programmes that might help us analyse what is happening with spending — effectively we are regarded as rubber stamps. The Minister and his officials come in and expect us to congratulate them on this.

Take research and development. There is a table here for research and development which does not contain a fraction of the research and development being funded by the Department. It is meaningless and that is replicated everywhere. There is no table dealing with special education, one of the most important sectors, which would enable us to analyse what is happening. We are treated like idiots here in the way Estimates are formulated. I do not understand why the Department insists on coming back here like this year after year in spite of what we say. The press never attends, so we are talking to ourselves, but we are voting huge sums of money with no serious analysis by the Dáil of what we are achieving. This Department has been very poor to report on any outcomes of any serious intent.

We do not have proper information on literacy — the previous Minister announced literacy figures on the day he was leaving office, saying that 10% of our primary schoolchildren had serious reading problems. He promised that within a month we would have the information to back that up, but that has never been provided. We have no serious analysis of the literacy standards in our primary system. From what we heard, this 10% figure indicates that literacy has deteriorated by one-third since the last figure offered by the Department, which was 7.5%. We have gone from 7.5% to 10% on the Department's figures, which we have never seen. That is a 33% deterioration in literacy levels at primary level. The Minister is telling us nothing about why this deterioration is happening.

We had a report during the year — it took the Department a long time to publish it — on remedial education and that study showed it was hopelessly resourced, that remedial teachers were overstretched, that there was no serious backup, either in-service or in materials, and that the remedial service was having no impact in disadvantaged schools. What do we have in response? Not one extra remedial teacher is to be allocated to disadvantaged schools, which are in both Ministers' constituencies. The extra remedial teachers are for schools not designated as disadvantaged. This is exactly contrary to the targeting approach advocated year after year by those who comment on our education system.

Again, the Department produces no systematic figures on drop out levels at third level. We know from scrappy evidence that the drop out level is at 40% in some subjects. The Department is happy to see slow bicycle races between various institutions commissioning research which we have never seen. The previous Minister, when in Opposition, hounded the then Minister, Deputy Bhreathnach, as to why results were not being provided on this, yet here the Government is in office for three years and no such analysis is being offered.

The worst of all is the treatment of children with special needs. The Department has no database of children with special needs, it does not know how many are out there or what services they are getting and it has not surveyed their parents. We in Fine Gael carried out a survey and the situation is diabolical. Half the parents surveyed found the support services identified in assessments were not being delivered to their children. They found a chronic level of lack of information in schools and they were unable to get basic support services — speech therapy was the worst, where ten minutes per week was the typical amount of therapy offered to children who needed it. It was not much better in other areas, though the Minister will no doubt have a well rehearsed answer as to why the Minister for Health and Children is to blame.

We need to develop a proper education system and target issues. The Minister again committed himself to eliminating literacy problems in primary education. With respect, that commitment was given in 1996 yet the situation is worse four years later. These commitments ring hollow unless there are targeted policies to back them up. We have not seen such policies. There have been figures indicating that £190 million is available for X or Y but we want to see change on the ground and that is not happening.

The second level retention rate was to increase to 90% by now but is stuck at 80%. There is no reduction in early school leaving. Science subjects are in chronic decline and there is no improvement in third level participation rates by the disadvantaged or mature students, even though we need mature people to come back in their droves if we are to be prepared for the knowledge based society. I commend the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, for his efforts in this area but we are lacking an awareness of the extent to which we must change. That theme is missing.

There is a belief that all is well in Ireland but that is not the case. People across the world are investing huge sums of money in education systems but we are not making the changes necessary to move away from the situation where one in five people leave school with poor literacy skills or they drop out. We need a revolution to change this. The Minister is boasting about £193 million over three years in five areas of education. However, if one divides £193 million by three one gets about £60 million. If one divides it by five for the different areas of education from pre-school, primary, secondary, third level and mature, one is down to £12 million. That is a drop in the ocean when 45,000 children in primary education have serious literacy problems. We are fooling ourselves if we think we are shaking the education system to address these needs.

There has been a timid effort at school evaluation which has not even been mainstreamed. The Minister is not able to commit himself to having a proper school evaluation system in place this September. He is still in the ridiculous situation of going to the High Court to prevent parents getting information about their schools' examination results. I oppose the idea of league tables but I defend the right of parents as the primary educators to know how schools are doing in exam results. Parents should be able to go to any school or prospective school and get that information. However, the Department is holding the fort against parents who are the primary educators from getting that sort of information. We need to shake ourselves up. Education will be the area where we carve out our future yet the complacency and self-congratulatory mood which has characterised Estimates is scandalous.

We need to address these issues more radically. Science is in decline and this committee is trying to analyse why. Far from getting the sort of assistance the committee would expect, the Minister and the Department are refusing to provide us with results of its own surveys of school science facilities. They are refusing to give the committee this information at a time when it is putting a report together. They are saying they will produce a report later in the year. Now is the time to make this information available to the committee when it is holding hearings. This is typical of the kind of approach we have seen. I am quickly losing any faith that this committee can make a difference. We have to be treated as elected officials who are entitled to any information which is available. I am sick of the idea of the Department hiding behind freedom of information and waiting until the last minute to release reports which should be our right.

We are very fortunate to have 40,000 or 50,000 dedicated teachers but what are we willing to invest in improving their skills? The average teacher age is well over 40 yet we are not investing consistently in improved teaching methods. We spend about 1% of salary on in-service investment in teachers. Hewlett Packard spends 10% of payroll on its workforce yet it is just producing inkjet printers which is not the same as moulding our children's future. We need to take education seriously and address some of these issues in a much more aggressive way. The notion of centralisation, control, unwillingness to allow initiative to flourish or devolve power on the part of the Department will have to change. It is a pity that a Department which was willing to devolve power to regional authorities has had that process stymied for political reasons.

It is interesting that those who supported the devolution of power were organisations such as the Combat Poverty Agency who recognised that one starts to resolve problems at local and community levels. It is no accident that the partnership companies which had just £10 million to spend on education over three years, compared with £3,000 million by the Department every year, have done much more to revolutionise the way communities face problems of educational disadvantage than the Department has done in 20 years. That is the answer to those who say devolution is expensive and bureaucratic. It is not so if one does it properly and there has to be a willingness to release power and to give communities some power over education issues and the way money is spent.

We hear the same things time and again. If a school has fewer than 500 students it cannot have a career guidance teacher, if it is one pupil short it loses a teacher in disadvantaged areas. This kind of administration by numbers is killing the initiative of educators. I recently visited a school on Donore Avenue and I never met people more devoted to the task of dealing with the most disadvantaged children from the most disadvantaged area in the city. This school is losing a teacher because its numbers are down. Teachers in this school have created a garden to help kids get a feel for some type of life they have never had. The children are unhappy when they have a free day because they miss the atmosphere the teachers have created in the school yet they get a slap in the face by losing a teacher because some automatic pilot in the Department deems they have gone over some threshold and the teacher is to be withdrawn. We have to get away from this approach.

If the Minister wants to do something about educational disadvantage he will not do so by making an announcement about £193 million which people see through. We can all divide by three and get that sum back to £64 million in a year and divide by five and see how little the sum is. If a child drops out of education at 15 he or she will have had £19,000 invested in his or her education. If that child goes to third level he or she will have well over £50,000 invested in his or her education. There is a gap of £30,000 for advantaged pupils in comparison with disadvantaged pupils. We need to make an effort to plough that sort of money back in because we pay in spades afterwards if such children become drop-outs, long-term unemployed or, worse, if they are committed to prison where they cost the State a fortune.

