Priority Questions.
32 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science the number of applications for special educational resources with his Department; the timescale for processing these applications; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14586/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraMy Department received more than 8,400 applications for special education resources since February 2003. The batch of approximately 5,000 applications received between 15 February and 31 August 2003 is being considered at present. Priority was given to almost 1,000 cases involving children starting school last September and all those cases were responded to at or before the commencement of the current school year.
The balance of more than 4,000 applications in that batch has been reviewed by a dedicated team comprising members of my Department's inspectorate and the National Educational Psychological Service. Those applications are being further considered in the context of the outcome of surveys of special education resource provision conducted over the past year and the data submitted by schools as part of a nation-wide census of such provision.
The processing of the applications is a complex and time-consuming operation. However, my Department is endeavouring to have this completed as quickly as possible and my officials will then respond to all applicant schools. Pending a response, schools are advised to refer to Circular 24/03, which was issued in September 2003.
In the case of teacher resources, the outcome for each applicant school will be based on a new weighted system of allocation which I announced recently. This system, as part of which an additional 350 teaching posts will be allocated, will involve two main elements: making a staffing allocation to schools based on a predicted incidence of pupils with special educational needs; and making individual allocations in the case of children with more acute lower-prevalence special educational needs.
It is expected that the change to a weighted system will afford a number of benefits. The new system will reduce the need for individualised educational psychological assessment; reduce the volume of applications to my Department for additional resources for individual pupils; and give greater flexibility to schools, which will facilitate the development and implementation of improved systems and procedures in schools to meet the needs of pupils with low achievement and pupils with special educational needs.
Transitional arrangements for the introduction of the weighted system are being developed at present in consultation with representative interests. As soon as those consultations have been completed, the detailed arrangements for processing applications for resources, including those for special needs assistants and those received after 31 August last, will be set out in a circular to be issued to schools before the end of the current school year. It is also intended that applicant schools will be notified of the outcome in their case within this time frame.
The Minister effectively stated in his reply that 7,400 children have not been allocated the resources a psychologist recommended they need because the Department had not a competent system in place to deal with the applications. When did the system change? Previously, if a psychologist made a report it was sent to the Department, after which a box was ticked and resources were granted. Are the 350 posts the Minister announced at Easter in addition to the existing provision? When will an announcement be made on the location of the posts? A number of teachers are concerned about this. If the posts are additional posts, the position might be different. This issue is particularly important given that the schools will close in five weeks. If there is to be a 1:150 ratio, what will happen in smaller schools, particularly rural schools, which currently have a resource teacher for a certain number of students but which will not have an enrolment of 150 students?
Many of the surveys that have been conducted indicated that more boys than girls have a special need. In some cases the ratio is 2:1 and in others it is 3:1. What will happen in an all-boys school with only 150 pupils? It may have many more students with special needs than an all-girls school with the same number of pupils. Has the Minister considered this?
What exactly does the Minister mean when he refers to the further consideration of 4,000 applications? Have resources been allocated to the 4,000 applicants? What consideration are they being given?
The 4,000 applications are being considered in the context of the assignment of resources to particular schools. They are part of the assessment of what is available and of what is needed in the schools. We hope to be in a position before the end of this school year to allocate resources on that basis.
The practice in regard to smaller schools is that those schools are clustered for resource teachers. This practice will continue. Discussions are ongoing on this matter and an examination of the various schools and clusters is taking place as part of the exercise. Clusters may change, because of increased enrolment in schools, but the principle of allocating resource teachers to clusters of small schools is being retained.
The Deputy asked if the 350 posts are in addition to those already in the system. They are additional posts. The calculation is based on introducing the weighted system and on the resources that are currently in the system.
The Deputy asked whether the weighted system will take into account schools in disadvantaged areas and the fact that more boys than girls have special educational needs. As I said on the last day during Question Time, we are trying to refine the system as much as we possibly can. These issues are being discussed at present.
33 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Education and Science his plans to address the situation in Limerick whereby 49 children from disadvantaged areas have no secondary school to attend due to the restrictive enrolment policies of some local schools; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14389/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI am deeply concerned about the situation in Limerick city at present where a substantial number of pupils, mainly boys from disadvantaged areas of the city, who were refused enrolment in the school of their first choice, are still experiencing difficulty in finding school places. I met community and school representatives in Limerick city in early April and was briefed on the situation.
