Other Questions
59. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he has considered the evidence supplied to him from north Kildare parents (details supplied) on the provision of a gaelcholáiste for the north-eastern Kildare region; his response to the findings; if he will open a dialogue with the parents with a view to resolving the matter for them; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29408/14]
Amharc ar fhreagraI passed a document to the Minister of State detailing a survey conducted by parents in north Kildare whose children were being educated through the medium of Irish in seven gaelscoileanna under a system in which secondary schools had been provided in west Dublin in Lucan and Clondalkin. From 2015 that option will no longer be available because full capacity will have been reached in west Dublin. Pupils from six schools or seven rang a sé will have no gaelscoil to go to in 2015. It simply will not be an option for them. The survey demonstrates that there are the numbers, but a decision must be made on a gaelcholáiste in north Kildare.
If I am not mistaken, the Deputy has raised this issue previously.
I hope, therefore, that I am not repeating the same reply to the Deputy. To date, the Department has not received any formal submission from parents in north Kildare on the provision of a gaelcholáiste in the north-eastern Kildare region. There is a five year construction plan which is well established. The establishment of any new school is, therefore, considered in the context of the overall need for additional school places to meet future demographic demands. The Deputy has probably heard this before. I acknowledge that there is one post-primary school in Maynooth, Maynooth post-primary school. A new post-primary school, Maynooth community college, will be added to the provision this September. It will have an all-Irish aonad, which is the nub of the issue. I will sit down with the Deputy who may wish to address that point.
I most certainly do. The survey was provided for the Department. I am not sure who is doing the counting in it, but essentially the parents maintain that an aonad will not cut it. They have sent their children to all-Irish primary schools and the numbers in all-Irish primary schools can be counted. We do not expect every child who attends an Irish primary school to go to an all-Irish secondary school, but our experience suggests approximately 60% do. An aonad is not acceptable to them. There is now a well established community in place and the first all-Irish school was established in 1979. Essentially, what is being provided in Maynooth amounts to two second level schools side by side, with the education and training board as patron. Many of us are wondering where the Department obtained the numbers for the provision of secondary education. There is no capacity available in Lucan or Clondalkin. Put simply, the students will have no gaelcholáiste option. The parents know the difference between immersion in the language in a gaelcholáiste as opposed to an aonad which covers the core subjects core. In any case, the core subjects are often not provided through Irish. Has the Minister State read the report? Did someone read the findings of the survey and, if not, why not? If the report has not been read, will the Minister of State ensure someone will read it and come back to us with a though-out position?
As I understand it, a total of 80 places are being made available through the aonad. If the Deputy is suggesting the demand from the community for a gaelcholáiste is such that the aonad is not a sufficient response, we will have to find a way of facilitating a further conversation based on an interrogation of the survey. The reply furnished to me suggests that included in the first year enrolment at the new school will be an allocation of 31 students for the all-Irish aonad. While there is no waiting list for the aonad, an additional 85 first year places can be filled in Maynooth community college. These places can be filled either in the aonad, on the English language side of the school or between the two facilities, depending on demand.
Obviously, there is a gap between what the Department and the community are saying and, somehow, we are going to have to work to bridge it. I will speak with the Deputy after Question Time.
It is not a gap; it is an ocean. In a survey parents replied that, if they were given an aonad, 62% would opt for English. They have already made a commitment through the medium of Irish in primary school. This is a good news story for the revival of the language, but it is not lost on many that in the 2015-16 school year, 2016 being a significant anniversary, that we will go backwards in an area in which parents have demonstrated a commitment by sending children to certain schools. Every year some children cannot be accommodated in all-Irish primary schools. This issue must be examined. I will speak to the Minister of State after Question Time.
I am open to correction, but it is my understanding the Department has confirmed that, if is demonstrated that there is sufficient demand for education through the medium of Irish in the aonad over a four year cycle, the establishment of an independent gaelcoláiste can be considered.
The community has been demonstrating it for 30 years.
The Deputy and I will discuss the matter.
60. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Education and Skills regarding section 6 of Circular 0030/2014, the reason for the decision to prohibit health staff from giving their professional opinion about the educational resources required by a child with special educational needs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29254/14]
Amharc ar fhreagraHealth staff have been directed by the HSE not to include references in their reports to the specific quantum of educational resources because, according to the circular, they do not have knowledge or awareness of the current resources available. This makes it clear that the Department is unlikely to to allocate special needs assistant, SNA, posts to meet individual children's needs. It appears that the Department's considerations are more about what resources are available than what children need.