We must shake the complacency that we are doing well in terms of education. Unfortunately the way the Estimate is presented once again suggests it is business as usual. We have a unique opportunity in these years with the benefits of the Celtic tiger to really make a difference, particularly at primary level. Once again the Estimate shows that third level scoops the pool — the budget for third level has been doubled compared with primary level. We need to be serious about issues. If we want to debate the Estimate seriously, let us get down to looking at what we are doing in a structured way. Let us rejig the Estimate and look at special education and where the gaps are, and let us help the Minister allocate the money available to him in a more meaningful way to address some of the problems. That is how we will have a real debate instead of this charade of going through numbers which mean little or nothing to those trying to read them.

I wish to start on the issue of complacency referred to by Deputy Bruton. We have all been guilty over the years of being complacent about the education system. We have tended to clap ourselves on the back and believe our own propaganda that we have one of the best education systems in the world when the figures do not bear that out. The education system serves the majority of students very well, but 25% of people are being failed by the system. There is every reason to believe that figure is increasing rather than decreasing, given the additional difficulties faced by many pupils due to social problems, family breakdown, drug abuse and a range of other social problems.

Additional funding is being provided but it is important to bear in mind that 2,000 students fail to transfer from primary to second level schools each year and a further 10,000 fail to successfully complete their second level education. On any one day there are 3,000 children absent from our schools for various reasons. The rate of absenteeism is approximately 30% in many areas and higher in some urban areas. I recently met some principals in my constituency and was quite shocked to hear about the levels of absenteeism which in recent times have been between 35% and 40% on Mondays. This is a serious cause of concern and must be given urgent attention. The result is that one in four of the adult population is deemed illiterate.

These problems provide food for thought and are chastening. They should make us accept that the education system is not all it is cracked up to be. The starting point for the Minister must be honest recognition of the scale of the problems. A natural tendency for Ministers is to talk up the good points, but there are serious problems and unless the Minister is prepared to recognise and face up to them we will never make a start at seriously tackling them.

I am disappointed with the attitude the Minister has shown in recent times in attempting to ignore the scale of the problems which exist when Opposition Deputies have tried to bring them to his attention. He ignores the genuine concerns of Members and deny the very existence of some of the problems, which is no way to behave. Unless there is an honest appraisal and recognition of the problems there will be no hope of tackling them.

The Department of Education and Science is currently characterised by a plethora of pilot projects. People interested in education at community level, teachers and parents are worn out with such an approach at a time when there is so much money available in the country. The Minister spoke about the Celtic tiger. There is plenty of money available for investment and surely education is the most important of the social services in terms of investment. Given the level of economic activity, it is not acceptable to operate on the basis of numerous pilot projects. Surely we can afford to have a decent education system which caters for the needs of all pupils in the mainstream rather than having various Mickey Mouse pilot projects in different areas. Many of the projects are very good, but that approach is not acceptable in a first world economy which should have a first world society and where the money necessary for proper mainstream services is available.

When issues or problems with the education system are raised, the Minister points to pilot projects and says we will see how they develop. It is too bad for those who are losing out in terms of education because of inadequacies in the system in the many other areas which are not served by the pilot projects. Numerous pilot projects have been running for three or five years, and we have to await their completion, evaluation and the reports of implementation groups. The Department is falling under the weight of sub-committees and working groups while children are losing out. Once the opportunities which should be provided in childhood are missed, it is very difficult or impossible to catch up later in life.

I ask the Minister to clarify his views in relation to prioritising and targeting resources. His predecessor, who got a very good reputation through a very good press office, did not accept the principle of targeting resources but took a scatter-gun approach to spending, giving a little to everyone and for every school. He kept people happy and spread resources quite thinly. Does the Minister intend to continue this approach or does he accept the principle that where resources are relatively scarce they should be targeted at areas of greatest need? It is important we know this from the outset. Teachers working in schools in disadvantaged areas have been bitterly disappointed by the approach of the Government in the past three years. They have received nothing extra and there have been no special initiatives to tackle educational disadvantage. The teachers want to know whether the Minister will continue the regressive approach of his predecessor or whether he intends targeting disadvantage. The Minister spoke about additional funding which will be available. How much of that will be spent this year and what is the Minister's intention in terms of how it will be spent? Will it be targeted? If it is, the Minister will have my full support.

The area of research is also related to pilot projects and hit and miss approaches to education. There is no sound, educationally researched basis for taking decisions in the Department. Much depends on the whim of the individual Minister or election promises rather than on ongoing solid research which examines what is working and how we can put in place new systems to address the issue of those being failed by the system. Such a research base is not available. Recently the Educational Research Centre addressed the committee and we were told that a mere 3p in every £10,000 spent on education is devoted to research, which is utterly inadequate. It is a penny-pinching approach and we are paying the price in the long-term through an inability to develop properly grounded approaches to education. Will the Minister significantly increase the spend on research over the coming year?

Added to the inadequacy in the level of funding is the issue of independence. Because the Educational Research Centre carries out most of its research on the basis of a commission from the Department, the research is not independent and is not available to Opposition Deputies, the public or parents, which is a serious problem. Independent research should be carried out, on the same basis as the ESRI, and made available to the public.

Regarding structures, I think rowing back on local education boards was a retrograde step. Time and again at local level the lack of a local response to educational problems is raised. I previously raised this with the Minister in relation to the drugs task forces which are now coming to the conclusion that the big problem in areas of disadvantage is the serious educational disadvantage and the huge part this plays in drug abuse. The Garda, health boards, the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs and FÁS are represented on the drugs task forces, but there is no representation from the Department of Education and Science, which is arguably the most important Department, because there are no local representatives. Equally, in my constituency a child care task force was established in which we wanted to include the players from the different Departments, and again the Department of Education and Science could not produce a local representative. This crops up time and again.

There is a new way of doing things and approaches must be locally based, working from the bottom up. The projects must be devised by local people on a cross-agency basis. This is the way to tackle disadvantage. Unfortunately, education is the missing partner which is a serious problem. When I raised the issue with the Minister last week he said he would look again at the question of representation from his Department on local drugs task forces. Has he come to a conclusion on the issue because the drugs task forces are still waiting to hear from him? They refused the offer he made of an education co-ordinator from the partnership boards. That is not acceptable because someone who is answerable to the Department, who can speak for the Department and can take decisions on behalf of the Department is required. I would like the Minister's views at this stage, given that he has had time to reconsider the matter.

This is an area where a lack of local structures has been brought to the fore. There are many other issues such as tackling local problems where local information and expertise is needed. Given that no one in the Department has such expertise, perhaps the local inspector might be prepared to get involved at local level. People at the forefront of education do not seem to have sufficient time to get involved in a democratic way in local decision-making. A whole lot of issues need local decisions, including the allocation of accommodation, whether multi-denominational schools should be set up and whether there should be rationalisation of accommodation. These support structures are needed in education. There is the question of the interaction between education and the health boards. This debate should take place at local level. However, this is not happening at present because the Department does not have local structures in place. This is a serious impediment to progress in education, particularly in disadvantaged communities.