There are 15 post-primary schools in the Limerick city area and I am satisfied that there is sufficient capacity overall in these schools to meet the demand arising from pupils leaving primary schools and progressing into second level education. In the 1994-95 school year there were more than 9,000 students enrolled in post-primary schools in Limerick city compared to 7,747 in 2002-03. Clearly, the system as a whole has the capacity to cater for these children.
The school enrolment policies of post-primary schools are the responsibility of individual school management authorities. My Department's main responsibility is to ensure that schools in an area can, between them, cater for all pupils seeking second level places in that area. This may result, however, in some pupils not obtaining a place in the school of their first choice. Where a school is over-subscribed a selection process may be necessary. This selection process and the enrolment policy on which it is based must be non-discriminatory and must be applied fairly in respect of all applicants.
Where a school refuses to enrol a pupil, the school is obliged to inform parents of their right under section 29 of Education Act 1998 to appeal that decision to the Secretary General of my Department. The education welfare officer in Limerick has been in contact with the parents of each pupil who was refused a place, has met and advised parents of the appeals mechanisms and has assisted them in compiling appeals where they wished to do so.
There have been 34 appeals to date against the decisions of some schools in Limerick city to refuse enrolment to applicants for the 2004-05 school year. Thirteen of these appeals have been to the City of Limerick Vocational Education Committee regarding schools which operate under that committee. The remainder have been to the Secretary General of my Department. Most of these appeals have been dealt with and my Department is in the process of informing the appellants and the schools of the outcome. Where an appeal has been upheld, the Secretary General of my Department has directed the school to enrol the pupil. Where an appeal has not been upheld the National Educational Welfare Board will assist the parents of those children in finding an alternative school place.
As well as those appeals still in progress, there remain a number of potential appeals which have not yet been admitted as additional documentation is still awaited. There are also approximately 20 children whose parents have not as yet submitted appeals. While some appeals remain outstanding it would not be appropriate for me to comment directly on the individual enrolment policies which are the substantive issues of these appeals.
Once the remaining section 29 appeals have been completed, I intend to bring together the representatives of all the primary and post-primary schools in Limerick city with other interested parties, including parent and community groups and local representatives, to address the underlying reasons that so many children were refused enrolment in a city which has more than enough school places to accommodate all applicants.
I welcome the fact that the Minister will meet the various interested parties. There has been some progress with regard to some of the children since I tabled the question. Does the Minister accept that it is the responsibility of the Minister for Education and Science to ensure that all children under the school leaving age have the opportunity to go to school? Will the Minister ensure some measure is put in place to prevent this happening again in Limerick in future years?
This is a problem not just in Limerick. Educational apartheid is practised in all cities, whereby children from certain backgrounds go to certain schools and children from less well off backgrounds tend to be excluded from those schools in one way or another. Those schools are operating against the spirit of the Education Act 1998, if not the provisions of the Act. Will the Minister introduce regulations under section 33 of the Education Act to ensure there is equality of access to schools? This is a nationwide problem.
My responsibility as Minister for Education and Science is to ensure there are sufficient places within catchment boundaries to meet the needs of the pupils in that area. It is a general obligation, not a specific one. The irony of the situation in Limerick is that there are sufficient places to cater for the pupils in the area. The reason I intend to call the groups and individuals in Limerick together when the appeals have been completed is to ensure that this will not recur in the future. That is important. However, I do not have directive powers in this regard. What is required is a certain amount of goodwill and that everybody face up to their responsibilities.
I am not commenting on Limerick but, like the Deputy, I do not wish to see educational apartheid in any part of the country. I hope that by working together with the local education interests, local public representatives and so forth we can put in place a system in which everybody will shoulder responsibility and every child will have an equal chance in education, in Limerick city and throughout the country.
Does the Minister not agree that, at present, schools can hide behind their enrolment policies to exclude certain children?
When one does not have directive powers and each school is, in many respects, a law unto itself, albeit working within the——
The Minister can make regulations.
Yes, I can make regulations but we cannot direct individual schools to take individual pupils except through section 29. However, I agree with the Deputy that this situation should not arise. In certain instances people may want their children to go to certain schools and we cannot facilitate that. I take the Deputy's point, in so far as there are places available, no school should be in a position to refuse people on grounds that are suspect, to say the least. Again, I am not commenting on the situation in Limerick. Regulations will help that and we will endeavour to put them in place. We already have an agreement with the managerial bodies.
