Other Questions.
80 Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Education and Science the progress made to date by the interdepartmental group considering new arrangements for means testing of third level grant applicants; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19480/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraThere is no formal interdepartmental group considering new arrangements for means testing of third level grant applicants.
In accordance with the commitment in An Agreed Programme for Government, I intend to introduce a unified scheme for third level grants. I also propose to put in place a more coherent administration system which will facilitate the introduction of more sophisticated means testing arrangements and ensure consistency of application and client accessibility.
The Deputy will be aware that the 2003 report entitled Supporting Equity in Higher Education identified the fairness of the means assessment on which student support is based as being a vitally important issue in promoting equity. It noted that the current system is widely regarded as being inequitable and, in line with earlier reports, concluded that the introduction of a capital test would remove a significant perceived inequity in the system. The report also concluded in this context that the administration of the student support schemes needs to be reformed.
In that context my Department has commenced discussions with the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners to establish the extent to which they can assist in the streamlining of the administration of the single unified scheme which I intend to establish on a statutory basis to replace existing arrangements.
The Deputy will appreciate that there are major implications for the local authorities and vocational education committees in any proposals to change the administration of the maintenance grants schemes. I intend that there will be full consultation with all interested parties and that no irrevocable decisions will be taken on any future arrangements prior to such consultation taking place. In this context my Department has commenced a series of consultations with key stakeholders, including the Irish Vocational Education Association and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, on the future administration of student support schemes. My Department plans to meet other representative groups, including the City and County Managers' Association. When these discussions are concluded, I will be in a position to make a final determination as to the most efficient and effective arrangements for the future administration of the schemes.
The Deputy will be aware that the timeframe for delivering on the commitments in An Agreed Programme for Government of June 2002 is the term of office of the Government, which I expect to be until 2007.
I do not know if the Minister can give us a little more information on his proposed timeframe. When does he expect to get a response to the proposals he put to the Department of Social and Family Affairs? What does he foresee as the overall timeframe in terms of producing changes in means testing? In the proposal to include assessment of assets as well as income, does he have any plans on how to assess people's assets?
The timescale is the lifetime of this Government. I am a little wary of being definitive in regard to timescales given the different bodies and organisations which will be involved in discussions. I cannot be any more precise. There has been a number of meetings with the Department of Social and Family Affairs, including one at ministerial level, and officials have had contacts. There have been at least one or two other meetings of which I am aware, but there has been ongoing contacts between both Departments. Contacts have also been made with the Revenue Commissioners which are more to do with the systems of assessment and so on. They have an expertise in this area which perhaps we would not have. We need to get a grasp of what might and might not be possible in regard to assessments.
On the question of the method we might use for assessing assets and so on, no work has been done in that area. There is a number of reports, as the Deputy knows. The issue arises a little in the context of the discussions with the Department of Social and Family Affairs which has a method for assessing capital and the value of capital for social welfare payments. That is one area that will be discussed by the two Departments.
81 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Education and Science if he will consider giving students who, due to illness, family bereavement or other such genuine reason miss sitting for a subject or subjects in their leaving certificate examinations, the opportunity of taking the subjects missed during the same academic year thus avoiding another full year at second level. [19470/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraOn foot of a Government decision, I formally established the State Examinations Commission on 6 March 2003. The commission now has statutory responsibility for operational matters relating to the certificate examinations.
Within the limitations of our examination system, every possible effort is made by the commission to accommodate candidates who suffer illness, bereavement or other trauma immediately before or during the examinations. Each year, arrangements are made to cater for a wide range of emergencies. These include alterations to the standard examination timetable and special sittings in venues such as hospitals. The National Educational Psychological Service also assists schools and students in crisis during examinations.
The leaving certificate is mainly a terminal examination, which is examined by external examiners. This contrasts with examination systems in many other countries where assessment is conducted on a continuous basis or is conducted by the student's own teachers. Where the processes include a significant element of school-based assessment of students, the models provide a template within which there is the data, capacity and flexibility to deal with students who, for genuine reasons beyond their control, are unable to complete the written element of their examinations.
Prior to the establishment of the commission, the Department of Education and Science gave the issue of a repeat leaving certificate consideration over the years because it was raised regularly. The Department concluded that the constraints inherent in a terminal and externally examined examination system, resulted in significant difficulties in regard to the provision of repeat examinations. These constraints derive from: the length of the school year; the timescale required for holding examinations; obtaining sufficient additional suitably qualified persons to act as examiners; providing adequate time for the preparation of marking schemes for the repeat exam papers and arranging for comprehensive briefing and training of examiners; providing ample time for those examiners to conduct the marking to a high standard; the pressing requirement of having results available to feed into the college entry process which is conducted by the CAO and college admissions departments in August each year; and the need for an appeal system for the review of repeat results.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
When one considers that our State examinations currently operate against the tightest of timescales and to maximum capacity in delivering a high quality product at both leaving and junior certificate levels to strict end-users deadlines, it is considered that it would not be possible to hold repeat examinations and have results available to the deadlines required.
