Priority Questions.
75 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science the number of schools which have made applications to his Department for refurbishment works or new accommodation which are not listed on his Department’s school building programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19651/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraThis year's school building programme of €388 million will deliver in excess of 260 significant school building projects at primary and post-primary level. In excess of 200 of these will commence on site in the current year. The remaining projects had commenced in previous years and are currently nearing completion.
Apart from the projects included in this year's school building programme, my Department has on hand approximately 950 applications for significant capital investment in the primary and post-primary schools concerned. This figure comprises applications that were assessed over the past two to three years and where an accommodation deficit has been established. It also includes cases that have yet to be assessed by my Department.
The Deputy will be aware that I have been concentrating my capital funding on moving to tender and construction those projects already admitted to architectural planning rather than incur new design costs on others. The significant increase in funding secured this year has enabled significant progress to be made and the challenge is to maintain that progress in the coming years and to progress more projects through architectural planning and on to tender and construction.
I previously announced my intention to publish later this year, for the first time ever, a multiannual programme of works. To that end, the planning and building unit of my Department is currently assessing all remaining projects against the published prioritisation criteria to ensure that the multiannual programme response, when published, is well structured from the outset.
My aim since taking office has been to give as much information as possible to schools about their status within the building programme. The multiannual programme, when published, will make a further key contribution to that end. Following case by case assessment, it will indicate the status under the prioritisation criteria of all projects. In that way, and having regard to the multiannual funding envelope, my plan is to give indicative timescales for commencement of initial planning, detailed design work or movement to tender and construction as appropriate for particular projects or project bundles.
I thank the Minister for his answer. When the Minister announced the new building programme he changed from his predecessor's stance. He stated it would be open and transparent. If I, Deputy O'Sullivan or any of my colleagues ask a parliamentary question about a school, the general answer given is to look up the website to see the position. From his answer, it appears there are 950 schools which we will not find on the website because they are not on the school building programme.
The Minister will be aware that I do not normally use examples from my constituency. I visited Emo national school recently. It first applied for an extension for new accommodation 19 years ago and it does not appear on the school building programme. The school has been granted a new teacher and yet has no place to put that teacher. I cannot understand how such a school is not included. Obviously if there are 950 of them, we could come up with plenty of examples like that.
I welcome what the Minister stated about the multiannual programme of works. It is something I have long called for and supported. How will that impact on the 950 schools? Will the Minister confirm that he will be in a position to at least inform all schools, not just the 260 schools on which he stated that significant progress will be made this year, under the multiannual programme when they are likely to be reached?
The Deputy will appreciate that with approximately 3,200 primary schools and 700 post-primary schools, it would not be possible for me to keep track of all the schools in the building programme or to answer specific questions on the school to which she referred, but I seem to recall that this was the one the health board closed down because of the sighting of rats in the vicinity of the school.
That could have been some time ago but not recently.
In the past every school that wrote a letter to the Department seeking inclusion in the building programme was regarded as being on that programme. As a result, the building section of the Department was inundated with telephone calls about projects which were not likely to progress because they did not merit priority in the programme. An ever greater number of schools got on to the building programme and then it became a question of who could shout the loudest or who could assert the most political pressure to get their school completed.
I have tried to put an end to that. The project applications which had got to some stage of architectural planning form the building programme. We are making substantial progress in moving projects through architectural planning to tender and construction. That will leave space for other schools to advance. The other schools will advance on the basis of clearly set out and objective criteria. That is the only way to operate the system.
The issue of schools which have particular needs because they get an extra teacher etc. is dealt with, not under the major capital projects in the building programme to which we are referring but separately under temporary accommodation, emergency accommodation or out of the contingency funds, depending on the circumstances involved. When we talk about the school building programme we are referring to the building programme for major projects, both primary and post-primary.
My question relates to existing applications. Will the Minister confirm that if a school has made an application, he envisages the Department being in a position to give an indicative timescale or an indication of where the school stands on the list of priorities if it is not yet on the building programme? The biggest frustration is that people have no idea when their school will be reached.
The biggest frustration for schools was being in the building programme for a good number of years and not getting anywhere. Like other Deputies, I could cite schools in my constituency which were 20 or 25 years allegedly on the building programme but really were not.
On the schools which have not yet entered the building programme, it is our intention, based on the objective criteria I mentioned, to be in a position to get those schools on to the building programme as others move off it. Not all the 950 have been assessed and therefore at this stage I do not know whether they will be on the building programme.
