Priority Questions
1 Deputy Brian Hayes asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills the number of secondary schools that have dropped a science subject in the 2009-10 academic year; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [18572/10]
Amharc ar fhreagraMy Department's records indicate that 53 post-primary schools discontinued a science subject in the 2009-10 school year, while ten schools——
On a point of order, I understood the Tánaiste was due to take this question.
I understand the Minister of State is taking the question.
This question relates to the Tánaiste's brief. With the greatest respect to the Minister of State——
As the Deputy knows, under the doctrine of collective responsibility any Minister may respond.
Is this a no-show policy on the Tánaiste's first day or something?
The Tánaiste will be here presently.
Would the Minister of State start again please?
My Department's records indicate that 53 post-primary schools discontinued a science subject in the 2009-10 school year, while ten schools introduced a new science subject to their curriculum in the same year. It should be noted that changes by individual schools in the range of subjects they offer are a regular occurrence. The data for schools discontinuing a science subject in the 2007-08 school year, before the increase in the pupil teacher ratio, are largely the same as the numbers discontinuing science in 2009-10. It is important therefore to look at the issues around the drop in science from both a pupil demand perspective and with regard to the capacity of schools to offer science within their range of subjects. On the demand side, my Department is fully committed to strengthening the quality of science teaching and learning, promoting increased scientific literacy and encouraging more students to choose science subjects. An important element of the strategy for science technology and innovation is to increase the proportions of students studying the physical sciences in senior cycle.
I recognise that teacher allocations set the parameters with regard to the number of subjects on offer in schools. However, the deployment of teaching staff in the school, the range of subjects offered and ultimately the quality of teaching and learning are in the first instance a matter for the school management authorities. If schools have difficulties with providing individual subjects, for example through a retirement of a teacher in one of the subjects concerned, some short-term support is provided through the curricular concessions process to enable them to meet their curricular needs.
Some of the additional posts provided for in the renewed programme for Government are also being used for increasing subject choice in post-primary schools. This is being achieved in two ways. First, additional posts are being targeted at co-educational schools in single post-primary catchment areas to support wider subject choice. This approach recognises that such schools are under more pressure to provide a wider subject choice, including options in the physical sciences, than a single sex school. Second, additional posts for the coming school year are being allocated to post-primary schools that decide to work together with other local post-primary schools to increase subject choice in a town or area. This is aimed at encouraging co-operation between schools and ensuring the best use of whatever resources are available given current constraints. Furthermore, it can facilitate the introduction of a subject such as physics or chemistry in two or more schools through the recruitment of one teacher shared between them.
The issues around subject choice, including science, can be also considered further as part of the consultations with the education partners on the allocation of the remaining additional posts under the renewed programme for Government.
Now that the Tánaiste is in the House, I expect she will take the supplementary questions, because this is a matter for her rather than for her junior Minister.
It is a matter for the Government to determine which Minister——
It is a matter for record that——
I advise the Deputy that it is a matter for the Government to nominate any Member to respond to an Adjournment debate.
The Tánaiste is here now and I would be interested in hearing her reply to the question I will now pose.
On 24 July 2008, the Tánaiste stated, "I am not the Minister for Education, but we must incentivise maths and science. The science agenda and the skills agenda are uppermost in my mind." In her previous position as Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, she rightly highlighted the importance of science and the connection between science and the new economy. However, on the first day she is due to answer questions in this House she, through her Minister of State, has admitted that already this year some 53 schools have dropped a science subject. Based on her preliminary discussions with school bodies, are we likely to see additional schools drop science subjects in September? The Government has a fanciful policy on innovation, the smart economy etc. lauding the importance of science, but when it comes to it, there is a reduction in the provision of science subjects in our schools. Does she accept that?
The Government's policy on the smart economy and science, technology and innovation is being implemented by all Departments. We have the discover science and engineering programme from Forfás and the strategy for science technology and innovation etc. Therefore, I am sure what the Tánaiste said then is relevant now in the Department of Education and Skills. As mentioned, the data with regard to the number of schools discontinuing a science subject in the 2007-08 school year, before the increase in the pupil teacher ratio, are largely the same as the numbers discontinuing science in 2009-10. We are committed to the strategy for science, technology and innovation. I already mentioned that there are a number of reasons science is not being selected, but we are trying to address this. Virtually all schools teach science up to junior certificate level and science subjects are optional at leaving certificate level. Government policy is very clear in that regard.
