Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 30 March 2004
120 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science the details of the change in policy instigated by his Department regarding funding for colleges for further education; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9886/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraMost colleges offering post-leaving certificate courses are operated under the management of the vocational education committees. Funding is provided for pay and non-pay costs on the basis of the approved number of places on approved courses run by the colleges.
In the current academic year, enrolments on post-leaving certificate courses in certain schools and colleges have exceeded the number of places approved by my Department. Teacher allocations for 2004-05 and capitation grants have been allocated on the basis of the approved number of places or the numbers enrolled. During the 2003-04 academic year, almost 28,700 places were approved by my Department. It is considering appeals from vocational education committees, schools and colleges for the recognition of the excess numbers enrolled for the purposes of teacher allocations and grants. A decision on the matter will be taken shortly in light of the totality of demands for teaching resources across the system.
Excess numbers have been enrolled every year, but this is the first in which the cap has been enforced by the Minister of State. Why is that the case? Is she aware that the colleges are not receiving capitation grants for every student enrolled and that teacher allocations are less than they should be as a result of the cap? Colleges are losing out on the allocation of posts of responsibility. Will the Minister of State confirm or deny that the cap is downward rolling? That means a decline in any subsequent year will result in lower caps. In effect, all further education colleges have now received their maximum intake and cannot grow or expand.
I wish the Minister to note that further education colleges play a valuable role. They target students who, for a variety of reasons, may not be able to attend other third level institutions. They also offer a different type of course. How will new courses in further education be initiated and how will the sector react proactively and quickly to the needs of industry? Will colleges have to turn away students from this point on as numbers are capped?
Representatives of the further education sector have written to Department to ask either the Minister or the Minister of State to attend a meeting to discuss this matter over the coming weeks. Will the Minister of State confirm that the invitation will be accepted?
I thank the Deputy for raising the question as it provides me with an opportunity to underline a number of points. Post-leaving certificate courses provide the young people and adults who take part in them with a tremendous opportunity to return to education. It is important to note that these courses are seen as providing development from the bottom up. They respond to a need within the community. There is concern about the numbers who wish to take up post-leaving certificate courses and the extent to which vocational education committees and schools wish to make provision.
We must examine the numbers interested in taking up post-leaving certificate courses. There are two interesting statistics to note. During the academic year 1997-98, there were 21,278 enrolments on these courses and 28,656 during 2002-03. A total of 37,900 places was sought in the year 2002-03. While we should welcome the need for further courses given the bottom-up nature of the development they provide, growth must be managed. I have ensured that my Department takes part in discussions with the Irish Vocational Education Association, IVEA, and, to that end, a meeting took place yesterday. Tomorrow, officials from my Department will take part in a meeting with the Teachers' Union of Ireland, TUI.
I willingly accept that post-leaving certificate courses represent an important element of our further education provision. We recognise the growth in the numbers of those seeking to enrol on courses. Our aim is to manage that growth.
I asked eight specific questions, of which the Minister of State has answered only one. There are seven left to answer in the minute the Minister of State has left. I ask her to deal with the questions which have been asked.
I am attempting to do so. It is important to understand the context. The most important question the Deputy asked has been asked by those who are working in the post-leaving certificate sector. They wish to know what is happening in terms of the allocation of teachers in the current and subsequent academic years. Unfortunately, we do not have unlimited funds to look after all these programmes. The number of participants in many of these courses is growing. We must be able to manage this and this can only be done through discussion. This is why I feel the IVEA and TUI discussions are particularly important.
The Minister of State made this point prior to the discussions.
I have responsibility for further education. I want to see an improvement in every possible way in the provision——
The time for this question has expired.
——for young people and adults who have an opportunity to take on these programmes.
Cutting numbers does not achieve this.
We must work through this change systematically.
The Minister's response has not answered the questions that exist. How will her objectives for the provision of these services be facilitated if she is cutting back the numbers?
It is not a question of cutting back in numbers. We are attempting to look at the overall position in the context of available funds. One need only consider the statistics I outlined in my response, there is no falling back on numbers.
From here on in, that is.
We want to take on board the issues of immediate importance to those who wish to provide the post leaving certificate courses and those who wish to avail of them. Everyone is aware of the PLC review, the McIver report. The purpose of this is to examine and make recommendations on structures and resources.
We have exceeded the time allotted to Priority Questions. We now turn to non-Priority Questions. It is necessary to remind Members that the Minister's initial reply is subject to an upper limit of two minutes, and supplementary questions and answers to them are limited to one minute. The Chair intends to apply these limits.
Question No. 121 answered with QuestionNo. 119.