However, the future direction of senior cycle education in Ireland is currently under review, and the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment has published proposals which outline a vision for the type of school system which might exist by 2010. The proposals envisage restructuring of overall senior cycle programmes and subjects into subjects, units and short courses, and provider for an increased emphasis on modes of flexible practical-portfolio-project and continuous assessment, with assessment events spread out across courses of study and available more frequently. Depending on the models finally adopted, this may help reduce the importance of a student's performance in terminal examinations in the future and will enable the issue of repeat examinations to be reconsidered.
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Being a former teacher and a parent, I know the Minister understands the importance of the leaving certificate to pupils because the results of the leaving certificate often determine the future academic career of pupils. At third level, there are opportunities to sit repeat examinations. I, and I am sure the Minister and my colleagues, know of academically gifted pupils who for some reason or other — perhaps injury, illness or family bereavement — miss an exam or two. That they cannot repeat that exam within the academic year means they must spend another year in the secondary school cycle which throws everything back a year. I know the State Examinations Commission has the ultimate responsibility but I ask the Minister if he will look favourably on it considering the feasibility of providing an opportunity of holding a repeat exam at a central location, such as Athlone or Dublin, for pupils who miss out on an examination.
I remember when I did my exams, as I am sure does the Minister and perhaps my colleagues — I do not know about Deputy Enright — there was the matriculation. If one failed or did not turn up for one of the leaving certificate examinations, one had the safety net of the matriculation in the mainstream subjects. That safety net is no longer there. Pupils in other jurisdictions probably have the opportunity to repeat, which is important.
Each year a certain percentage of pupils miss out. The exam could be held in a central location. There are bound to be back-up papers. There must be a bank of questions. If a paper is inadvertently given out, there is certainly a back-up one. It is not impossible if the will is there to do it. Will the Minister contact the State Examinations Commission and ask it to look seriously at the feasibility of providing this facility? It would mean so much to so many pupils who spend two years preparing assiduously for the leaving certificate and, through no fault of their own, miss an exam or two.
I do not disagree with the Deputy in regard to the trauma involved if something happens. I had experience of it in this year's leaving certificate in the case of two young people I knew. One young person's mother died on the morning of an examination but the State Examination Commission carried on the fine tradition of the Department in trying to facilitate the individual. The girl was brave enough to go ahead and sit the exam, although I realise she may not do as well in her exam as perhaps she would under normal circumstances. I have outlined a host of reasons this proposal was rejected previously. It is fair to say that as long as we continue to have a leaving certificate examination as is, those reasons will not change, principally, although not least, because of the CAO system we operate.
The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment is carrying out a review of the leaving certificate and will put forward various suggestions in that regard. One of the benefits of a change in the leaving certificate would be that it would allow prior assessments and judgments on a person's abilities rather than as at present where one is totally dependent on a terminal exam. In the context of the NCCA report — I hope to have the initial part of that report soon, although I will have the full report by the end of the year — I will undertake to look at this question again in light of the case the Deputy made.
I thank the Minister. Without being patronising, he has been innovative in several areas. Many opportunities are provided for students to sit their leaving certificate examination, including in hospital beds and so on. This would be one final step towards completing the circle.
When the then Minister originally announced the appeals system for the leaving certificate, it caused consternation throughout the system, yet it has worked pretty well. I will bear the Deputy's point in mind, however.
82 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Education and Science if his attention has been drawn to the concerns expressed at a recent meeting of the Joint Committee on Education and Science at the lack of co-ordination in the provision of pre-school education in view of the large number of Departments involved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19471/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraResponsibilities for early childhood education and care are divided among a number of Departments and agencies. My Department has responsibilities in the education area and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has responsibilities concerning child care. In addition, the Department of Health and Children, the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and agencies such as National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, the Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education and the National Children's Office also have major roles in this area.
In 1999, my Department published the White Paper on early childhood education, entitled Ready to Learn, which recommended greater liaison between the Departments and agencies involved. My Department also commissioned the education directorate of the OECD to review early childhood education and care in Ireland. The review, which is to be published soon, makes similar recommendations in regard to co-ordination issues in the area.