The Minister of State is many things, but he is not a ventriloquist. He is defending the policy of the Government on the question of science in our schools, but has admitted to the House, using figures provided by the Department, that close to 10% of secondary schools in the country have dropped a science subject. Therefore, the ASTI is wrong when it states that more than one third of schools in the country is considering dropping a science subject and the NAPD is wrong to suggest that one in five principals has had to drop a science subject this year. One of the key aspects of the smart economy was that summer schools in science and engineering would be expanded, with the emphasis on innovation and commercialisation. Has that happened?
I am aware of the recent ASTI survey, based on responses from 334 teachers of junior certificate science, which indicates that 14% of schools have dropped a leaving certificate science subject from the curriculum this year and which indicates the teachers' view that a further 20% of schools are likely to drop a science subject this year. The issues around subject choice, including science, can be further considered as part of the consultations with the education partners on the allocation of the remaining additional posts under the renewed programme for Government. The Department is very conscious of the issue and is committed to implementing the strategy for science, technology and innovation in all its aspects. This issue is a major priority for Government.
2 Deputy Ruairí Quinn asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills if she will establish, without prejudice, a national forum on patronage in primary schools, as suggested by the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin; if her attention has been drawn to the fact that the Catholic Church is the patron of 92% of all existing 3,175 ordinary primary schools in this State; when she will act upon her recent public comments and seek the input and views of all relevant stakeholders with a view to agreeing to the orderly restructuring of the existing pattern of patronage; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [18479/10]
Amharc ar fhreagra4 Deputy Brian Hayes asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills if she will provide a list of the ten areas in which she is considering a possible hand-over of primary schools from the Catholic Church to the State; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [18574/10]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to answer Questions Nos. 2 and 4 together.
I agree that the issue of patronage and governance of our primary schools is important. In recent times the rapid pace of social and demographic change is reflected in a radically altered and more diverse society from which our school communities are drawn. Irish society will continue to change at pace in the years to come and our education system must therefore continue to adapt and change to reflect this.
Our system of patronage has demonstrated a capacity to facilitate change and evolution. Historically, plurality simply meant schools differentiated by denomination under denominational patronage. In recent decades, the patronage system proved itself able to support the establishment of schools by An Forás Patrúnachta and Educate Together. However, the majority of primary schools are still under Catholic patronage. While recognising the role that Catholic schools have played in welcoming children from diverse backgrounds and the continuing role for Catholic schools, we will need changes to the composition of schooling into the future to meet different needs. In addition significant issues are now emerging about the different definitions and types of diversity that might be recognised and how this can be accommodated while maximising effective use of existing and new infrastructure and education expenditure generally, particularly at a time of scarce resources.
As the Deputies are aware, consideration of many of the relevant issues is under way. My Department organised a major conference on primary school patronage in 2008. The new community national school model is piloting an approach to primary schooling involving multi-faith provision. A review of the procedures for the establishment of new primary schools is being undertaken by the Commission on School Accommodation. Among the issues being considered as part of the review is the issue of patronage including the criteria that must be met to decide on the patronage of a school. The commission is taking account of issues relating to diverse patronage models and the size of schools in its work. The commission has undertaken extensive consultation and involves a wide range of education partners in its membership.
It is already proving possible in developing areas to offer increased diversity as new schools need to be established. However, in areas where the population is not increasing to any great extent, it is more difficult to increase the diversity available.
Regarding such areas, the issue of the Catholic Church divesting itself of certain schools was originally explicitly raised by Archbishop Diarmuid Martin. In discussions on this matter, senior representatives of the Catholic Church and my Department agreed that it was essential to engage in planning for change. In order to advance the matter, my Department agreed that it would examine a number of initial locations to see what scope or options might exist for change of patronage in these cases. The particular focus was on identifying a sample number of areas of relatively stable demographics where the establishment of new schools was unlikely to emerge in the foreseeable future and where the provision is exclusively Catholic or where there is very limited diversity of provision at present. The aim is that these areas can then be used to trial the modalities by which the number of Catholic places and schools will be reduced and released for others.