The Minister spoke about a skills need. Is there any planning in the Department in relation to this? There are huge gaps at present right across the health and welfare services. Is anyone talking to third level colleges about future projections and the needs in different areas? It sometimes strikes me that if an American multi-national company or someone from IBEC raises concerns about skills shortages in, say, the IT industry, the Government immediately responds. However, if a member of a trade union or a parents' organisation raises concerns about the lack of, for example, speech therapists, qualified teachers or social workers, it does not evoke the same response as comments from industry. Why is this the case? Surely our human raw material is just as important and needs similar attention to the IT industry.

A large number of students are now being taught by unqualified teachers. While the Minister mentioned the increase in the intake to teacher training colleges, why did this not take place three years ago? Why do we have to reach a crisis point before action is taken? What is the Minister doing in relation to introducing emergency training courses? This was done previously under the former Minister, John Wilson. I re-emphasise the need for long-term strategic planning in relation to skills needs and ensuring third level colleges are providing sufficient places to feed that demand.

On the question of the spend across the different levels of education, the leaflet which has been introduced by the Department is very useful, but why does it only refer to the three levels of education? There is no mention of what is probably the most important level of education, that is, pre-school education. Does the Minister accept that the first five years of a child's life are the most important and what are his intentions in relation to developing that whole sector, which is resourced appallingly? Third and second level participation rates are mentioned. All this means nothing unless there is investment in the early years when a child is at the most critical stage of its life. At present many children who begin school at four or five years of age are already at serious disadvantage compared to their classmates. Unless there is significant funding and investment in pre-school services, which recognises it as an important sector within the education system, many of the other efforts being made will mean nothing.

I listened with interest to the Minister's speech. The claims that the Government is developing an inclusive society does not seem to be reflected in the facts, particularly in disadvantaged areas. He said that we have always prided ourselves on the quality of our education. The Minister would need to go beyond the catch-phrases and be a little more critical and analytical. This does not benefit those who are suffering because they feel outside the loop when we are priding ourselves on what is happening. I had a lapse in concentration for one moment when I thought every child had just won the lottery. It sounded as if everyone was going home happy because of the Government's performance. I know this is not the case, as does the Minister if he is in touch with what is happening on the ground.

In the year 2000 we still must attain the most basic objectives. The entitlement to free primary education as required under the Constitution is in reality a long way off for many people. We must still break the link between household income and the quality of education children receive. That is still a long way off. These are two basic objectives which remind us that all is far from well. These objectives are all the more urgent given that the budget has resulted in a tax code which is less favourable to parents who stay at home. The home education movement's views are probably based on fear rather than reality. However, parents who have stayed at home and have been the bedrock of a lot of early education, not to mention later education, are under siege from the taxation code which the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, has introduced.

As previous speakers said, the absence of pre-school provision becomes all the more stark and expensive as the number of parents who are able to stay at home decreases. That reality goes beyond the Department. Nevertheless, it is very pertinent and must be accommodated by the Department if it is to concern itself with those who are most in need of provision and care. I am carrying out a study for this committee and I am becoming more and more conscious of the difficulties being faced by teachers, particularly principals, in finding classroom teachers, remedial teachers and generally being able to carry out their own work. The result is a vicious circle of additional stress which is putting off people from going into teaching and exacerbating the problems which cause the stress in the first place. That is not reflected in what is being talked about. We are talking about making provision for additional teaching places. These provisions are great but if they are not filled and principals must spend up to £500 advertising for staff — sometimes they get no one — all the fine words will fall on deaf ears. This is a source of frustration. Few people are willing to act as substitute teachers or provide temporary cover and many of those who do are not entitled to holiday pay. It is an unpleasant and unrewarding experience. I know of a teacher in my constituency who started to provide temporary cover on 4 October in very difficult circumstances and is not entitled to holiday pay. What does this say to those who ask, "Do you value the work of teachers?" It does not reflect well on the Department.

We have been informed that money is being invested in the primary education sector in respect of which the Minister outlined the allocations. I have looked again at the Estimates for 1998 and compared them with the Estimates for this year and following subtraction it can clearly be seen that the secondary education sector has received £33.25 million more than the primary education sector. The third level education sector has received £109 million more. This is an indication that we are not getting to grips with the problem of lack of funding for the primary education sector. From experience as much as anything else, it is badly needed.

According to the National Youth Council, about 1,000 children do not proceed to second level. Perhaps the Minister has other figures but the Department's figures do not always reflect the position as outlined in reports. The Department has indicated that one child in ten at primary level has reading difficulties. According to reports, the figure is one in four. Either something is missing or the Department is not seeing the full picture. There is no mention of attention deficit disorder in the Government's literacy plan. This is a huge contributory factor and it may be due partly to stress and family lifestyles, but it is a disorder for which the Department should provide.

According to The Irish Times only one quarter of schools are providing the RSE programme. There is a need for further analysis to ascertain how the position can be improved.

The schools IT 2000 programme makes for great press statements, but does the Department have a view on what should happen to the obsolete Civil Service computers currently filling warehouses? Can they be upgraded and supplied to schools and perhaps other places? The Civil Service seems to go through computers at a rate of knots.

Deputy Naughten and I compiled a report on school transport services for which the allocation has been increased by 4%. The allocation for international activities has been increased by 177%. An increase of 4% pales in comparison. I have been informed by Youthreach students that they are refused access to school buses. This is a loophole which should be closed. A service is not provided in many urban areas, in which parents wish to hire minibuses but many companies are unwilling, for whatever reason, to provide a private school transport service and in the case of those which do, the cost is more prohibitive than bringing one's child to school by car. This amounts to a disincentive and is a factor which should be looked at.

According to the Conference of Religious of Ireland, the second level curriculum badly needs to be overhauled to encourage what it describes as critical reflection. Despite the improvements, as those of us who have been listening to reports on the leaving certificate examination will be aware, much of the curriculum is still very dependent on learning by rote and the blotting paper approach to education whereby one soaks up as much as one can before the day of the examination. This has to change if we are to provide for critical reflection, which CORI and others describe as the hallmark of a modern education system. The culture of Peig associated with the traditional system lives on.

I express my support for Irish medium education in respect of which higher grants are paid. Because of this those involved in Gaelscoileanna at times feel under siege. It is worthy of note, however, that the amount made available from the national lottery for publications in Irish is down from a provisional outturn of £462,000 in 1998 to a figure of £50,000 in the Estimates for 2000. It seems that Gaelscoileanna have been left to look after themselves at a time when they are being attacked by those who are of the view that the additional points available to those who do examinations through Irish should be removed. I would feel victimised if I was teacher, student or parent in the sector.

The employment of second level students on a part-time basis, which they are encouraged to take up in the Celtic tiger, needs to be addressed seriously by the Department to prevent exploitation as well as the problems of absenteeism and tiredness. It should liaise with other Departments to ensure the long-term welfare of the students concerned. It is a growing problem, one to which I will return.

On third level education, does the Department have a view on the widespread perception that the student intake in certain universities, one in particular, is very high in first year? It seems to be a device to secure capitation grants. There is also a very high failure rate. This cannot be defended. If there is a case to answer it should be answered by the Department.

The student unions have a valid case on maintenance grants, which should match the level of social welfare. On student accommodation, a total of 6% live on campus. The EU average is 26%. The Department has some work to do if we are to get anywhere near this figure. Crèches are needed more than ever before in colleges. This is an issue to which I will return.