Recognising that responsibility for early childhood education and care is dispersed across many Departments and agencies, the Government established the Cabinet committee on children. To consider co-ordination issues in the child care and early education area, the Cabinet committee established an interdepartmental high level working group on child care and early childhood education in June 2003. This group, which is being chaired by the National Children's Office, is also considering the issues raised by the OECD report. The issues raised by the Deputy will be considered in light of the recommendations of the high level working group.
The Minister often refers to the fact that disadvantage is his main priority. Does he agree that early intervention is vital in giving children an opportunity to participate on an equal basis, thus preventing disadvantage at a later stage? Will the Minister give priority to this matter? So many of the Minister's answers and those of his colleagues refer to reports, studies and interdepartmental groups but we really need action.
The Joint Committee on Education and Science recently heard a number of presentations in this regard. The Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education, to which the Minister referred, identified nine different Departments as having a role in the provision of early childhood education. The provision of such education is patchy, short-term and, in some cases, dependent on community employment workers who come and go. Will the Minister give some priority to this area? In comparison with other countries, does the Minister agree that Ireland is very low on the scale in providing early childhood education?
On the Deputy's last point, we are not that low on the scale in many respects. In most other European countries, the primary school starting age is six, whereas here it is four. Almost 50% of our four year olds are in school at that stage.
In large classes without the kind of attention they may need at that age.
Not necessarily, but my point is valid and worth remembering. I can get the figures for the Deputy. I accept her main point, however, that early intervention, particularly in disadvantaged areas, is essential. As soon as this report has been completed and comes to my attention, I will act on it. I do not know what will be recommended in the end, but integration and co-ordination are needed. I have already established the Centre for Early Childhood Education and Development. I have asked the National Council on Curriculum Assessment, NCCA, to work on the education curriculum for pre-school children, and that work is already under way. I agree with the Deputy on that matter. My priority in that area will not be to introduce pre-school education for every child in the State because we would end up doing only half the job. The priority will be for disadvantaged areas, from where it can spread out. The Deputy's essential point about the necessity for early intervention is well documented. I agree fully with her that it is necessary to move early on it.
Will the Early Start programme be included in the report that is being formulated? When can we expect to see in the report? The Minister is obviously aware that the programme has not been expanded since it began in the years 1994 and 1995. Does he intend to expand the Early Start programme, especially in disadvantaged areas?
I intend to produce a document on disadvantage generally. Some of the existing schemes overlap while others leave gaps. The Early Start programme will be dealt with in the context of that policy document.
83 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Education and Science the legislative changes sought by the investigation committee of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse; if it is intended to agree to the amendments sought; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19494/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraFollowing the appointment of Mr. Justice Seán Ryan as chairperson designate of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, the Government requested that he carry out his own independent review of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse. This report, together with a review of the operation of the commission carried out by the Attorney General, were published on 15 January 2004. The Government has accepted the recommendations in Justice Ryan's report for legislative amendments to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act 2000. My Department is in ongoing contact with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel in connection with this matter and work on drafting legislation to amend the Act is at an advanced stage.
Amendments envisaged in Judge Ryan's report that will be made to the legislation include the removal of the obligation on the committee to hear each allegation of abuse made to it, a provision to allow for joint hearings to take place, provision for single member division of a committee, and the right of a complainant to withdraw a complaint subject to the consent of the committee.
Since the publication of Judge Ryan's report, the commission has been engaged in a consultation process with all relevant parties to facilitate them in expressing their views on the content of both reports and to enable them to make suggestions on the future operation of the investigation committee of the commission.
This process has now been concluded and, in a statement issued by Judge Ryan on 16 June 2004, the commission decided to proceed in accordance with a position paper that it published on 7 May. This means that the investigation committee now proposes that individual perpetrators of abuse will not be named by it unless they were convicted in the courts and that it will call witnesses to give evidence of abuse suffered by them to the extent necessary for the inquiry. The statement of 16 June and the earlier position paper from the investigation committee are available from the commission's website.
Arising from the above, I understand that the commission is in the process of finalising its requests for further legislative changes and that it will write to the Government with those changes in the near future. I will bring any such requests for additional changes to the legislation to Government for consideration as a matter of urgency upon receipt of the request from the commission.
While work on the amending legislation is at an advanced stage, it is not possible to publish any of the amending legislation in advance of any additional requests for changes being received. However, I understand that a further potential difficulty regarding the publication of amending legislation is in the process of being resolved in that the Christian Brothers have indicated that they will not be proceeding with the Supreme Court challenge to the commission that was scheduled for 29 and 30 of this month.