The production of a potential list of locations by the Department will be, of course, only a first step. The decision on the identity of the particular Catholic school or schools that should close because of a surplus situation must ultimately rest with the patron and the Catholic community in the parish or parishes concerned. This means consultation within the parish or diocese, with the parent body of the schools and with the staff of the schools. Following any such identification by the Catholic community of where provision is to be divested I would envisage that the Department will put in place processes to consult with the local community generally, including prospective patrons, on the future patronage of identified schools. There also would be a range of implementation issues to be addressed.
Officials in my Department are currently carrying out an assessment of ten locations where changes to patronage may be warranted, given changed demographic profiles in recent decades. This assessment involved the initial identification of ten locations and detailed work on these. However, it may be necessary to re-identify some further areas if some of the initial ten locations appear not to be suitable. My Department has not yet completed this assessment. When the assessment is completed it is planned to establish a list of ten locations where such change may be warranted. The aim is to complete the assessment within the next month with a view to providing the list to the Catholic authorities for consideration and making the list available publicly. I would envisage that if the proposed pilots are feasible there would be consultation with the education parties on the steps to implement a transfer of patronage.
I recognise there is a need to continue to seek the input and views of a wide cross-section of contemporary Ireland on the relevant issues. I have outlined the extent to which consultation has been undertaken and the need for further consultation at a local level. I prefer to advance consideration and trialling of the practical issues so that specific proposals can be developed and issues identified rather than a more general and theoretical discussion at this stage. I am committed to further consultation with the education partners and with the wider public. The extent and nature of further consultation will be determined as the work under way is completed.
It did not take them long to house-train the Tánaiste. That is the most disappointing response I have heard from someone with the Tánaiste's experience and maturity. I would have thought that as a mother of relatively young children she would have a more open view. I take it the answer is that she is not going to establish a forum. Is that the correct interpretation of her reply?
It is not my intention to establish a forum at this moment in time.
The Catholic Church does not do democracy. It does not consult with its community; it informs its community. There is no procedure to which one can refer where the Catholic members of a parish are invited to vote or express their opinions in any structured way. If there is I am not aware of it. How will this process work? Who wrote the reply for the Tánaiste? It does not match any reality of which I am aware?
On the issue of patronage, as the Deputy knows diversity can be addressed much more quickly, particularly in areas where we have greater growth.
So the people who live in built-up areas do not have a choice.
I am a great believer in a number of other things about which many people forget, one of which is that I would like to hear what the Members of this House have to say.
Let us have a debate.
It would be very appropriate because we would have a diversity of views in this House on what should happen. Once the ten areas have been designated, I intend to meet the representatives of the Catholic Church. I believe the procedures must include not just patrons. As I have said, I believe in the representation of the Oireachtas Members.
As the question stated.
I also believe that parents and the wider community——
That is my question.
——equally must be consulted.
Hence the forum.
My issue with a forum is that we would have yet another forum, yet another two or three years of pontification and philosophy, following which we would revert to having no decisions. I certainly do not want to end up with no change and a lack of decision making.
The Tánaiste's reply is a step backwards by comparison with her predecessor, who showed more flexibility in his short tenure in his Department of Education and Science than she has in a month. She does not want to consult anyone. Her Department stated in March that it had identified ten sites. Now the Tánaiste cannot tell me where those sites are or how the Department consulted with parents in those sites. She will not even give us the information on those sites. The way the Department is dealing with this issue is disgraceful. Will the Tánaiste agree to have a debate in this House next week on the issue? We have not had any debate on the issue in the past two and a half or three years. Would she consider a proposal I made in the course of my speech to our party conference a month ago whereby every parent would receive a survey from the Department asking what they want. The only group being totally ignored by the Tánaiste and her colleagues in Cabinet comprises parents. It should survey parents, find out what they want and publish the survey.
The Catholic Church, through Archbishop Martin, approached my predecessor. He was not in a position to advise my predecessor as to where he felt areas could be divested. My Department was asked to identify those areas——
So where are they?
——on the basis of certain criteria. That work is almost completed and will be completed, as I indicated, by the end of the month.
Will the Tánaiste publish it?