34 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Education and Science if he plans to review and amend the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002 to address issues raised by a person (details supplied) during the course of his hunger strike, as well as by other survivors, including allegations of disparaging remarks made to abuse victims by members of the redress board, the overwhelming secrecy of the board and the manner in which contested awards are being reduced. [14388/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Residential Institutions Redress Act was enacted on 10 April 2002. It provided for the establishment of the Residential Institutions Redress Board to provide a mechanism to make financial awards to victims of abuse to assist them in their recovery and enhance the quality of the remainder of their lives. It also provided an alternative to their having to pursue traumatic civil court cases to obtain compensation for their injuries. Notwithstanding this, the redress bands used by the board in assessing the amount of awards to be offered to applicants are in line with High Court awards made in personal injuries cases.
The redress board published information on its website, www.rirb.ie, on 11 May 2004 which indicates that 57% of cases that were sent to hearing after failure of the settlement process were increased, 29% had the awards reduced and 14% remained the same. The board also points out that settlement talks are considered following a request from the applicant, and the board neither encourages or discourages participation in these talks. An individual has the right to proceed directly to hearing.
The person referred to by the Deputy, who was dissatisfied with the outcome of the redress process, agreed to come off his hunger strike and has taken the option of recommencing his case in the courts. The Government has agreed to do everything it possibly can to expedite a hearing and has agreed that the case will proceed on an assessment of damages only basis. While the person referred to by the Deputy was dissatisfied with the outcome of his application to the redress board, the operation of the redress board and review committee must be viewed objectively and adverse judgments regarding the process should not be made on the basis of just one case. To date, a total of 3,540 applications have been made to the redress board and awards have been offered in over 1,000 of these cases. The remaining cases are at various stages of the redress process. This indicates a high level of satisfaction with the operation of the board and the process of redress.
I am aware that some of the groups who represent survivors of abuse have requested a meeting with officials to discuss issues regarding the operation of the redress board. This will be dealt with in the normal way by officials in my Department. I also understand that officials from the redress board have met group leaders as well as hosting general meetings where issues raised by the leaders have been discussed and clarified. I am satisfied that this process will continue.
The legislation setting up the redress board provides that applications coming before it are treated in a confidential manner. This confidentiality is required to protect the identity of applicants and because the redress board, when considering an application, is not permitted to address any issue of fault or negligence arising out of the evidence given in an application and is not empowered to make a finding of fact relating to fault or negligence with regard to evidence submitted with an application. It is my understanding that the redress process is working well and I am anxious to ensure that this continues. In the circumstances, I do not see a requirement to bring forward amendments to legislation which is working to the benefit of the vast majority of survivors.
Will the concerns raised by various survivors' groups be taken into consideration in the forthcoming review? There are concerns, for example, regarding the commitment given by the previous Minister, Deputy Woods, that the awards in the redress process would be commensurate with awards in the High Court. As a result of the secrecy it is difficult to get all the facts and figures but there is a concern among survivors' groups that the awards are not commensurate with those in the High Court.
I put down this question during Mr. Sweeney's hunger strike and I am glad it came to a conclusion because it was getting close to the wire. I give credit to the Minister for coming up with a deal that appears satisfactory to the individual concerned. However, there is a danger that this problem will recur. What is the Minister's view of concerns that a member of the board, who is allegedly being examined for malpractice, is allowed to sit or that there are allegations of prejudice by Judge O'Leary against former inmates of the industrial schools? Much of it is hearsay. This is the advantage and disadvantage of the redress board.
To shed some light on the matter, would it not be better to have something similar to a court where people could report without naming individuals? While I accept we need to address concerns regarding those who might be wrongly accused, and the secrecy and behind the scenes nature of the board is of some benefit in this regard, when survivors feel they are being intimidated, snide comments are being made or their awards are not being taken seriously, there is no scope for examining this thoroughly. The very advantage of the redress system also has underlying disadvantages. Could this review examine how this might be tweaked without necessarily amending the Act?
As the Deputy knows, Judge Ryan and Judge Laffoy have made reports. The Attorney General made a report on the process and made various recommendations, many of which are being introduced and will be put into legislation at the appropriate time, depending on what I might call the Christian Brothers' case.