On adult education, I mentioned Youthreach, VTOS and PLC courses. What is the Department's view on school transport, particularly for Youthreach students? Is this an issue that can be followed up?

Much was made of the increase in the number of apprentices. It is my understanding that 0.6% of apprentices in June 1999 were women. It appears, therefore, that there is a huge gender imbalance, even though provision has been improved.

I mentioned to the Minister previously that in planning schools at all levels, particularly first and second levels, we are dependent on the views, inspired forecasts and thinking of bishops on where schools are needed. What is the Department's view in relation to school buses, particularly in relation to Youthreach? Can this issue be followed up on?

Much has been made of the increase in the number of apprentices. I understand that 0.6% of apprentices in June 1999 were women, so it looks like there is a huge gender imbalance, even though the number and provision for apprentices is improved.

It seems that when we are planning schools at all levels, but perhaps more so at primary level, we are dependent on the inspired forecasts and thinking of bishops in relation to where schools are necessary. Population shifts, etc., should be more in the hands of the Department, particularly in the context of development plans and the population of towns such as Balbriggan increasing from 9,000 to 25,000 in the next ten years. There is a clear need for the Department to take this in hand and not be dependent on the palace to provide wisdom in relation to population.

We will not take Vote 26, Office of the Minister for Education and Science. The Minister has already made a lengthy statement and I presume we will now take questions from Deputies. Is that agreed? Agreed.

A budget of £3.5 million has been provided this year for the psychological service and the Minister seemed to indicate in his speech that only 43 people are employed in the service. It is disturbing that three years after this was announced as a major plank of Government policy, the number of psychologists has increased from 36.5 in 1997 to 43 currently. I also note from the debate on the Estimates in 1998 that a promise was made that 21 psychologists would be employed that year. Why has the putting in place of a psychological service been so disastrously slow? Can the Minister confirm whether the budget of £3.5 million will be fully expended on the psychological service? If not, will he make that money available immediately to schools so they can conduct private assessments for children? The reality is that teachers are having to play God with a limited budget and decide which children can receive private assessment. I would like solid information on that budget.

Will the Minister give a commitment that next year there will be a proper programme budget so that in areas of interest we can see the budget, the number in employment, the throughput of the programme, the targets set and the outcome? This is necessary if we are to make a meaningful input. Otherwise we are voting millions of pounds without reference to outcome. The approach I am suggesting has been adopted by the Department in the past, but has fallen into disuse.

I note the only area with substantial staff increases will be in the office of the Minister and the Minister of State, with 18 additional posts. Is this in preparation for imminent events?

ICT technologies for schools is separate from the IT 2000 programme. I wonder what the distinction is and why we do not have a consolidated ICT initiative. Again a programme budget rather than round figures would show exactly what was happening.

I concur that it is very difficult to assess the Estimate and that there must be a more rational and user friendly format which could be used and I ask the Minister to examine this for next year. Is the funding for the promised database on school buildings included? How much is provided for that purpose this year? What is the current allocation for the social inclusion unit in the Department and what is proposed for the coming year? What number of staff are in the unit? Is the welfare service included under this Vote and what is the precise allocation for this year?

Regarding the schools' IT programme, I take it the provision is for new computers.

Under the heading for the Minister's office, the figure for sales of publications in Irish is increasing from £125,000 to £230,000 in 1998 and £273,000 for 1999. Yet the figure for publications in Irish — I presume for translations and for An Gúm — is decreasing. Is somebody else taking up this or have we thrown in the towel somewhere along the line?

There is a heading for special measures and activities for youth. The Estimate for 1998 for special measures for youth was £7.5 million which is now decreasing to £1.5 million in 1999. What is the background to this as I and others are interested in provisions for youth organisations and activities?

Regarding the psychological service, in previous years it was difficult to recruit even to the level we set, which is now much higher.

Six were recruited over three years.

I understand the problem was a difficulty with recruiting. There has been a major effort in terms of recruitment and we will shortly have 50 additional staff joining the service for the coming year. The delay may have been due to the difficulty in the recruitment process. The recommendations from the Civil Service Commissioners came to me and I approved them on the same day. That means they go to the Civil Service Commission for clearance on such matters as health. Consequently, I expect all, or almost all, will be approved within a matter of weeks. There will be progress on that shortly. The Government is committed to going beyond 100 and up to 200. I am anxious to see what can be done. There is a commitment to do that over five years, beginning from last year.

Has the Minister communicated that demand to the universities to ensure those seats will be available and that the additional places are created?

Yes, and there will be extra places available. The position will be improved a good deal shortly and it will then be possible to do much more. Without going into too much detail on that issue, essentially that is the position.

The budget will not be spent.

It will be spent this year.

How much are the 90 people being paid — £30,000? That means £1 million is left for private assessments.

I do not expect there will be anything left. I am advised by the Department that the money will be spent in the year.

The reality, as the Minister knows, is that two-thirds of parents report that they have to pay for these assessments even though we could significantly relieve schools and parents if some of that money could be got out to them. Obviously there has been a delay in recruiting. The Minister must have budgeted for recruiting because we were told every year that 25 were imminent. He must have budgeted for more than he has. There must be some resources free or else there has been some degree of pokery with the compilation of the Estimates.

I remind members and the Minister that only four minutes remain in this slot. This is the first question.

We discussed this matter previously and also other ways of dealing with it. I am conscious of that and I will try to see what can be done about it. I cannot turn around and say that B and C are bigger problems. Certainly I am listening to what the Deputy and other Deputies have to say. The budget format is set by the Department of Finance and this is the modern approach in setting the Estimates. In relation to questions raised earlier as well as now, Deputies have said the process is hurried, but I could do with more space if I were to deal with all the documents I have here that relate to the questions that arise. If Deputies wish to raise any particular area I would be happy to discuss it. It may be better during the year if the committee were to take a specific area and to discuss it. We would then have time to discuss it in detail and what can be done in that area. The committee may wish to consider that.

Funding for the database is included. The Deputy asked how much is included for the welfare service this year. It is £250,000.

For half a year.

No, I was here all the year up to now. Thank you for passing it this evening. The Seanad has promised to do likewise. These are the start-up costs. We are back to recruiting people, which is one of the problems. We are going ahead with that and if anything extra is needed we will certainly get it one way or the other even if it means coming back to you later and asking for permission.

The current costs of the schools IT programme is £7.1 million and the capital cost is £20 million and comes under two separate subheads. Computers will be made available to those working with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and we will be as helpful as possible in that regard. Given our general objective of pursuing disadvantage anywhere, I would be fully within my rights to pursue that line.

We have exceeded the time limit on this section.

The publications moved to Foras Teanga — that is what caused confusion on that figure. There will probably be more.

What about the social inclusion unit?

It has six staff.

It is obvious that prior to the next Estimates a meeting will have to be designated to discuss the Estimates. It is also obvious there is not sufficient time for the Minister to respond. We have a repeat of questions asked last year on the Estimates. Some things never seem to get done or there is very slow progress. If the Minister and the committee were in agreement we might do that. It would be a way of dealing with many of the questions which are not being answered and about which we can do little at this stage of the process whereas a great deal could be done about them at an earlier stage if the Minister was in agreement.

It is not even as much related specifically to the Estimates as to the areas within the Estimates. For example, Deputies mentioned special needs and so on. Any of those specific areas could be taken and looked at in total.

Does the Minister wish to make a statement in reply.