76 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Education and Science his plans for special needs assistants in national schools in the context of his announcement of 18 June 2004 and of circular SP ED 09/04; if there are changes in the way in which the special needs assistants are applied for and allocated; if those currently in such posts will be reappointed in September 2004; if he will allow flexibility to schools that cannot provide reports in time for the application of the deadline of 30 June 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19622/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraSchools which have applied for special needs assistant support will be advised of the outcome of their applications as soon as possible in advance of the next school year. Account is being taken of existing levels of special needs assistant support allocation in schools. In cases where a reduction in the level of special needs assistant support is proposed, there will be provision for schools to appeal, having regard to the care needs of the pupils concerned. Details of the appeals mechanism will be set out in a communication to schools.
Special needs assistants may be approved to support a pupil who has a significant medical need for such assistance, a significant impairment of physical or sensory function or where their behaviour is such that they are a danger to themselves or other pupils. The criteria used for the assessment of the need for special needs assistant support is outlined in my Department's circular 07/02.
My Department continues to review the existing arrangements for the allocation of special educational supports to primary schools. The basic purpose of the review is to ensure that each school has the level of resources required to cater for its pupils with special educational needs. I am anxious to ensure that special education support services are properly targeted at the children who require them and that the substantially increased resources, which are being made available in the special educational area have the desired effect of ensuring that all children assessed as having special needs receive the support they require.
Since 1998, the number of special needs assistants in primary schools has grown from about 300 to in excess of 5,500 full-time and part-time assistants. Special needs assistants posts will be retained in schools where there is a continuing care need in accordance with circular 07/02.
My Department recognises the difficulties some schools have experienced while awaiting the outcome of applications for special educational resources and the introduction of the weighted model. The process has been complex and time-consuming and I am endeavouring to have all aspects completed as quickly as possible. I acknowledge the co-operation and support of schools in this regard.
Is the Minister aware of the concern in many schools about this issue, given that this circular only arrived in many schools on the last day of term? He stated that action will be taken as soon as possible before the school year but how does he expect schools to deal with this issue before September so they can appoint staff? How can parents decide if they can send their child to the local school when they do not know if there will be a special needs assistant?
Did the Minister receive the 14 questions from the Irish Primary Principals Network on this issue and will he respond to them? Are primary principals supposed to work through the summer to address these issues while the Department is making its decisions? Will the Minister allow schools to retain part-time special needs assistants and resource teachers next year while the system is changing over? This is very difficult for schools and they are unsure what will happen in September.
Is the Minister aware of the problems for schools with between 60 and 100 pupils that are losing hours under the circular on resource teachers? I spoke to a resource teacher who works in two schools and her hours have fallen from 17 to ten per week in each of the schools. Will the Minister make things easier for the schools?
This question deals with special needs assistants and a later question deals with resource teachers. I understand the difficulties schools might have in both cases and I would have liked to have been in a position to have done all of this much earlier. I would have preferred to have both the special educational needs resources and the special needs assistants dealt with but it was complex and time consuming and used up most of the time available to the special education section of the Department, a considerable amount of NEPS time and time of the administrative section of the Department and the inspectorate. All of them worked hard to come up with a system that would be fair to everyone.
It was not possible to deal with the special needs assistant question at the same time and that is why we are now concentrating on that area. Schools can keep the special needs assistants if they can prove they have a need for them.
Will they be able to keep them while the decision is pending?
The decision will be made as soon as possible in advance of the next school year. Over the next few weeks, schools will be told about their allocations for the school year 2004-05. They will know their allocation of special needs teachers in advance of the next school year.
77 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Education and Science the new measures he proposes to introduce to reduce pupil-teacher ratios in schools; if his priority and emphasis will be on schools located in officially designated disadvantaged areas; the pupil-teacher ratio he views as an acceptable level; and when schools will receive the necessary resources from his Department to bring about a significant reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio. [19621/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraSignificant improvements have been made in the pupil teacher ratio at both primary and post-primary levels in recent years. The overall pupil teacher ratio at primary level has fallen from 22.2:1 in the 1996-97 school year to 17.35:1 in the 2003-04 school year. The overall maximum class size in primary schools by reference to the staffing schedule has been reduced from 35 in the 1995-96 school year to 29 in the 2003-04 school year. The staffing schedule for the 2003-04 school year was structured to ensure that all primary schools would operate to an average mainstream class size of 29 pupils. It is a matter for school authorities to ensure that there is an equitable distribution of pupils in mainstream classes and that the differential between the largest and smallest classes is kept to a minimum.