In determining the level of awards, the commission must operate on the basis of the legislation passed by these Houses, which was based on the report of Judge Ryan, then Mr. Ryan, SC. That report recommended awards at a High Court level, which is how the board is operating. It would be wrong to suggest this is not the case. I know some statements were recently made on the radio about this matter and RTE issued a public apology last Saturday to correct some of what was said about Judge Ryan and the board.
On the question of silence, we may lose sight of the fact that section 28 of the Act exists as much to protect the victims as anybody else. Many victims do not want disclosure of their stories, identities, the fact they went to the redress board or that they received compensation. On the other hand, in certain cases, while I would not say it is wrong or false, it is not provable that those who cited are responsible for certain abuse and, consistent with the Constitution, they also must be protected. Section 28 of the Act exists for those good reasons.
While I do not want to anticipate a later question which deals with the matter, the manner in which Judge Ryan conducts his business with public hearings etc. will give people the opportunity to say what is on their minds and make their views known, and this is how it should be left. Having introduced the legislation and established the board, we should let it get on with its work. Given that 97% of those to whom offers have been made have accepted them, it must be working reasonably well. As the Deputy knows, it will never be possible to satisfy everybody 100%.
35 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science the standing of the early start programme; if there has been expansion of the service since 1997; his plans for developing and expanding the scheme during the remainder of 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14587/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI recognise that high quality early education prior to entry into formal schooling can lead to lasting social benefits that persist throughout life both for the individual and for society. Research also indicates that early childhood education is particularly beneficial for children who are disadvantaged or who have special needs. Parents too can benefit significantly from involvement in early education through improved self-confidence and better relationships with their children.
The early start pre-school project was established in 40 primary schools in designated areas of urban disadvantage in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Galway, Drogheda and Dundalk during 1994 and 1995. The aims of the project are to expose young children to an educational programme which enhances their overall development, prevent school failure and offsets the effects of social disadvantage. The approach taken is to establish groups of 15 pupils in existing primary schools in disadvantaged areas with each class being run by a primary school teacher and a qualified child care worker. While the early start curriculum emphasises the development of cognitive and language skills, due regard is also had to personal and social development.
The early start service has not been expanded since 1995. As part of a detailed review of educational disadvantage programmes, my Department is exploring how early childhood education should best be delivered in the future. I am particularly concerned to ensure that any future actions by my Department in this area are based on a collaborative approach with other Departments involved in the overall early childhood care and education sector. Meeting the overall objective of providing the best possible service to the communities and children involved requires that any educational provision by my Department take account of child care measures under the remit of other Departments.
The future development of the early start pre-school project is being considered as part of this process and I will make an announcement in this regard as soon as the detailed review of all initiatives to tackle educational disadvantage has been completed.
I thank the Minister for his answer. At this time two years ago, we were all in count centres. Given that the Government has been in office for two years, when will the review be completed? This programme has operated on a pilot basis since its introduction when we were last in Government ten years ago. No additional school has been opened since then. Only 40 out of 350 disadvantaged schools are able to avail of this scheme. The Minister frequently says that early intervention is important. Unfortunately, the first year of the debate on disadvantage was spent examining third level rather than pre-school level, as should have been the case.
As a review is under way, it is fortunate for the Minister that what he can say may be limited. Does he believe the scheme should be extended? When will the review be completed? There was mention of integrating this service with the home school liaison service for co-ordination purposes. If this is to go ahead, how will it work? Will the Minister confirm he will give priority to this area, especially given that disadvantage is best tackled by addressing it early?
The area of pre-school and early learning will have a priority in the new disadvantage programme we put in place. I agree that the earlier we intervene on behalf of children from disadvantaged backgrounds, the better it is for the children, as proven by some stark facts and figures. The Deputy asked whether I thought the early start programme should be extended. I would not go that far at this stage. However, we need more extensive provision to cater for pre-school children, particularly in disadvantaged areas, and we will try to do this.
While the attention of many may have been focused on third level issues in my first year in office, that was not the case from my point of view. On more than one occasion I made it clear that the issue of third level was at the end of the queue and, while we had to look after those at that end, the real issue was tackling the problems at pre-school stage and right through primary school. In that I agree with the Deputy.
A number of reports have been published. We have introduced the centre for early childhood development and education. It is developing a framework for early childhood education, including a quality in education mark. It is developing targeted intervention on a pilot basis for children and many other items I do not want to detail. That work and the White Paper will form the basis for expanding a service to pre-school level.