Yes, it will be published.
By the end of the month.
It will then go back to the Catholic Church as it is the patron that will need to divest itself of its patronage. I do not have a problem with hearing what all Members of this House have to say. There is diversity within the Deputy's party because people come from different perspectives and different geographical areas. There are younger Members of this House and older Members of the House. I have no problem with a real discussion involving most of the Members of the House because we would like to hear what people have to say.
I have been in this job for one month. I am a parent. Many members here are parents. I believe in parental involvement and the voice of parents being heard and I will continue to do so as I have on every occasion in my 23 years in public service. I will hear what parents have to say because parents are entitled to have a view and a perspective on behalf of their children.
How will the Tánaiste find out what parents want? For the past two and a half years Deputy Quinn and I have suggested that a forum on the issue of patronage, control and ownership——
With all the stakeholders.
——is the way to go. That should be in public and not in secretive bilateral meetings between the Tánaiste and the Catholic Church or the Tánaiste and other parties behind closed doors; it should be out in public. Political parties should be represented there. As I have said before, if ever there were a necessity for a talking shop, it is on this issue. It will not be easy to arrive at a conclusion with which everyone is happy. How will the Tánaiste find out the views of parents if she refuses to accept my suggestion of an initial survey of every parent in the country organised by the Minister's Department? Is she equally refusing to accept the suggestion by myself and Deputy Quinn that a forum on patronage be established? How will she do this?
There have been many forums set up on many occasions on many of these issues.
Never on this issue.
Unfortunately they have taken a considerable amount of time. I do not want to talk about theory, I want to talk about how this can be practically achieved. It is much easier to achieve in certain areas, such as my part of the world where there has not been a huge change in population or demographics. In trying to provide diversity, we must respect everyone's views. There are clearly many parents who wish to have a different type of educational opportunity for their children. How to determine diversity is as difficult as how to proceed. It is on that basis that I want to continue the work in hand and will continue to re-evaluate it, reverting either to the committee or this House to hear what Members have to say.
In the Minister's second reply, she stated the Archbishop of Dublin is the biggest individual patron of schools in the country. Each bishop is a patron in his own right and is able to give a different response, which will reflect the diversity of the country. Dr. Diarmuid Martin said he felt he had too many schools for the Catholic community he serves and he came to the Department to suggest the best way forward to identify the schools that would no longer be under his patronage would be to establish an open forum. The archbishop believes in transparency but the Department, and the Minister, seem to be frightened of this.
I believe, and the Labour Party believes, in parental choice. The reality in Dublin South-East is a waiting list of 500 children for 18 schools. The children have been denied their first choice of school and their parents must now send their child, if they are lucky, to another school in the area. The Minister is failing to address the second aspect of parental choice. The problem is not in the growing areas, it is in existing built up areas.
In the briefings I have received on discussions with the previous Minister, although the archbishop was anxious to make progress, with the reality of changes in dioceses and supports in the Catholic church and numbers, the church will not be in a position to continue. In those briefings, the archbishop spoke about divesting and we are anxious to pursue that, we are working on methods to achieve it.
I am aware of what is happening in Deputy Quinn's constituency but in some areas divestiture can take place so others are afforded the opportunity, through consultation with parents, to establish patronage of schools. It is my view that should happen.
Why is the Minister so frightened of a forum?
I am not frightened of anything, I want to see how change can be achieved.
It could be done in tandem.
The process will be very open.
3 Deputy Brian Hayes asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on her recent attendance at the INTO and TUI annual conferences. [18573/10]
Amharc ar fhreagraI believe that a high level of mathematical achievement is vital for Ireland and that we need to improve attainment levels in maths.
That is the wrong answer.
No, this is about mathematics.
Ceist a trí.
Sorry, the Deputy is right. I should be telling him about the great time I had at the INTO conference.
That is the question.
Sorry, question No. 8 has been put in front of me. I could nearly tell the House of the top of my head about the great time I had at the conferences.
I used the invitation to speak at the Easter conferences of INTO and TUI as an opportunity to set the financial and economic context governing the provision of resources to schools and colleges as well as looking at a number of challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. I covered a number of common issues that were relevant to both unions and issues of specific relevance in the sectors in which each union has members.