I will give a quick reply to Deputy Sargent who raised a specific question. I agree it is confusing. This is about the young people's facilities and services fund and the provision of £35 million for the substance abuse programme. The £7.5 million was provided on the basis that a scheme would start in 1998 which, to say the least, was optimistic. The plans were not submitted until about November 1998 despite being requested in September. The evaluation process was not completed until spring 1999 and various staff had to be recruited. It began to get off the ground last year and is only coming on stream now. About half the projected workers have been recruited.

I notice that there is little change in the number of clerical assistants or caretakers while there is an 11% increase in budget. That is happening simultaneously as FÁS is in decline. What will the Minister do about schools for which FÁS is funding secretaries, caretakers and, sometimes, care assistants in the classroom? How will he guarantee that no school loses out? I note that the cost of the new curriculum appears to be in decline at a time when I thought extra money would be provided for it. Why is the substance abuse programme stagnant at £500,000 each year against a background where it is clear young people have swung from being at the bottom of the league in terms of drug use in Ireland to the top of the European league? It would seem timely to increase it and to look at more meaningful community based programmes because it seems to be an area where we have not hacked it. Pupils take that view too and are not happy with the education programmes.

Will the Minister provide primary teachers who are not recognised and who have perhaps 15 years service a facility to get recognition? A scheme was introduced in the 1970s which allowed some of them through. Will he provide a similar scheme because the committee has heard of people with 20 years excellent service who have had no complaint from an inspector or anyone about the standard of their teaching but who have no pension rights or recognition. They are treated as if they were untrained substitutes or whatever.

Will the Minister appoint national co-ordinators to remedial and resource teaching so that these areas can have the technical support which has been sadly missing? It is well known that, for example, the home-school liaison scheme has good technical support with very committed people who are underpinning that scheme quite successfully. That is not true of the resource and remedial areas even though there are far larger numbers involved. Will the Minister give a commitment to provide technical support for those facilities?

Going on the figures the Minister has provided on the spending at the three levels, the poor relation is certainly the first level. Given the importance of early years development and education, why are we spending only £1,700 per pupil per year at first level compared to over £2,500 at second level and over £4,000 at third level? Is it the Minister's intention to equalise the spend across different levels of education? Is that the direction he intends to take?

In relation to pre-school, it is difficult to find detail on that given that this is the Vote dealing with what is called first level but there is no mention of pre-school. Will the Minister tell us the percentage of three and four year olds who are currently in State funded pre-school services?

On Breaking the Cycle, the main initiative tackling disadvantage, and a very successful one, which the Minister does not intend to extend, does the allocation for this year allow for the retention of all existing teachers in the Breaking the Cycle schools? When the scheme was set up initially for the duration of five years a promise was given that schools would retain all teachers but unfortunately a U-turn is being done on that and, as referred to today in the Chamber, schools are losing teachers because student numbers are decreasing by perhaps two or three. That promise has been broken. Will the Minister follow through on that promise and indicate that there will not be any loss of teachers in the Breaking the Cycle schools?

The allocation for caretakers and secretaries is really a hotch-potch of ridiculous schemes that is completely inadequate in terms of meeting the costs involved. The Estimate states that these are grants to cover the salary and employers' PRSI costs of caretakers and secretaries. Will the Minister remove the term "cover" because they do not cover the costs of caretakers and secretaries. It is a mere contribution in most cases. I would like the Minister to clarify that because the way it is presented in the Estimate is quite deceptive.

Under this Vote, what allocation is being made for in-service training for principals? We hear a lot about teachers suffering from stress, and I know they are stressed given the problems children are presenting with, but a high level of stress is also caused by teachers who have fairly inadequate management experience and little training. Will the Minister accept there is a need in this area for training in proper management procedures? Is there an allocation for that in the current year?

Will the Minister address the point raised about the Breaking the Cycle initiative? I read a number of references to the effect that the initiative has not been of benefit to rural areas of disadvantage. It seems to be focused on urban disadvantage and I would like to know if the Minister has a view on that.

I reiterate the point about the clerical assistants and caretakers because it is critical to every school of which I am aware. The stress I mentioned in my earlier contribution is exacerbated because even if there is a FÁS scheme in place, more often than not at the end of a year a principal has to jump through all the hoops to find somebody who qualifies and to satisfy the criteria for a FÁS scheme. That is gone in most schools now but the stress of trying to deal with the most basic issues is the straw that breaks the camel's back in the case of many school principals in particular. That is an area that needs an urgent allocation of funds far and above what is provided currently.

There appears to be a large increase for child care assistants in national schools, which is certainly needed and welcome.

The figure for capital building and equipment costs is increasing, as I would expect, but how does that relate to the policy of the Department in planning for additional school requirements? Primary level is the question here but it applies more broadly given that the current policy seems to be to wait and see what the patrons want to do and act accordingly. Will the Department be proactive in planning for additional school requirements?

Is the committee in agreement that Deputy Moloney will take the Chair for the rest of the meeting? Agreed. The Minister has seven minutes to reply.

On the issue of the caretakers, there is a misconception that the money is decreasing. That is not the case. There are several schemes, as we know, but the pre-1992 figure is covered under grants towards clerical assistants in national schools and then we have the figure under grants towards the employment of caretakers in national schools. Those older schemes are decreasing because the people may be leaving, retiring or whatever but the new arrangements were made in 1992 under the PESP and they are included in the capitation grants. The money is actually increasing but it is included in a different heading.

To take the other point mentioned by Deputy Shortall and Deputy Bruton, that is a major issue about which I would be concerned. I am also a local Deputy and I am concerned about what happens locally and I know exactly what they are talking about in that regard. My position would be that no school should lose out. Modifications and changes can be made but if FÁS is moving out of that area then the money from that has to come to us because we have to maintain that service and we have to find a way to do that. On the other hand——

FÁS money is mainly social welfare money.

The Tánaiste is working on a new type of social scheme so we will have to wait to see how that will develop. We are currently in discussion with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment on this whole area. I appreciate the points made by the three Deputies and it is something we are carefully monitoring. We are building up the capitation grants separately but many people are providing services there. Deputy Bruton mentioned that teachers who have worked part-time for a long period are not eligible for pensions.

They may work full time.

They may work full-time but they are temporary rather than permanent. I am concerned about that.

They are technically untrained.

I am examining their eligibility to qualify for pensions. I would be keen to sort that out if I can. I appreciate the Deputy's point.

An amount of £500,000 was allocated to deal with the problem of substance abuse this year. I appreciate the point made by the Deputy. The programme is going fairly well. If it is necessary to allocate more money for it, I will arrange that.

What percentage of schools deliver that programme at primary level?

All schools deliver it at primary level. Perhaps two-thirds of schools deliver it at second level. I do not have the percentage of schools that deliver it at second level, but its delivery is not complete at that level.

There are 4,000 schools involved and we are taking about each of them being allocated £100,000.

Much of that allocation goes towards covering the cost of materials.

It is not a lot.

Deputy Bruton asked about the cost of the change in the new curriculum. Last year the cost involved including the printing and dissemination of the new curriculum. There is no reduction in that.

