Priority Questions
1Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will be seeking to ensure that all teachers’ allowances are protected under the review of allowances for public servants; his views on whether all such allowances are considered part of teachers pay under Croke Park; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19683/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraAs the Deputy will be aware, the review of allowances in the public service which is ongoing at the moment is being conducted by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, and I understand that the Minister intends to bring proposals to Government shortly. The Government has reaffirmed the key commitments under the public service agreement, including that there will be no further reductions in pay rates for serving public servants. These commitments are contingent on delivery of the required flexibilities and reforms to public service delivery.
Allowances paid to teachers form only a part of the overall remit of the review. It would not be appropriate for me at this stage to comment on any specific subset of allowances, pending the outcome of the review and its consideration by Government. I have made and, of course, will make my views on these issues known in the appropriate fora.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I understood from his comments at the teachers' union conferences that he was conscious that allowances are part of the core pay of teachers. It is my understanding that teachers' allowances are considered part of the core pay under the Croke Park agreement.
The Croke Park agreement has delivered benefits. As Fianna Fáil was part of the Government that negotiated that agreement, I consider it important that it continues to work and bring further benefits in the delivery of services to the public and in better management of the public service. I ask the Minister, therefore, to state clearly that the Croke Park agreement will not be reneged upon.
It is often forgotten by the public, although not by the Minister, that there needs to be an incentive for people to engage in ongoing professional development. There must be an incentive and a reward for that.
I confirm everything I said at the teachers' conferences. It is clearly on the public record and I refer to it again here in the House. The Deputy is absolutely right. If an allowance is part of a payment and the allowance is reckonable for pensionable purposes, any reasonable person will conclude that it is part of one's pay and conditions. These matters are still ongoing.
On the second point, section 30 of the Teaching Council Act will soon be activated. We are talking about education. I presume that when certain legislation is finalised in the House, I will be able to bring it into operation. One of the conditions for continued registration under section 30 of the Teaching Council Act will be demonstration to the satisfaction of the Teaching Council's own terms and conditions that continuing professional development is ongoing. I support the Deputy in his observation.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle and I represent rural constituencies and are conscious that in the early and mid-1990s a major effort was made to develop a network of education centres throughout the country. That development was of great importance. The teaching profession, to its credit, led the campaign to have the facilities put in place on a regional basis in order that there would be access to ongoing professional development courses. Given the effort that has been and is being made with the profession in terms of upskilling and ongoing professional development with regard to technology, languages and science, it is important that the incentives and rewards are copperfastened and remain in place, as they have been recognised as part of core pay.
I share the Deputy's view. Modern technology has aided and supported continuing professional development through online course provision in many professions, but it must be seen as an additional resource to face to face contact and the interaction provided by teaching centres. I will bear in mind what the Deputy has said because I recognise the necessity, as does the profession, for continuing professional development.
2Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Education and Skills in view of his stated support of children from disadvantaged backgrounds having access to a full and inclusive education, if he will agree to implement a review of schools in the primary and post primary sector that are currently servicing areas of high disadvantage and which fit all of the criteria of DEIS but are doubly being penalised as they are outside the current DEIS programme; and the reason some rural DEIS schools are losing concessionary teachers and do not appear to be included in the past budget review as promised by him. [19686/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraA key priority for my Department is to prioritise and target resources in schools with the most concentrated levels of educational disadvantage. That challenge is significant, given the current economic climate and the target to reduce public expenditure. This limits the capacity for any additionality in the DEIS programme. In this context, I have no immediate plans to undertake the type of review to which the Deputy refers. I would, however, mention that three reports were published earlier this year regarding the operation of the DEIS programme. They included a report on the first phase of the evaluation of the DEIS programme by the Education Research Centre and two reports on the effectiveness of DEIS planning in primary and post-primary schools prepared by the inspectorate of the Department of Education and Skills. I am pleased to say these evaluations demonstrated positive outcomes for both schools and individual children from the DEIS programme. DEIS rural primary schools were not within the scope of the report on the net impact of budget 2012 on DEIS urban schools. In any case, the overwhelming majority of DEIS rural primary schools were not affected by the budget 2012 proposals regarding legacy posts. Of the 328 DEIS rural primary schools, only 16 will lose one legacy post each.
The question is in two parts. The reason I tabled the question on the review of DEIS schools is that we previously had a conversation in the House on this matter. It is not fair that many schools fit the criteria for the DEIS programme, but, unfortunately, because the scheme is not open to them, they are doubly penalised in respect of the changes introduced in the budget. It is wrong and unfair and makes life difficult for the schools across the country that are affected. The difference between urban and rural schools was not stressed when the Minister said he would reverse the cuts.
I said I would review the decision, not reverse it.
Did the Minister say he would concentrate on urban schools rather than rural schools?
Will DEIS urban schools lose concessionary teaching posts also?
Some of them will.