The Minister said he did not know if the plan could be expanded. Nobody will establish a pre-school in a disadvantaged area if he or she is supposed to make a living out of it. It will not be possible to make money in those circumstances. Will the disadvantage review consider the age at which children begin primary school and will the Minister give any consideration to changing it?
The short answer to that is "Yes". It may be extremely important. Until now, the Department has not been actively engaged in the pre-school area. While there has been a demarcation issue with other Departments, part of our focus will be to try to advance our remit and extend education from birth to 18 years.
36 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Education and Science the progress which has been made on the HEA report on third level colleges in view of the fact that essential refurbishment and expansion have been postponed pending the outcome of the report. [14584/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraWhile it was originally expected that the review group would report to the Higher Education Authority not later than 31 October 2003, the authority has advised my Department that the task was more complex than expected. The group has completed a great deal of work and its efforts are at an advanced stage. It is the intention of the group to submit a report to the HEA next month at which time the authority will advise me of its views. I will make decisions on the capital investment programme for the third level sector in the context of the outcome of the review and within the parameters of the capital envelope of funding available to me.
I considered it prudent to re-evaluate and review the overall status of third level capital projects and establish future priorities. The review was commissioned in the context of considerable demands on the Exchequer for capital financing for higher education projects and the need to set out clearly the priorities and phasing of future investment programmes in this sector. The remit of the review group under the chairmanship of Mr. Kevin Kelly is to review and prioritise projects mindful of existing building stock and future requirements. Each third level institution has met the group and made a presentation on its institutional strategy, setting capital development proposals in a strategic context.
I look forward to receiving the report from the HEA in the near future. The Deputy will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to second guess the work of the review group by approving in the interim specific projects a particular institution might raise with my Department.
The Minister must see that the delay in delivering the report has already caused huge difficulties for students and teachers alike. In my constituency, the Institute of Technology Tallaght, which caters for approximately 2,500 students and is the smallest institute of technology in the country, has no campus accommodation, no crèche facilities, very poor services and an under-resourced students' union. How soon will the report be completed and will it be acted on swiftly once it is on the Minister's desk? Will funding be available under the parameters the Minister outlined?
The issue of over-crowding at the IT in Tallaght appears to have been put on the long finger. The Department recommends 10 square metres per student, but the figure in Tallaght is currently 6 square metres. By 2007, there will be 3,000 students at the institute. While the Minister waits for the report nothing is happening. While there were recommendations on Tallaght's institute of technology prior to the commissioning of this report two years ago, we are still awaiting results.
While I sympathise with the Deputy, I assure him that the case he has made for Tallaght has been made for every other third level institution. Every one has some ten different priorities. The Deputy will appreciate, given the limited resources available, that it can never be easy to make decisions in this area. For that reason, I decided to try to bring some order to the third level sector. Between 1997 and 2003, the capital expenditure in the third level sector was almost €1 billion. Despite the fact that the review was ongoing in 2003, expenditure in that year amounted to over €69 million. A further €97.5 million has been allocated for 2004 in addition to the €25 million capital funding for the programme of research in third level institutions.
While expenditure is ongoing, all third level colleges have what they regard as absolutely pressing needs which should be addressed outside the context of the review. If one moves outside that context, one will be back in the scenario we were in when I commissioned the review.
Regarding the timing of the review, I was initially told the review would be completed by 31 October 2003. I was subsequently told it would be completed by March 2004 and I have now been told it will be ready next month. While I would like to see it completed as quickly as possible, it is more important to get it right than to get it quickly. I hope when I get it, I will get it right.
The timescale is key. It is important to know when the programme will be rolled out and whether funding will be available. Does the Minister have a sense of when we will have the programme? I am aware of the circumstances in my locality and I accept that the Minister has different problems. Tallaght's institute of technology, however, has a particular problem of overcrowding. I am unaware of any other college with the same level of under-resourcing. The institute is crying out for investment, but the funding and agreement to go ahead are not forthcoming from the Department.
The Institute of Technology Tallaght, which is the smallest such institute in Ireland, has submitted a list of projects which would cost €71.5 million to complete. The Deputy will be able to imagine from that the level of expenditure required by the approximately 20 institutes of technology. If we do this, we should do it correctly. I hope to have the report soon. Once I have it, I will have to fight for the capital provision to implement it. When the review is completed, I will have a concrete list of prioritised projects across the sector which will make it easier to obtain capital resources.