With regard to the urban and rural dimension to Breaking the Cycle, the urban dimension provides financial and staffing supports for 32 selected schools in designated areas of disadvantage. The rural dimension of that initiative is targeted at schools with fewer than five teachers and a total of 122 primary schools grouped into 25 clusters receive financial and staffing support under that dimension. The spend on Breaking the Cycle in 1999 was £699,352 and the total spend in 2000 is estimated at £692,000, which will be more or less the same level. The number of pupils involved in Breaking the Cycle in 1999 was 6,372 in the urban phase and 6,500 pupils in the rural phase, giving a total of 12,872 pupils.

What about the number of teachers?

The number of teachers are based on a 15:1 ratio. That ratio is maintained and guaranteed.

A commitment was given that none of the schools would lose out because of this.

A commitment was given on the 15:1 ratio. Where the numbers fall below that, an appeals mechanism exists.

A commitment was given that the staffing rate would not be interfered with for the five years.

A commitment was given that the 15:1 ratio at junior level would be maintained. That is expressed, as many of these programmes are, on the basis of ratios of teachers to pupils.

Part of the £13 million listed includes the provision for funding for in-service training for principals. Every principal will receive in-service training during the course of the academic year starting September 2000. That was agreed with the unions.

We will move on to Vote 28.

The report of the steering group on funding of second level schools essentially refers to a single framework for all schools, with special allocations being made according to disadvantage, and that it would be transparent and seen to be fair, which was not the case previously. Is it planned to adopt and implement that framework and, if so, will an implementation committee be established to do so?

Will the Minister address the need for the provision of practical examinations, particularly in science at second level, as the position regarding that subject appears anomalous? Has the Minister relented on his determination not to give the committee access to the report on science facilities at second level, as it would be relevant to the committee's report on this area which is nearing completion? It is frustrating that the Department has that report and will not release it to us. Will the Minister establish an implementation committee on the points commission to ensure those changes recommended will be made rather they being merely the subject of a talking shop?

When we are talking about targeting, why did the Minister decide on a reduction of 1,000 in the PTR across the board at second level when most people would have accepted and expected targeting of that resource to deal with areas of special need that have been highlighted?

With regard the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea's area of responsibility, it is welcome that a significant increase in the budget for that area will come on stream next year. Has the Minister specifically dealt with putting in place a workable structure to provide for adult literacy that would ensure the maintenance of the voluntarism component, which has been a strong feature of it, while also providing for the necessary professional training and overheads, as people would like that balance to be maintained?

I am conscious that the Minister has studiously avoided mention of the pre-school sector.

I was going to return to that.

The Minister does that on a regular basis. He does not seem to regard this as an important sector in its own right.

I talked about Breaking the Cycle.

I am talking about the Estimates. The Minister made no reference to that sector in the Estimates.

I, too, am subject to the authority of the Chair.

That sector is one of the priorities. I would like to repeat the question I asked when we dealt with the previous Vote. With regard to the wide disparity of funding between the different levels of education, funding increases significantly as one goes up through the levels of education, but there is a strong case for it being weighted in the reverse order. Has the Minister any proposals to equalise the spend per pupil in each of the education sectors? What funding, if any, is available for the training of remedial teachers at second level? Complaints were made by the unions in that regard.

What funding is available this year for the substance abuse programme? How does the Minister intend to ensure that good programmes will be implemented in all second level schools?

Has he proposals to introduce a financial support system for students in the 18 to 21 age group who want to return to education, as that group is currently neglected? Many young people who drop out of school at 13 or 14 wish to return to education at 19 or 20. There is currently no financial support available for those people. Has the Minister considered introducing a grant aid system similar to that which he introduced for PLC participants?

I wish to refer to a few areas that come under some of the headings before us and others that do not. I note a report is being prepared for this committee on music and education. That subject appears to have fallen in terms of the Department's priorities having regard to the 1997, 1998 and 1999 figures. The report may refer to that point, therefore, I will not dwell on it.

No headings seem to stand out on second level remedial education or home-school liaison, which is important given the number of students now working part time, the result of which is absenteeism and tiredness, much remarked upon by teachers. There is a need to allocate funds to deal with this issue.

The teaching of science is an issue about which the committee has heard much given the shortage of graduates. Is the Department dealing with this?

On the teaching of languages, I learned yesterday that there has been a reduction in the numbers taking Spanish and, to some extent, German as a subject. The commentator was of the view that, given the inclusion of many German speaking regions in an expanded European Union and that Spanish was widely spoken throughout the world, it was strange that the education system still relied on the old diplomatic language of French. What line is the Department taking on this issue?

I will ask the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, to repond first to the points raised on adult education.

I agree with Deputy Bruton that there is a need to strike a balance. Traditionally, we have been over-reliant on volunteers in this sector. While we will continue to need them for the foreseeable future, it has long been recognised that there is a compelling need to professionalise the service to some extent. Thankfully, we now have the resources to do this. As a consequence, much is happening in the sector. For example, there are modular in-service staff development programmes in a number of third level institutions while a large number are availing of the opportunity to pursue professional qualifications as a literacy tutor or organiser. We hope to make further proposals in this respect as a result of the increased provision this year and certain proposals which will be contained in the forthcoming White Paper which will be published within a few weeks.

I sincerely thank the National Adult Literacy Agency which has been centrally involved in the process and which has put forward very helpful ideas, many of which have been accepted. I also thank Waterford Institute of Technology which has been a pioneer in this field, has done tremendous work and has shown tremendous vision. The number availing of this option has expanded. I will obtain the figures if the Deputy wishes. I agree that there is a need to professionalise the sector more and more without losing the service of volunteers on whom we will depend for the foreseeable future.

On funding, we have adopted a more flexible method for providing additional capitation grants for schools. This has been welcomed by them. There has been an increase of £8 in the standard per capita grant and the introduction of an annual sum of £20 per pupil in the 2000-01 school year——

The proposal was for a unified system.

——under the school services support fund.

That is different from what they are proposing. What they are proposing is a unified system that would apply to all three sectors — vocational education committees, comprehensive and community and second level voluntary. There would be weightings and top-ups in relation to disadvantage. That is the essense of their proposal — a unified system.

That system has begun. We will be allocating extra funds in that direction.

Is the Minister accepting it in its entirety?

We have quickly adopted a more flexible approach whereby there will be top-ups in areas of disadvantage. I will look further at the issue.

Will the Minister send me a note outlining exactly what is happening on the matter?

I will. The Deputy mentioned that there should be targeting. Apart from anything else, there are agreements with the trade unions on reducing the PTR across the board. General reductions are discussed with them and board of managements. A total of 200 posts have been held back. These will be targeted at second level schools and announced soon.

Should the ballot have been the other way round?

There are many people with difficulties, some of which can be described as severe.

The soft option.

Deputy Shortall asked about the equalisation of funding as between first and third levels. I said on day one that I would give priority to disadvantage. The Deputy will have to give me time to do this. I have started to move in this direction in certain areas. There is a huge demand for third level places in respect of which great pressure is being exerted by industry and elsewhere. While we will meet this need, priority will be given to first level, where funding is badly needed. I cited a figure of 10% which has been applicable since about 1972. I accept that it will not be easy to reduce it. This figure only covers those who are unable to read and write or who have significant difficulties. There are many others with difficulties. Different percentages have been suggested. The TUI has suggested a figure of around 30% in the schools with which it is involved. The overall figure is probably up to 20%.

That is not the question I asked. I am not talking about the targeting of disadvantage but on the spend as between the different sectors.

I understand that but this is——

Is it the Minister's intention to equalise the spend per pupil?

This is what affects it. The fact is that if I give priority to——

There is disadvantage in all sectors.