I got the impression from the Minister that he would examine schools outside the DEIS scheme. Is he now saying there is no intention to review this issue? Many of the schools outside the DEIS system fit all the criteria for the DEIS programme. At the time I said it was about pulling down barriers, not putting them up. Unfortunately, some schools are being kept outside the system. We must examine such schools in the interests of fairness. I accept the difficulty the Minister faces with resources. If he had carried out a review, at least we would know the extent of the problem, which would be helpful in the debate in trying to resolve some of the issues. Perhaps I misunderstood his intentions on DEIS rural schools, but the changes are affecting them. The loss of teachers in disadvantaged schools will have a major impact. Many people, including me, were under the impression that teachers in these schools would be safeguarded while the review was ongoing.
The removal of legacy posts was intended to deal with cases in which there were two DEIS schools in a particular area or half a dozen DEIS schools in a particular area of disadvantage where it was possible to have two schools in the same socioeconomic grouping and locality, typically in the Deputy's constituency or the inner city part of my constituency, and one school would have more resources than the other simply because it had persuaded previous Ministers to leave intact the original relatively arbitrary measures introduced without a scientific analysis and basis and managed to hold on to the new resources coming to them. For historical reasons - prior to the introduction of the DEIS programme which, from memory, was introduced in 2004 or thereabouts and on the basis of scientific criteria and a rational basis by the Department in both urban and rural areas - certain individual schools in areas of disadvantage, for whatever reasons – there were no standard criteria, as such - were included in different programmes at different times. All that we ever targeted were the legacy or additional posts. They are being reduced in some cases. In others, because of the nature and scale of the schools involved, they are being left intact.
One cannot fix a problem until one knows its extent. The message I am getting from many schools is that the cuts are doubly unfair, given that they are outside the DEIS club. I thought the matter of legacy posts had been resolved following the climbdown or review that was promised. All of us in the House accept that the DEIS programme is working. Why wreck a system when that is the case in order to remove legacy posts? Schools are dealing with major problems of disadvantage. The figures from the Department indicate that the DEIS programme is working in terms of the outcomes achieved whereby children move on to further education. The literacy and numeracy strategy is a key component of the approach required. The outcomes for DEIS schools are much more positive than they had been. If the Minister takes away the resources, we will be pulling down the house that has been built.
I understand and share the Deputy's concerns about DEIS schools, but he is probably aware - as I am - that 60% of young people coming from disadvantaged homes are not being schooled in DEIS schools. There is not a ghettoisation or concentration of disadvantage in DEIS schools, although it is self-evident that there are large concentrations of disadvantage in such schools. However, that is not the full story and I must have regard to the entire picture.
As Deputy Seamus Healy is not present, we will leave Question No. 3 and move to Question No. 4.
Question No. 3 lapsed.
4Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Minister for Education and Skills if all DEIS band 1 and DEIS band 2 schools will retain their legacy posts in September as promised this year; and the reason a number of schools have received letters in recent weeks which seem to indicate that they are either losing a legacy post or that post is being subsumed into the number of mainstream teacher posts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19684/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraA total of 140 band 1 and band 2 schools will retain the number of legacy posts required by them to implement more favourable pupil-teacher ratios under previous disadvantage schemes for the 2012-13 school year.
A range of factors contribute to determining the staffing requirement for schools, including changes to enrolment and the reforms to the teacher allocation process for 2012-13 school year. As the teacher allocation to schools is enrolment-based, this determines whether schools gain or lose teaching posts from year to year. Changes in enrolment also contribute to the number of legacy posts allocated to DEIS schools from year to year. Some DEIS schools seem to be under the impression that my decision of 21 February implied that they would retain their current number of legacy posts which is based on the 30 September 2010 enrolment. What was decided was that certain schools would retain the favourable pupil-teacher ratios under legacy disadvantage schemes. Therefore, the staffing allocation for the 2012-13 school year, including the allocation of legacy posts, is based on the enrolment on 30 September 2011.
As Deputy Crowe stated, the DEIS programme has had a positive effect on tackling educational disadvantage. That is clear from an ESRI report, and also from the Educational Research Centre in St. Patrick's College, which showed that in the period 2007 to 2010, there were significantly higher scores for children under the DEIS programmes in reading and mathematics and that those extra supports in the classroom were particularly important.
The Minister, and maybe more so his parliamentary colleagues, gave a clear message to the schools affected that the Minister's review and that of the Department that he announced in February would reverse the decisions to remove the DEIS supports.
I have had quite a number of schools in touch with me which have received letters from the Department and they are extremely concerned about the news conveyed. According to St. Francis junior national school in Priorswood, there was no mention of legacy posts in a letter from the Department regarding the staffing schedule. Our Lady Immaculate senior school Darndale currently has nine mainstream plus two legacy posts and it has been allocated its staffing schedule for 2013, which is one of ten mainstream teachers plus one legacy post, but its enrolment has increased. We can understand that if enrolment has fallen, it has a bearing on the overall teaching and support staff, but that is not the position in that school. That school is also losing a learning support teacher.