The overall pupil teacher ratio at second level has also improved significantly in recent years. The ratio fell from 16:1 in the 1996-97 school year to 13.48:1 in the 2003-04 school year. I am committed to reducing overall class sizes still further. This, however, can only be done on a phased basis having regard to available resources and subject to spending priorities within the education sector.
With regard to staffing provision for disadvantage at primary level, a range of existing additional supports will continue to be provided in 2004-05. These supports involve the provision of more than 600 teaching posts enabling the implementation of significantly reduced PTRs in both junior and senior classes in more than 240 disadvantaged primary schools. At post-primary level, 203 disadvantaged schools will have more than 220 concessionary teaching posts in 2004-05.
In addition, I recently approved the allocation of an additional 350 teaching posts for special needs and a new system for the allocation of resources for special needs in primary schools. The new system will involve a general weighted allocation for all primary schools to cater for pupils with higher incidence special needs, with particular extra provision being made for the most disadvantaged primary schools. I am currently finalising a detailed review of all education disadvantage schemes, with a view to ensuring a fully integrated and cohesive strategy is adopted in this area for the future. I hope to announce the outcome of this review shortly.
All of these measures serve to underline the particular importance I have attached both to tackling educational disadvantage and providing for the needs of children with special needs since my appointment as Minister for Education and Science.
Unfortunately, many of the schools that have contacted me have a different view, with pupil-teacher ratios rising. The Minister made a commitment to reduce class sizes over a five year period but many schools say they face problems achieving that aim. The Minister specifically committed himself to establishing class sizes of less than 20 for children under nine years of age. Can he give a realistic time frame for achieving that goal?
While we are talking about disadvantage, young children who come from certain areas are doubly disadvantaged by their background and the size of the classes in their schools. Any of the teachers in those schools will say that individual attention for children with difficulties is of major assistance to those children.
I have a letter from a school in my constituency that was four pupils short of the number necessary for additional resources last year. For example, there were 15 junior infants in one class and because of a lack of resources there are now 28. There are 31 children in each of the other three classes. There are a number of schools in the same position.
What commitment does the Minister intend to give in respect of reducing class sizes? Will adequate numbers of teachers emerge from the training system to allow the latter to happen? The OECD figures show that Ireland has one of the highest pupil-teacher ratios in Europe. The Minister has made commitments at conferences etc., but change has not been apparent in the areas to which I refer and the disadvantaged schools within them.
There are 600 plus teaching posts for primary schools in disadvantaged areas. That can be broken down to 312 designated disadvantaged primary schools which will continue to have over 290 concessionary teaching posts. A total of 32 urban primary schools are prioritised for participation in Breaking the Cycle and this will reduce the pupil-teacher ratio in these schools to 15:1 in junior classes and 27:1 in senior classes. There are 70 posts involved in this regard. A further 211 urban primary schools that have been prioritised under the Giving Children an Even Break programme will continue to benefit from reduced pupil-teacher ratios of 20:1 in junior classes and 27:1 in senior classes. There are approximately 250 posts involved here.
There are other disadvantaged areas schemes, of which the Deputy will be aware, at primary and post-primary level. I meet, on a reasonably regular basis, primary school principals and at a recent meeting with a number of them in the inner city area I was informed that the average pupil-teacher ratio in some of the schools in this area is as low as 11:1. I will continue to focus as much as possible on disadvantage and on reducing the level of disadvantage suffered by people in the areas to which I refer. I have clearly indicated my priorities, of which disadvantage is one.
If looking after the disadvantaged means that I cannot reduce the pupil-teacher ratio across the board, particularly in schools in Foxrock and elsewhere, I will continue to cater for the needs of those in disadvantaged areas. I will work towards fulfilling the commitment in the programme for Government regarding reducing the pupil-teacher ratio to 20:1. If this is achievable within the lifetime of the Government, that will be acceptable. Until I know it is achievable, I intend to focus my attention on the areas of which the Deputy is aware. Even though I do not live in such an area, I am aware of their needs.