At this stage, it is envisaged that amending legislation will be published in advance of the Dáil term in the autumn. However, the commission has indicated that it intends to proceed with its hearings in advance of any amending legislation being enacted and I fully support it in this approach.
One of the reasons for delaying amending legislation was the Christian Brothers case which was expected to be heard at this time. I presume the information is correct that they are not going to proceed with the case. Does the Minister see any other obstacles to proceeding with the legislation? Does he expect to publish it before the next Dáil term and, if not, perhaps he can indicate to the House the timing involved?
The Minister said originally that he would not favour what was described as "sampling", whereby only certain cases were to be heard by the commission. Has he had discussions with the various groups representing survivors of child abuse about this issue? If the Minister feels that a person wants to give evidence to the commission, he or she should be allowed to do so. In his reply, the Minister referred to a number of people sitting on the commission for the hearings. Will parallel hearings be held in order that different elements of the work of the commission can be carried out at the same time by different people? As well as the issue of time scale, this was one of the issues raised by Ms Justice Laffoy when she originally expressed concern at the lack of support from the Department of Education and Science.
The question of provision for a single member division of the committee was raised in Mr. Justice Ryan's report and the Department will make provision for it. However, if I recall correctly, the judge did not favour that approach even though he felt it would be a good idea to have provision for it in the legislation because he foresaw difficulties with it.
The judge has been consulting all the relevant parties in regard to the sampling issue for the past week or ten days, for which I commend him. He has listened to all the groups and is making his own decisions in this regard. Soon after the judge's appointment, the survivors' groups asked me to ask him to write to each victim who had applied to see if he or she wanted to continue his or her hearing. I note from newspaper reports in the past two or three days that he has done just that. In that context, the dialogue should continue between the commission and the survivors' groups through the open public hearings because it is the best way forward.
I do not want to interfere in the work of the commission itself. Obviously, there was a difficulty when Ms Justice Laffoy resigned and I met the groups at that stage to try to assure them that the Government wanted a conclusion to the inquiries and so on. There are also ongoing contacts between officials in my Department and the groups in regard to a variety of matters. However, it is better for matters relating directly to the commission to be dealt with by it and the survivors' groups to agree a process.
In my original reply, I indicated that, subject to what Mr. Justice Ryan reports, I hope the legislation will be published before the Dáil resumes for the autumn session. This is subject to the proviso that the judge might, as a result of the work before him, throw up a recommendation which could cause a difficulty.
84 Mr. Noonan asked the Minister for Education and Science when the research work being undertaken by Mater Dei into the incidence of homophobic bullying in schools will be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19438/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraMy Department's gender equality unit, as part of its remit, supports research on the nine grounds of equality as delineated in the Equal Status Act 2000. The research work referred to by the Deputy is one such project. It is being conducted by Fr. James Norman of the Mater Dei Institute and involves an attitudinal survey of teachers of social, personal and health education, SPHE, at second level. The research is intended to establish the experience of teachers in both single-sex and co-educational schools in dealing with the issues of HIV-AIDS education, sexuality education and homophobia as part of the SPHE programme. The survey is expected to be completed in autumn 2004.
Following from the survey results, it is anticipated that a second phase of the project will involve initiating an action research project. In the action research project a small number of schools will be invited to participate in a pilot project to develop resources to address the issue of homophobia among pupils. It is expected that the second phase of the project will be completed by the end of 2005.
I welcome the survey because we cannot do anything if we do not have the correct information with which to work and I welcome the Minister's reply in that regard. When the survey is complete and the results have been published, the Minister referred to a pilot project being initiated. In this context, has the Minister changed his mind on implementing a national school bullying programme?
It is nearly a year and a half since two groups appeared before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Science, one from Trinity College Dublin and the other from a pilot project which was conducted in County Donegal to examine bullying. Those groups' statistics on what they had achieved in comparison to other areas, in which bullying programmes are hit and miss, show what can be done if a proper programme is in place. In this context, will the Minister reconsider his response to me last year and will he consider implementing a national school bullying programme using this research and other factors?
The groups to which the Deputy referred are not the only ones which have done work on bullying in schools. The Deputy may be aware of another in the North Eastern Health Board area. I do not know if the Department can add much more to what is already in place. It is a matter for each school to have in place anti-bullying policies.
The Minister may state that these policies are mandatory but some schools are not implementing them.