I acknowledged that some of the decisions the Government had to make created anxiety and difficulties for their members and that teachers, through their frontline interaction with the community in which they work, gain a very real understanding of the pressure that parents and families are experiencing at this time and the impact of unemployment.
I explained that in Government we are undertaking a hugely challenging task in righting Ireland's course to ultimately provide jobs, opportunity and a future for the pupils in their classrooms. In the process, however, we have had to take some difficult and unpopular decisions to deal with the fall in tax revenue and to stabilise the public finances. In that context I explained the need to make a further €3 billion of adjustments in the next budget including a further reduction in current expenditure on public services. Despite all the hard choices of the past year we would still have to go further in laying the path to recovery and this means there will be less money available to public services in the medium term. The challenge in delivering public services is how to achieve more with less and deliver a quality and responsive education system to meet our economic and social objectives in these difficult times.
I acknowledged at both conferences the difficult period we are going through in terms of industrial relations and that the measures taken by the Government had impacted on the living standards of their members and other public servants. I stated that I wished it were otherwise and that no Government would want to take the measures we have had to take if they could be avoided.
I welcomed the agreement framed following discussions under the auspices of the LRC and made clear the Government's view that it represented a reasonable basis to move forward and accepted that the unions must conduct and conclude their own internal processes on the agreement.
Why was it the case that her Department took four full weeks to clarify key questions the teaching unions had on aspects of the Croke Park deal, particularly in respect of teacher holidays and the length of the school day? When clarification was sought a month ago, why did she not choose to directly address teachers about their concerns at the two teacher conferences she attended? Given that many teachers are currently voting on the Croke Park deal in the various ballots now taking place, can she confirm that it was only yesterday that her Department finally gave the written clarification the unions sought?
During those conferences it was not appropriate to persuade the members of the union to vote one way or the other. I put forward the case that, in my view, what was an option arising from Croke Park was the issue which, without a doubt, was accepted by the Government, negotiated between both sides under the auspices of the LRC and that my view at that time was that it was the best option available from the Government but I asked each individual to consider it. If I were to dictate to members of any union what shouldhappen, it would be completely inappropriate during a time of consultation and thought processes.
I agreed to clarification because I wanted to ensure a number of things. If I was to give clarity in one way or another, my grave concern was that I would be seen to try to influence a particular union or members of a union when those people wished to have their own evaluation of what was happening. At present, voting is taking place for a number of unions and clarity was sought. I indicated to a number of teachers who had concerns that those concerns were unfounded but following discussions in the Department, my representative at those discussions and the leaders of the unions asked for a letter to clarify the situation. The way in which it has been worded gives clarity about the time teachers are expected within tuition.
Concerning management of an issue, is this not a terrible way to do business? The teachers did not want to be persuaded by the Tánaiste or anybody else. They wanted facts. I attended those conferences as did Deputy Quinn. All the questions teachers raised with me in the course of discussions were simple and the Tánaiste could have clarified matters in the address she was asked to make at two of the teachers' conferences. They did not want her or anybody else to persuade them but simply wanted facts.
The Tánaiste has now provided the facts, at one minute to midnight, as it were, when the teachers are voting on this deal. Is this not an extraordinary act of incompetence on her part and that of her Department? She provided the information that was sought a month after the first request for it and at a time when the ballot is taking place.
I was not negotiating. People must agree the format first and then there is negotiation. I was not going to be in a position to stand up at a forum of an INTO or TUI conference and negotiate with the body of the house. That is not what I was doing.
The Tánaiste is their employer.
Teachers spoke about their concerns and about whether the contract would impact on the number of days of tuition expected by the State. I gave clarification that it would not. That is the situation.
I have one final question.
The Deputy will be very brief.
As the Deputy knows, what was written in the agreement referred to the hour that had to be worked by the respective teachers.
I have one other question. In the course of her speeches to both the INTO and TUI conferences, the Tánaiste alluded to further cutbacks in the education sector, to come possibly next year. Can she give further information to the House at this stage, given there will be more people in our education system next September than at any time in the past 100 years?
That is a separate question, unless the Tánaiste wishes to say something on it, briefly.