78 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Education and Science if all outstanding applications for special educational resources will be dealt with before the beginning of the 2004-05 academic year and the current backlog cleared; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19652/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraIt is my intention that all applications for special educational resources received by 30 June 2004 will be responded to before the commencement of the 2004-05 school year. Applications for resource teacher support that were received between 15 February and 31 August 2003 for which a response is outstanding have been considered and schools have been notified of the outcome. This outcome indicates to schools the resources that may be put in place immediately. Applications received after 31 August 2003 and by 30 June 2004 will be processed in the near future and the outcome will be notified to schools before the commencement of the 2004-05 school year.
The teacher allocations involved will be made in the context of a new weighted system I announced recently. An additional 350 teacher posts are being provided to facilitate the introduction of the new system. The system will involve a general weighted allocation for all primary schools to cater for pupils with higher incidence special educational needs such as, for example, those with borderline mild and mild general learning disability, specific learning disability and those with learning support needs. It will also allow for individual allocations in respect of pupils with lower incidence special educational needs.
The weighted allocation will be made as follows: in the most disadvantaged schools, as per the urban dimension of Giving Children an Even Break, a teacher of pupils with special educational needs will be allocated for every 80 pupils to cater for the subset of pupils with higher incidence special needs; in all-boys schools, the ratio will be one teacher for every 140 pupils; in mixed schools, or all-girls schools with an enrolment of greater than 30% boys, it will be one teacher for every 150 pupils; and in all-girls schools, including those with mixed junior classes but with 30% or less boys overall, it will be one for every 200 pupils. It is intended that the details of the new model will be set out in a comprehensive circular to issue to schools for the commencement of the new school year.
The weighted allocation will enable teaching support to be provided to pupils with higher incidence special educational needs and this will obviate the need for schools to submit individual applications for pupils in the higher incidence categories. Schools may continue to apply for specific teacher allocations in respect of pupils with lower incidence disabilities.
My Department proposes to devise clusters in respect of allocations to be made under the weighted model. Sanction for the filling of posts will be considered in the context of these clusters and the weighted arrangements. The Department will communicate with schools in this regard before the commencement of the coming school year.
Schools which have applied for special needs assistant support will be advised of the outcome of their applications as soon as possible in advance of the next school year. Account is being taken of existing levels of special needs assistant support allocation in schools. In cases where a reduction in the level of special needs assistant support is proposed, there will be provision for schools to appeal, having regard to the care needs of the pupils concerned.
My Department recognises the difficulties some schools have been experiencing while awaiting the outcome of applications for special educational resources and the introduction of the weighted model. As stated previously, the process has been complex and time-consuming and I am endeavouring to have all aspects completed as quickly as possible. I again acknowledge the co-operation and support of schools in this regard.
The Minister should accept that it was not just schools which suffered. Some children lost an entire year — in some cases even longer — of their education while this matter was being resolved. I hope I misheard him but I was of the impression that the Minister informed Deputy O'Sullivan that he could not deal with the special needs issue because he is dealing with the resource teacher issue. I do not believe we can deal with any of these matters in isolation because they all form part of the same package.
Approximately 6,000 children in respect of whom applications were made were assessed by psychologists etc. who decided on the number of hours of assistance they required. However, in light of the fact that these children will be dealt with under the new weighted system, will they be provided with the number of hours recommended for them or will some of them have access to fewer hours of assistance?
I am sure the Minister has been contacted by many teachers. How does he intend to address the concern of those in smaller schools, rural and urban, that they will lose out? I was contacted by a school which will be obliged to deal with a 40% reduction in the number of hours available to it under the new system. I spoke to a principal of a boys' school yesterday which comes under the category where there will be one teacher per 140 pupils. The latter is a significant reduction for disadvantaged schools in terms of the number of hours to which they will have access. How does the Minister envisage the children involved obtaining the assistance they require which, in many instances, was recommended for them? Is he satisfied that there will not be a reduction? Are teachers and principals who state that there will be a reduction wrong? Does the Minister believe that children will receive the service they need if there is a reduction?
I am confident the students in the schools will receive the service they require under the new model. That is not to state that every school will have the same level of resources as previously. It is important to make that distinction. We carried out an audit of all schools throughout the country in respect of the resources they possess. There are some which are significantly over-resourced, particularly in terms of the number of special needs pupils enrolled in them. Such schools will obviously not have the same number of special needs teachers or support as was the case heretofore.
My aim is to ensure that, as regards pupils with special needs, resources will be matched to places where the need is greatest. If the Deputy was referring to a disadvantaged school or a school in a disadvantaged area which was informed that its allocation will be 1:140, a mistake has been made because, as outlined in my initial reply, the ratio in designated disadvantaged areas is one teacher to 80 pupils.