Circular 0030/2014 does not prohibit health staff from giving their professional opinion on the care needs of a child with special needs. The circular states professional reports and assessments play an important role in the SNA allocation process. There is no question in that regard.
Under the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs, EPSEN, Act, it is a statutory function of the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, to assess and review the resources required for special educational provision. In doing so the NCSE takes into account professional assessments of care needs but also considers the whole school environment, observations on a child's interaction in the classroom and the views of the child's parents, teachers and national educational psychologists, as necessary.
Circular 0030/2014 indicates that the HSE has directed staff not to include in their reports references to the specific quantum of educational resources but rather to set out the care needs of a child, while outlining that it is ultimately a matter for the NCSE to review the resources required in a school to support these needs.
It seems strange that qualified professionals are not being allowed to make necessary recommendations. There is a great deal of disquiet among parents of vulnerable children about the qualifications of special educational needs organisers, SENOs. For example, they may not hold relevant qualifications in psychology or disability services. Reports from fully qualified and accredited educational psychologists and psychiatrists are not being accepted by the Department of Education and Skills and the HSE. Parents find it difficult to understand why a SENO who may be less qualified can ignore the recommendations of an independent educational psychologist who is an expert in that field. The Minister of State will admit that SENOs are not as well qualified as these experts, yet the Department seems to be less inclined to take the experts' opinions on board.
In determining the resources and SNA supports required for a child with special needs to attend a mainstream school it is advisable to call on a suite of expertise from within the HSE, the medical profession and the NCSE.
That expertise emanating from within the NCSE is specialised, having been acquired over a certain number of years of working in the educational sphere with children with special needs and recognising the challenges they often face on first entering mainstream education. Nobody is suggesting for a moment that the professional opinion of health staff is not a valuable source of expertise to have in determining the needs of a child throughout his or her life, but in this unique setting within the school we must draw upon and ultimately trust the expertise of our network of special educational needs organisers, SENOs, under the guidance and expertise of the NCSE, in determining what exactly are the child's needs and the supports required for that child to successfully attend mainstream school. That is ultimately the judgment call that we must trust, and we do trust it.
The Minister of State is making it plain that the reason the experts' opinions are not being taken fully on board is that they do not have the knowledge or awareness of the current resources. Is this not an admission that the child's individual needs are secondary to the resources that are available? The Minister of State might say it is about time I started living in the real world and that is the way it is, but at least he should admit it and stop pretending that the child's needs come first.
The State is forcing some parents to go to court. Recently, in a case involving two families with children with Down's syndrome, Mr. Justice Nicholas Kearns directed the Department of Education and Skills to give the children the maximum resource teaching hours so they could stay in mainstream schooling. It is disappointing if the State is going to drive parents into the courts to get a fair deal. We know that only those parents who can afford to go to court will get a fair deal for their children and that children from less privileged backgrounds or from marginalised communities whose parents do not have the resources to go to court will not have the opportunity of using the courts because they cannot afford it.
It is most certainly not the intention of the Department to force anybody to go court to have the maximum possible benefits conferred upon their children in terms of their special requirements in a classroom setting. I want to point out to the Deputy once again that health professionals have an expertise in the care needs of children with special needs - nobody is denying that. That expertise is valuable in determining ultimately what types of support are available within the school setting. It is the NCSE or the network of SENOs across the country who have that unique expertise in determining the supports required. In doing so, they need to look at the layout of the school, what other special needs supports are already in place and whether they need to be augmented to prepare for a particular child. They must have an opportunity to observe the child's performance and behaviour in a classroom setting and his or her interaction with the teachers. It is only they who have the expertise to determine that.
In response to an earlier question, I pointed out that at the end of this year there will be no question of diminishing resources for children with special needs. We will have the highest number of SNAs in the history of State. We will have 480 extra resource teachers in place at the end of this year and we will have another 480 extra resource teachers in place at the end of next year. We are working hard within the resources available to us to support children with special needs.
We need to make progress.
61. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will provide an update on his talks with the teacher unions on the subject of junior cycle reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29394/14]
Amharc ar fhreagraWill the Minister provide an update on talks with the teacher unions on the subject of junior cycle reform?
The Minister, Deputy Quinn, set up a national working group for the junior cycle last January to proactively address identified challenges and opportunities as they arise over the phased implementation of the junior cycle. His officials have engaged with all education stakeholders, including the second level teachers' unions. There have been 13 meetings since January last. The Minister published a report on the work of those meetings and that group in May. The report indicated that some progress had been achieved and many constructive proposals have been made, particularly by the management and patron bodies, which will inform the discussions going forward, but the Minister continues to await similar written submissions from the teacher unions.