If one does not start with the juniors one will never deal with the problem. There is a major need at that level. Deputies have said that there is an insufficient number of science graduates and that industry is seeking staff with more skills. While we will meet that demand, priority will be given to the lowest level to help people get started. That is the approach I will adopt.

Is it the Minister's intention to equalise spending?

That is not relevant. There are different requirements at second level where there is a need for physics and chemistry laboratories. There are different costs at each level. The main point is to ensure that the first level gets the type of support it needs and that is what I plan to do to the best of my ability.

What about the survey on science facilities?

The Deputy keeps asking about that and I said we expect that the summary will be available soon. It is planned to produce the summary——

I am happy to read all of it.

The rest is raw data which is brought into the summary.

That would be fine.

I will have the summary soon. It is being finalised for publication and it will be available later in the summer.

Are the safety aspects making the Minister reluctant to publish?

No, I have no reluctance to publish anything that should be published. When I see the summary and when it is ready for publication——

It has been quoted for a year now. It is ridiculous.

We must move onto the next Vote as we are behind schedule.

Music is not falling. I would not want that to happen and neither would the Secretary General because he is the chairman of the National Youth Orchestra. The Deputy can take it that our interest in that area will continue.

Will the Minister outline the most up to date drop out levels that are available? Three colleges carried out surveys and perhaps the Minister could provide a summary of the drop out rates in particular subjects that have been recorded. We are at a loss in terms of consistent data. The Minister receives raw figures each year regarding the number of people who enrol in subjects and the following year he receives figures regarding the number of people who have progressed to the second year. There is an easy way of calculating one ratio compared to another which could give crude figures with regard to retention rates in those colleges. The Department must take responsibility for delivering this information and not leave it to the colleges who are running a slow bicycle race on this issue.

What is the role of the Forfás sub-committee on the technology foresight fund? We read that this issue involved a great Herculean struggle between the Minister and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment on whether there should be an industry or education led approach. What is the Minister's view of the compromise that was reached? Will it be industry or education led or is the jury still out?

What quotas will be imposed on third level colleges next year in relation to enrolments of those with specific disadvantage as the Minister defines it? I do not know how it is defined. The colleges have failed to meet targets set by the Minister in the past. Has he set targets for the coming year? How will they be met? This also relates to the Minister of State's area of responsibility.

Is it the Minister's view that the funding of the institutes of technology and the universities should be consolidated under the Higher Education Authority to create a single authority which would be responsible for the funding of both sectors? As the Minister is aware, there is a degree of resentment that some institutions are made the poor relations because of different funding mechanisms. Will the Minister create a unified funding mechanism to create a situation where it would be seen that allocations are made on an objective and fair basis by the same authority?

The issue of participation rates at third level across the social spectrum has been raised on umpteen occasions, for example, as recently as last week. While the Minister indicated his desire for increased participation by lower socio-economic groups, he was not in a position to provide any data on the current rates. He acknowledged that there is an information gap in this area. Has he provided any funding this year to allow data to be collected on the participation of lower socio-economic groups at third level?

It is unacceptable that there is still a charitable approach, through the Minister's fund, to providing essential supports for people with disabilities to allow them to fully participate at third level. Does the Minister intend to move towards statutory entitlement for people with disabilities and away from the charitable approach?

What are the Minister's intentions in relation to reforming the maintenance grant system? Has he given any consideration to benchmarking them, for example, to social welfare payments or a percentage of the minimum wage?

I am interested to note that higher education grants is one of the few areas where there is a 2% reduction. There are increases with regard to scholarships, research grants, fellowships, etc. I understood that the commercial sector was involved in the funding of research at university level and I would not have expected that area to take up the slack in relation to higher education grants. Is this a reversal because there should be an increase in grants and a decrease in the amount of money for research if the commercial sector is providing its own funding? Can the Minister give a precise figure regarding the commercial sector? Is it half the total sum being spent on research? Does the Minister know what proportion it makes up?

Regarding the training colleges for primary schools, there are relatively small increases given the crisis in the provision of graduates and qualified teachers, a problem of which I am very much aware from work on this committee. Is the Department finding it difficult to attract people into the colleges? Is that why more money is not being provided to them or is there another reason?

One of the headings refers to building grants and capital costs of institutes of technology and the funds have increased considerably. Has that been planned by the Department in consultation with local communities? From where does the motivation come in the planning of those institutes and establishments given that first and second level appears to be religious led? Given the amount being spent on colleges of education under paragraph 12 of subhead M2, does the Minister agree at this point that the disposal of Carysfort College was a mistake and that we will live to regret it?

In relation to the drop out rates, I am conscious of that problem. We have asked the Higher Education Authority to provide us with the latest information on them and we will forward it to the three Deputies and the Chairman.

Could the Minister do so by subject or course rather than provide a global figure?

We will see what we can do in that regard. Regarding Forfás and the foresight fund, a total of £550 million will be allocated to the Department for research, technological development and innovation over the period of the national development plan. This is a huge improvement.

Regarding the relationship with the sub-committee on the foresight fund and what it is doing, the universities and technological institutes will be able to apply under the foresight mechanism. I am encouraging them to do so and to participate to the maximum possible level. Discussions on that and the development of it are ongoing at present.

Will the decisions be made by the Forfás sub-committee? Will the Higher Education Authority and the institutes apply to the sub-committee and it will make allocations based on the merit of the proposals?

The implementation group is to report back to the Government on how this is to be implemented. That is being examined at present. There is excellent work ongoing in the universities. Some led the way previously and they will be keen to be involved in any of that work. Where good works are involved that are modern enough and are at the leading edge——

Given that huge amounts of money are involved, I would like to see a transparent and sensible evaluation tendering process. We need to believe that the money is going to the best projects. From the woolly statements I have heard from different people that does not appear to be in place. It seems to be very vague with people competing at a political level for their share of the action rather than on the merits of their cases.

I understand that and am also concerned. I am also concerned that the universities and the institutes — I hope increasingly the institutes — will become involved in research because I do not believe they will be viable if they do not. There is no point in going to university if it is not at the leading edge and is not innovating. That is the line I am taking in discussions with the university heads. They accept that. It also offers them the opportunity to draw down funds.

The Higher Education Authority will also advise in this regard, but the implementation group will make proposals to the Government. We have a very large contingent of young graduates who have much to offer; there are even more of them now than years ago. I wish to see greater support for postgraduate research and I will work in that direction because postgraduates will create the indigenous employment for the future. I appreciate the Deputy's comments and will watch the position. The next step will be when the report is submitted.

On the question of disadvantage, I understand a 5% target was set earlier. I am anxious to set a higher participation rate target.

Are we anywhere near 5%?

We are not yet at 5%. It is slightly over 3%.

On what data is the Minister basing that figure?

It is based on information the Higher Education Authority supplies to us on the achievement and the other targets.

The Minister was asked in the Dáil to provide that information but he told us he did not have it. If he has the information will he make it available?

I have asked the Higher Education Authority to provide the information. In general terms it is similar to the figures I have outlined. When the Higher Education Authority gives us the information I will circulate it to the Deputies. It will include details on how it is defined and measured.

Is any funding being provided?

I will do something from the funds of £193 million which the Deputy disparaged. There is a provision of £3.5 million under the alleviation of disadvantage programme. In my summing up package I will be looking for——

For what purpose is the £3.5 million to be allocated?