It is less than that.
It could not be less than they are getting at present because the system as it stands would equate to approximately 1:175 or 1:200. It is in that range, though I am not saying it was done that way. A school getting one teacher to 80 pupils will be in a significantly improved situation. Having looked at the audit, there are schools which will win and which will lose in this system, but they will only lose on the basis that they are currently overresourced. Schools which are underresourced will get the full resources to match the number of pupils they have by September 2005, when the weighted model comes fully into play.
Will the Minister address the issue of the pupils? That was the main part of the question and it was not answered. Will the 6,000 pupils who were assessed get what was recommended for them?
The time for this question has expired.
79 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Education and Science if his attention has been drawn to the fact that a number of national schools have been told by his Department to use their physical education hall as a classroom; if he will reverse this policy in view of the place of physical education in the primary school curriculum and of concern at the growing level of obesity among children, partly attributed to lack of exercise; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19623/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI wish to make clear that the policy of my Department is to provide for the delivery of a broad and balanced physical education curriculum at primary and post-primary levels.
The position on facilities generally is that many primary schools have a general purpose room and practically all schools have outdoor play areas which are utilised for teaching different aspects of the physical education programme. Many schools also use adjacent local facilities, including public parks, playing fields and swimming pools.
A particular difficulty has arisen regarding some schools in need of additional accommodation to facilitate extra teacher appointments. In the context of the available funding for temporary accommodation and the number of applications for that funding, in the current year it was not possible to approve all applications received. As an interim measure, therefore, some schools have been advised to maximise the use of existing accommodation until my Department is in a position to make extra accommodation available.
The need for additional accommodation at any given school will be considered in the context of a review which is being undertaken of all projects that did not proceed as part of the 2004 school building programme with a view to including them as part of a multi-annual school building programme from 2005, details of which will be announced later in the year.
From his answer I presume the Minister is aware that officials in his Department told schools which were denied an extra classroom but which had PE halls that they should use their PE hall as an extra classroom. Is the Minister aware of that? Does he approve of that as a policy? I ask that question in the context of the obligation on schools under the Education Act to teach the curriculum and the inclusion of physical education as part of the curriculum.
Is he aware that a recent national study of children aged 11 to 12 showed that 18% of girls and 20% of boys were obese? Is the Minister committed to physical education as a core part of the primary curriculum? Will he reverse the policy of his Department requiring schools, which have PE halls to use those halls as classrooms? That is a move backwards rather than forwards in the provision of physical education in schools.
I would prefer if schools did not have to use general purpose rooms, rather than PE halls, as classrooms. I do not want that to happen but I am aware that it has occurred and I queried the practice in the Department. On the basis of the amount of money we have for temporary accommodation and the extra teachers we are putting into the system who require extra space, it was not possible to provide the level of temporary accommodation, which was needed and a very difficult decision had to be made. Do we deny temporary accommodation to schools awarded an extra teacher and provide it to schools which have GP rooms or PE halls available to them? We were trying to ensure that the limited amount of money we had was extended to facilitate as many schools as possible. While I regret we had to ask schools to use GP rooms, in the circumstances and given our choices it was the right decision.
Will the Minister reconsider this policy? A new PE curriculum will begin next year and I presume the Minister is trying to move towards providing PE for schools. Surely this is a backward step and solving the problem should not take a lot of money. I do not know how many schools are involved, but I have three examples from three different counties and I am sure there are more. Will the Minister look at this again to see if he can come up with the money? We are only talking about providing prefabricated classrooms, presumably, for the schools concerned. I do not see how he can ask teachers to teach PE in a situation where they are being deprived of a facility they have already, particularly when some of these schools have very little outdoor space.
If I had the money originally to do so that is what I would have done. I am not in favour of what we had to do but we had to do it to stay within our financial limits. Each subhead of the capital building programme, both primary and post-primary, is at a record level this year and is fully committed for the year. It is not possible to move money around or to take it from one area.
The Deputy is making a serious point and I do not want to minimise it. However, neither do I want to give the impression that this is happening with PE halls all over the country. There are a limited number of schools involved and very few PE halls are taken up in this way. It mostly involves GP rooms. Many primary schools use facilities outside the school for PE, like swimming pools, parks, local GAA pitches and so forth. This is a problem we have had this year and I hope to ensure that next year we have sufficient funding to ensure it does not happen and that the policy can be reversed.