One other school that we all have seen on television, and the teachers of which we have heard speak in broadcast media, is St. Laurence O'Toole junior boys' school in North Wall in Dublin. It has one principal and eight assistant teachers, but from September it will have only five assistant teachers. They clearly understood from some of the Minister's parliamentary colleagues and some of his party's public representatives that they would be retaining their staffing complement. The news from the Department has come as a great shock, surprise and disappointment to those schools.
I thank Deputy Smith.
Thankfully, they outlined to all of us and to the Minister, who knows as well as we do, that there has been significant much-needed progress in those schools. They are extremely disappointed that the Minister's review is not delivering what they expected and what they were promised.
Deputy Smith referred to a number of individual schools. I do not have the information here and he will appreciate that.
I appreciate that.
He may wish to write to me or raise them separately. All I want to say is, we have limited resources. There is no political interference by me in the allocation of resources or individual teachers, and that is the way it should be. I think every Member in this House would accept that persons should get it on the basis of need relative to the available resources.
In some cases, there may have been adjustments to the overall teaching allocation as a result of the change in the general allocation model, GAM. As Deputy Smith will be aware, the appeals process now has closed and they will be getting indications of the allocation from the relevant section of the Department in the middle of next week, as I understand it.
I suspect from what Deputy Smith said that he is referring to the original allocation correspondence and, assuming those schools have appealed, the outcome of what they are now getting may be slightly different when they finally get the correspondence next week. However, if he has individual cases, he should bring them to me and I can ensure the appeal process was properly looked at and understood.
I will write to the Minister tomorrow with the details of the three specific schools. These are schools that appreciate that the DEIS programme and its forerunner have been significantly beneficial to children, families and the wider community. They are extremely disappointed that the most recent correspondence from the Department flies in the face of what they understood from the Minister's communications and decisions towards the end of last February and I would very much appreciate if these schools could be reviewed.
That is not a question. We will proceed to the next one.
5Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Education and Skills in view of the fact that parents at schools (details supplied) in County Wexford are to be reviewed again shortly by the National Council for Special Education, and this time, their right to appeal has been taken away from them, if the care needs of all individual children and their simultaneous need for significant special needs assistants support will be the guiding principle of the review or rather the amount of money his Department plans to allocate towards this area; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19689/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe National Council for Special Education, NCSE, is responsible for allocating special needs assistants to schools to support children with special educational needs. The NCSE operates within my Department's established criteria for the allocation of special education supports and the staffing resources available to my Department.
All schools, including these schools, were advised to apply to the NCSE for resource teaching and SNA support for the 2012-13 school year by 16 March of this year. In considering applications for SNA support for the new school year, the NCSE will take into account the individual care needs of all qualifying children, supports freed up due to any school leavers, and the identified care needs of newly enrolled children with special educational needs. Schools will be advised by the NCSE of their SNA allocation for the coming school year by June of this year.
I mentioned the appeal system in the question. I am led to understand from the main schools in Wexford concerned, Scoil Mhuire and St. Senan's, that the appeal system seems to have been taken away from them. They are expecting their review soon and it seems a little unfair that they will not get an opportunity to appeal it if they find it unreasonable.
This issue has been debated since the Government was formed and the Minister has heard most of the arguments previously. A number of parents rung me to say that, with the cuts that have been implemented to date, some children are unable to participate in mainstream classes because there are not enough SNAs to go around. They would argue that they are not being treated as equal to their peers and they are not being given quite the same chance to reach their potential in life.
I would also mention the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs, EPSEN, Act 2004 with which I am sure the Minister is familiar. The parents argue that it would allow them to appeal to the National Council for Special Education. What is more, each child, under the EPSEN Act 2004, would have an individual education plan. Would the Minister outline the progress the Department has made to date on the commitment in the programme for Government to publish an updated implementation plan for the 2004 EPSEN Act?
I have asked the NCSE to develop proposals to review the operation of the EPSEN Act 2004, particularly in the area of appeals. The programme for Government refers to the EPSEN Act 2004 but I am constrained in commissioning all of the provisions of that Act because of the current position on resources.
I will not argue that there is enough money to go around but, as the Minister will probably agree, those least fortunate and most in need of his help are probably deserving of a little more special attention. There is a scarcity of resources but the mark of the Government will be best judged by how it looks after those with most need. These parents and children have suffered considerably with the cuts over the past while and if there are more cuts coming down the tracks for them, it would be very unjust and unfair.
As Deputy Wallace may be aware, during my visit to Wexford town for the TUI conference, I had the opportunity to meet two of the parents. I spoke to them briefly and stated that I would keep the position of special needs assistants and the operation of the NCSE under review.