If the Deputy brings to my attention a school that is not doing so, I will undertake to pursue the matter with the school concerned. However, such cases have not been brought to my attention. I accept that some schools may implement the policies better and place greater priority on them than others. I acknowledge the Deputy has a particular interest in this issue and I will raise the matter internally in the Department to see what information we have on how well the schools anti-bullying programmes are being implemented. I will revert to the Deputy at that stage if I feel there is a need to reiterate the policy.
85 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Education and Science when he proposes to reach the target of 90% pre-school participation by 2010 contained in the Barcelona agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19473/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Barcelona conclusions of the European Council of 16 and 17 March 2002 state that member states should remove disincentives to the female labour force and strive, in line with national patterns of provision, to provide child care by 2010 to at least 90% of children between three years and mandatory school age and at least 33% of children under three years of age.
The Department of Education and Science is responsible for the education of children. To date, 49% of all four year olds and virtually all five year olds are enrolled in infant classes in primary schools. Children can commence their primary school education provided they have reached the age of four years on 1 September of the academic year in question while compulsory education starts at six years.
My Department has traditionally been engaged in the formal education of children aged four years but is now committed to the education of children from birth to six years and through its agencies is setting down the education framework required for early years education. The centre for early childhood development and education is currently preparing the groundwork for this and has recently published a draft discussion document on a conceptual quality framework describing how children from birth to six years develop and learn. The draft discussion document also identifies appropriate learning goals and objectives.
In addition, the NCCA has just published a consultative document entitled Towards a Framework for Early Learning, which focuses specifically on learning throughout early childhood from birth to six years. Early childhood is a new area for the NCCA and to assist it in its work it has established a working group on early childhood education. The consultative document was developed as a basis for working in partnership with the early childhood sector to develop a framework to support children's learning throughout the early childhood period from birth to six years. The NCCA is in the midst of a consultative process to obtain the views of practitioners in the early childhood sector before the document is finalised.
My Department is this year providing €8 million for early education initiatives such as the early start pilot project, the Rutland Street project, pre-schools for Travellers and the work of the centre for early childhood development and education. However, in terms of the Barcelona declaration, it is the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which has responsibility for child care provision to support parents in employment, education and training.
The issue of reaching the Barcelona targets is of great concern to the Government and in order to consider issues in the child care and early education arena, the Cabinet Committee on Children established an interdepartmental high-level working group on child care and early childhood education in June 2003. This interdepartmental working group, which is being chaired by the National Children's Office, is expected to report before the end of the current year.
We have dealt with this already to some extent. Is the Minister concerned that the provision of early childhood facilities in disadvantaged areas is the responsibility of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, rather than the Department of Education and Science or the Department of Health and Children, because it is considered to be an inequality measure for parents rather than a child focused measure? In that regard, does he consider he has a role in terms of children who do not always get the opportunity for pre-school even though they live in disadvantaged areas, because the focus is on the parents rather than on the children?
The Minister has said he was working on reviewing all the various measures on educational disadvantage. Will he indicate the time scale within which he expects to reach conclusions and when he might be in a position to expand early start or to provide whatever he decides is appropriate, as a result of his investigations? We hear much about disadvantage but so far there has been little action because of this review.
Just because we are talking about disadvantage and reviewing it, does not mean every scheme in place is suspended or the money withdrawn. We are still spending at least €0.5 billion on various schemes on disadvantage. I want to ensure we are getting the best value possible and that those who are disadvantaged are getting that good value. I would not like anybody to get the impression that every scheme is suspended and that the €0.5 billion being spent on that area is going elsewhere. It is not and spending in that area has increased significantly in recent years.
I am not concerned that the provision of child care facilities is the responsibility of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform rather than the Department of Health and Children. I would be more concerned if such responsibility did not rest with some Department. The question as to whether that is the most appropriate place for it is one that is worthy of consideration. I am not making a political point when I say it may have been the party of which the Deputy is a Member that created the equality portfolio which helped it to drift into that area.
That is probably true.
There has been a traditional reluctance in the Department of Education and Science to look at education for the age group from 0-4 because it has a grave fear of being lumbered with the education of children from 0-4 and not getting the money that, perhaps, other agencies get to provide the service. The time for that is gone. The focus should be on the child and what is best for the child. In the area of education and the development of children and so on it is the Department of Education and Science that should take responsibility.
I should say, not because the Minister in question is coming into the House, the work that has been done by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in regard to the provision of child care facilities deserves to be commended. There are some officials there, such as Sylda Langford, who are top class and who have probably got rid of much of the bureaucracy that may have enfolded these schemes in other departments. While it is not the most appropriate place for it, that Department has done a fantastic job in that area. The Department of Health and Children should assume greater responsibility for it.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