Nobody is denying that there is clearly further work to be done to achieve all necessary elements of the reform. The reform must be achieved. The Minister and his officials are very open to continuing discussion of issues relating to the implementation of the junior cycle, including aspects of disagreement raised by the teacher unions. The door has remained open and will remain open for such discussions.
As the Minister of State will agree and as the Minister very much acknowledges, junior cycle reform is crucial to reforming the curriculum and how it is delivered at second level.
That the Minister has been willing to progress it is positive. We would like to see this happen with everybody involved and on board. Unfortunately, because of the manner in which the Minister has handled the issue, the position, as he leaves office, is far from ideal. In May he committed to the establishment of a working group which was to be chaired by him. I gather from the Minister of State's response that the Minister has not chaired any meeting of the group because it has not yet met. I remind the Minister of State that we are less than two months from the start of the new academic year and implementation of the reform of the junior certificate. This is entirely unacceptable. Perhaps the Minister of State might clarify if it is the case that, as of now, there have been no meetings of the working group which was to be chaired by the Minister.
I am curious to know to which working group the Deputy is referring. There is a working group in place which consists of officials from the Department and representatives of the TUI, the ASTI, the school management bodies, the NAPD, Educate Together, parents, the NCCA and the SEC. This working group met on 17 January, 7 February, 7 March and 29 May. It was established to address the obstacles that had arisen in the implementation of this significant and long awaited reform and its work in that regard is ongoing. I am confident that with the ingenuity and innovation available to us from within the teaching profession and that if the two principal unions, the ASTI and the TUI, make their written submissions and take up the Minister's offer to meet him, which offer I am sure will remain open through his successor - I encourage the teacher unions to become involved in the process of negotiation - we can enter the new school year in September with a degree of certainty as to how this long awaited reform is to be implemented.
In May the Minister, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, announced that he was to invite the teacher unions to direct talks, acknowledging that the work of the working group during the course of the year had led to an industrial dispute between teachers and the Department about how the junior certificate reform programme was to be implemented. The Minister indicated that direct talks would commence following completion of this year's junior and leaving certificate examinations, but this has not yet happened. The only matter on which the Minister of State can report today is the progress of the working group, the work of which has been ongoing since the start of the year. Unfortunately, the current position is entirely unacceptable. There has been a real lack of political leadership and a willingness to pull everybody together to ensure everybody will be on board on this matter. Implementation of reform at a time when teachers are involved in an industrial dispute and have been directed by their unions not to engage in preparations and training for it is unacceptable. That direct talks have not commenced is worrying. I ask the Minister of State to ensure that when the new Minister for Education and Skills is appointed, there will be a new approach to securing agreement on implementation of this reform in September.
Contrary to the Deputy's opinion, I argue that the Minister has exhibited strong political leadership in implementing a reform that has been 25 years in the waiting. I recall that the leader of one of the unions concerned said in a statement a few months ago, "We have waited 25 years, what's another year?" I do not believe children, in particular those entering post primary education this year, can wait any longer for this reform.
The precursor to any serious engagement on any issue of this nature is that both parties make their views known, preferably in writing. While the Minister's views on the issue have been known for some months, we are still awaiting written submissions from the two unions at the heart of this challenge and opportunity. They have yet to make submissions on how they would like this reform to be implemented and have not as yet taken up the Minister's invitation to meet him. He has continually stated his door is open, but the unions have yet to walk through that door. Until they do, we cannot move on.
62. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Education and Skills the extent to which he expects to be in a position to meet the concerns and requirements of the patrons of smaller rural schools of the Protestant ethos; if he has had further discussions with such school authorities with a view to reaching agreement on the issues; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29373/14]
Amharc ar fhreagraThis question is to ascertain the extent to which dialogue continues between the Minister of State's Department and schools with a Protestant ethos, some schools with a Catholic ethos and various other schools that may find themselves at a disadvantage by virtue of their geographic location or position relative to other schools. There is a need to try to do what is best in such circumstances with a view to ensuring children have ready access to school.
I am aware of the concerns of all the patrons of smaller rural schools, including those of a Protestant ethos. How best to sustain provision for widely dispersed and small Protestant communities presents as a particular challenge, especially in any locality where the number enrolling in the school is declining to single figures and amalgamation is not an option because there is no other school nearby. The Government is intent on fostering pluralism in school provision. Supporting minority churches in maintaining their schools is part of that policy. Nevertheless, resources have to be distributed to schools in a transparent and equitable manner. In this regard, pupil numbers are the fairest basis on which to allocate resources to a school, irrespective of its type. Eight small schools of a Protestant ethos were successful in their staffing appeals for September 2014.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I acknowledge the current position as he set it out. However, I ask him to keep in mind the need to recognise the position of some of the minority-religion schools, which have been, from the foundation of the State, accorded a particular provision by virtue of their minority status. In order to ensure that this continues to be recognised, could the Minister of State indicate the extent to which dialogue is ongoing with a view to attempting to ensure the schools' fears are assuaged in so far as this can be done, notwithstanding the economic situation?