As the Deputy knows, we had a discussion yesterday at the joint committee meeting. We are not in a position to discuss what reductions will take place in the overall budget because we are not yet at that stage.
Question No. 4 answered with Question No. 2.
5 Deputy Ulick Burke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills when she will allow a school (details supplied) in County Galway to go to construction in view of the fact that it has been waiting for ten years, without progress, to replace appalling conditions such as over-crowding and a lack of facilities; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [18575/10]
Amharc ar fhreagraI can confirm that the school to which the Deputy refers has applied to my Department for major capital funding.
All applications for large-scale capital funding are assessed against published prioritisation criteria which were introduced in 2004 following consultation with the education partners. Under the criteria, each project is assigned a band rating which reflects the type of works required and the urgency attaching to them. There are four band ratings, with band 1 being the highest and band 4 the lowest. Projects are progressed in accordance with the band rating assigned to them and the availability of funding. The application from this school has been assessed in accordance with the criteria and assigned a band 1.1 rating.
In 2005, the school was selected as one which was suitable for delivery of its building project under the permanent accommodation scheme 2005 and the school authority was offered funding of €300,000 to build an extension. The school authority accepted this offer and proceeded with the planning of this project while, at the same time, appealing the amount allocated to the project under the scheme.
Subsequently, the school authority notified the Department that it had decided to withdraw from the scheme and requested that they be progressed to delivery by the traditional method. In January 2007, the school was notified that the long-term projected staffing would comprise a principal plus eight assistant mainstream class teachers. As the existing school site could not accommodate a new eight-classroom school, the patron offered adjacent parish land to accommodate the provision of a new eight-classroom school building.
The progression of all large-scale building projects, including this project, from initial design stage through to construction will be considered in the context of my Department's multi-annual school building and modernisation programme. The Department is committed to providing suitable high quality accommodation for St. Catherine's national school. However, in light of current tight economic circumstances, and with competing demands on the capital budget, it is not possible to give an indicative timeframe for the progression of the project at this time. I have already arranged to meet local Oireachtas Members, including the Deputy, to discuss this project.
If ever we wanted an example of a classic waste of money within the Department, here it is. At present the school has seven classrooms, four of which are prefabricated buildings. The other three are 60 years old, from a different age, architecturally speaking, and are too small. The cost to the school of these, on a monthly basis, is €1,728 or more than €20,000 per year. Local people are waiting since 1998 for this school. It is probable that €250,000 would probably have built it in the intervening period.
Because the school is rated at band 1.1 I ask the Tánaiste to grant the money and allow the building to progress. More than €30,000 has been spent on architectural fees, in addition to planning and other fees. The patron, Dr. Kirby, has made a site available. For reasons of health and safety associated with overcrowding and because the facilities are unbelievable I ask the Tánaiste to give sanction approval to this school as a matter of urgency.
It was obvious at the time, in 2005, that my predecessor found the school needed investment. Unfortunately, for one reason or another, it did not work out in the devolved scheme in 2005. As the Deputy knows, the situation now is that there has been a huge reduction in the amount of capital available to do this type of work.
I would like an opportunity to meet the Deputy and his colleagues to see if there is a way in which we can progress this project.
A very brief supplementary from Deputy Burke.
No time was ever as suitable or appropriate for this project to go ahead because of the current reducing costs, the new design available and the speed at which this much needed school could be provided. Again, I ask the Tánaiste to reconsider this, on the basis that everything is suitable. It was the Department, in consultation with the OPW architect, which was responsible for a great deal of the delay. The rejection of the €300,000 under the devolved scheme was not a decision taken lightly by the people. It was because of the inadequacy of the space being provided.
There are currently five teachers, three special resource teachers and two special needs assistants in the school. Surely to God, with 117 students it is overcrowded and health and safety considerations are an issue.
I do not take from the need of the school and I beg the Deputy to take that as a response. I appreciate that issues arise where people decide, for one reason or another, that something should not happen. In my view, the devolved scheme is a very good one. Obviously, there were reasons the board could not progress on it.
I would like an opportunity to discuss with the Deputy and his colleagues whether there is a way forward, given that the previous Minister had made a capital allocation on a number of his projects before I came into this Department. That said, I appreciate the genuine views of the Deputy and look forward to meeting him next week.