It is for the alleviation of disadvantage.

What does that mean?

It is a question of improving access to third level in any way possible. The students' assistance access fund was established as a hardship fund initially. It is now an access fund. It provides support for students who suffer disadvantage. It can be allocated to various areas, for example, in the provisions of books and supports. It is determined on an individual basis.

However, I am looking at a wider approach under these other funds. I hope to make proposals shortly. I also want to establish an action group to ensure that they are implemented.

Our allocation of time is up and I ask members to make their concluding comments over the next 12 minutes, beginning with the Minister.

We must keep the economy moving as well as activities at higher and third levels. We will do that. My plan is to prioritise disadvantage. That can occur at the different levels. Deputies Shortall, Bruton and Sargent referred to disadvantage at the basic level. It also applies at the other levels, including third level. I note the points Deputies have made with regard to strengthening the provisions for disadvantage, including the PTR.

Overall, the education system is very good, but there are very serious problems which must be tackled. Outsiders immediately think of Ireland as a place to visit to find out about education. They are right in that, but we still have very serious problems which I want to address. Since 1997 the Government has increased the allocation of funding for education by 43%, a huge increase. A great deal of extra money has gone into the system.

Deputies have made the point that much of this funding has been applied across the board. While specific projects have been established, it was necessary at the outset to deal with the PTRs and other projects that apply broadly. A good deal of money has been applied to tackling disadvantage. However, tremendous resources will be required to tackle these problem and the Government has made a commitment to continue with the provision of resources in this area.

We are making progress in terms of remedial teaching and special needs. It is my intention as far as possible to mainstream the provision of support for special needs. All that requires more resources and the Government has made a commitment in that regard. Its decision in 1998 to provide the resources needed was very important. I thank the Deputies for their analysis and for the detail in which they have followed this area. I will be happy to discuss specific areas at a later stage.

The debate about education in the future will not just be about quantity, but quality. We must get our minds around that. We have no proper whole school evaluation process in place. What we have has ruled out many important areas of activity. We must have quality evaluation at school level. We must modernise our assessment system.

The points commission was disappointing. It was expected to be more radical. The fact that the Minister has not even confirmed that there will be an implementation commission on what has been approved means that the report of the points commission will be put on the long finger.

There must be a rights based approach to those who are disadvantaged and who have special needs. The Minister has refused to provide a statutory basis where a child who is not getting what he or she needs can appeal to three wise men, whether it be Mr. Dennehy, as Secretary General, and whoever are his legal colleagues. There must be that statutory right of appeal because people have rights and they must not be left unprotected.

The programme budgets must be examined here in order that we can look seriously at what is being done in different areas. It is meaningless having these debates without programme budgets on spending throughputs, targets and outcomes. That sort of information was made available in the past. The Minister for Finance actually introduced it but then let it fall by the wayside.

Curriculum change proceeds far too slowly in Ireland. We heard that in the case of science it will take 12 years to introduce science at primary level from inception to it being in place. If we are trying to compete with the sort of change occurring both in the workplace and in the school room, that will not do. That must be backed by huge investment in teachers to keep pace with that. The Department is not embracing that programme of change as seriously as is necessary.

The Minister and the Department must be willing to devolve the budget to schools and to trust them to do valuable things with that money. The notion that the PTR determines everything is not a modern way to approach control and it must be thrown out. I realise that one must throw it out over a period of years, but one starts to dispense with it by making all the extra money available on the basis of school planning, block grants and accountability in return for that allocation.

There is a need to embrace a programme of change across those and many other areas. The Minister needs to pioneer change in those areas, be radical and, let us be honest, take on the trades unions on some of these areas where they are not embracing change as quickly as we need to see it.

Most of the Deputies in this room have spent most of the day dealing with education matters. The Education (Welfare) Bill, 1999, was debated in the Chamber and the past two and a half hours have been spent talking about the Estimates for Education and Science. Generally the day has been disappointing. That is largely due to the Minister's attitude to us as Opposition spokespersons on Education and Science.

Throughout the day on the Education (Welfare) Bill, 1999, the Minister showed no indication that he is prepared to listen to any proposals or suggestions coming from the Opposition. He took the most conservative approach, the kind of approach which indicated that nobody had anything else to contribute. That approach is profoundly anti-democratic.

This evening's experience has been a serious disappointment for all of us. In his failure to answer our questions, the Minister showed a serious lack of respect for members of the committee.

I must object to that. I do not agree.

He gave no indication of the directions——

I did my best to deal with the questions asked.

Excuse me. I did not interrupt the Minister.

If we had more time, we could do more.

He did not give any indication of the direction he intends to take regarding the Education and Science brief, which is arguably one of the most important. I have no idea of his policy on any aspect of education. I have no idea whether he has any policies. The most serious aspect is that he has not given any indication that he is serious about meeting the needs of the many children who depend on him to provide for their basic education needs and to ensure equality of opportunity. That is the most serious aspect, that there is no evidence of a coherent or planned approach by the Minister.

It is disappointing that the Minister has treated the committee in that way. I do not know his intentions regarding pre-school education. He has not mentioned it here. I have no idea of his intentions regarding disadvantage. When he took office, he said this would be a priority. Since then he has been questioned about his intentions on several occasions and he has not given any indication of them. Meanwhile time is ticking by and many children are losing out on the opportunities which should be available to them because of his failure to act. It has been a disappointing experience and a waste of a day.

It is depressing enough to review progress but if the Minister thinks it is just a case of keeping up with the Celtic tiger, he has fundamentally missed the point about where Education is going. The way the economy is developing is eating into education and destroying the quality of education. It is effectively killing the goose which laid the golden egg in many ways. The abundance of low wage part-time work is taking many people out of education. The lack of science teachers is only one small part of that. It goes right back into the secondary school, where students are wondering whether it is worth continuing in education, and the Minister does not seem to be able to respond to that.

In the primary sector, it exposes the fact that there are not enough teachers in the system and schools in disadvantaged areas suffer most where there are high levels of teacher mobility. Where the choice for teachers is to take an appointment in a leafy district or an area of disadvantage, they opt for the leafy place. Sadly that is impacting on schools in disadvantaged areas. Irrespective of the programmes or pilot schemes put in place or initiatives announced at a press conference, that is the reality.

The lack of parenting at home is badly affecting what we took for granted for many years, the ability of parents to provide pre-school education. Parents are no longer able to provide pre-school education and the State has not faced up to the reality. We do not have in place the necessary pre-school facilities and those in place are prohibitively expensive, thus accentuating the gaps between those who have and those who have not.

In general the quality of education is being eroded and in many cases destroyed and at the same time the Department is not responding to that. The Department needs to be more proactive in the general environment in order that education is seen to be not only a lifelong venture but one which transcends the classroom. The Department is not interacting with other Departments to ensure that is happening and, unfortunately, our young people are suffering as a result.

On a point of information, we are providing 4,000 extra teachers. When the Labour Party was in office it provided about 60. Let us keep it in perspective.

The Minister is providing places.

Teachers.

He should stop talking about the numbers.

It is the teachers who improve the quality.

One cannot create teachers; God creates teachers.

It was just a point of information.

Earlier the Minister stated there were 2,000 and 200.

I stated at the beginning of my speech that there would be 2,500 posts and a further 1,500.

This must be over a number of years.

The Deputy should read my speech.

Barr
Roinn