On the Deputy's question on dialogue, there is continuing dialogue on ensuring pluralism within the education system. Let me refer to a specific example. With the Bishop of Cork, Cloyne and Ross, Dr. Paul Colton, and Mr. Owens of Cork Education and Training Board, we have in Mallow, where a small Church of Ireland school closed, fashioned a new model that will create a precedent for an education and training board to join a Church of Ireland school in creating a brand new school. What we are talking about is ensuring the recognition of the faith and the right of those with that faith to educate their community accordingly. We must try to ensure there is a model, or models, to allow this to continue.
It is worth noting that there are 194 primary schools with a Protestant or Presbyterian ethos out of a total of 3,146. Based on the enrolment figures for September 2013, nine of those have one teacher, 73 have two teachers and 36 have three or more. Therefore, there is recognition of the community. There is no question about that. It is a matter of how we apply lateral thinking in coming up with solutions when numbers are decreasing in individual schools to such an extent that we need to consider new models.
Again, I thank the Minister of State. Is he satisfied, based on the discussions to date with the various school authorities, that an amicable and fair solution can be found for schools that may be affected?
There is no doubt about that. There is satisfactory dialogue on ensuring the future of these schools and on recognising the challenges they face regarding pluralism in education. The answer to the Deputy's question is "Yes".
63. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Education and Skills if he will be accepting and implementing the recent recommendations of the National Council for Special Education for a new model of allocating teaching resources for students with special educational needs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29393/14]
Amharc ar fhreagraDoes the Minister intend to accept and implement the recent recommendations of the National Council for Special Education for a new model of allocating teaching resources for students with special educational needs?
The National Council for Special Education published its report on a proposed new model for allocating teachers for students with special educational needs on 18 June last. The report recommends that a new allocation model should be developed based on a school's educational profile, while also providing a baseline allocation to every mainstream school in order to support inclusion. It was recommended that the school profile should take into account details of the number of students with complex needs attending, the percentages of students performing below a certain threshold on standardised tests and the social context of a school.
To assist with the process of considering the report's recommendations, my Department will begin to gather information required to develop the proposed new model. This will review how the proposed model will impact on schools. There will also be full and comprehensive consultation with stakeholders and education partners, including the parents of special needs children. We hope this work can be completed by the autumn.
I commend the former inspector of the Department of Education and Skills, Mr. Emmet Stack, and his group on compiling this report and for their work on it. It will be crucial that there is proper consultation and that everybody's views are taken on board before deciding how to move forward. The Minister, Deputy Quinn, in his press statement coinciding with the release of the report, struck a cautious note, saying he would carefully review the recommendations in the report and in examining how to implement a new model it would be important that he both protect the gains that have been made in special educational provision in recent years while also seeking to improve provision. However, media reports at the time indicated that the Minister was far more positive. The Irish Times reported that the Minister, Deputy Quinn, who had accepted the recommendations and had put the plan out for consultation before it comes before the Government for approval in the autumn, had said that the current system was clearly unfair and that he believed it should stop. Does the Minister expect the report to be implemented as recommended, and is there a difference between the Department's approach to it and the political leadership's approach, as in the approach of the Minister, Deputy Quinn?
It is exceptionally important in building faith and trust in the new model of allocation that very significant consultation takes place, and that will take a period of time. It is important that it should happen. The report from the working group recommends that a new special education teacher allocation model, which would target resources where the need is greatest, should be introduced. At a time of finite resources it is important that teaching supports to children with special educational needs should be targeted at those with the greatest need. The Minister asked his officials to consult fully with the stakeholders. To assist in that process, the Department will gather the information required to develop the proposed new model. The Minister, Deputy Quinn, has been very proactive in ensuring that this report was published in a timely fashion and I do not anticipate any long delay in carrying out the consultative process and coming to a conclusion at the end of that as to how the recommendations of the report will be implemented.
The Irish Primary Principals Network, IPPN, raised some concerns about the employment of teachers with restricted recognition. The IPPN chief executive officer, Seán Cottrell, said, "The proposed profiling of schools will enable those with the greatest level of need to secure the greater resource. However, some schools may lose practically all of their current supports while others may run the risk of becoming "ghetto schools". It is essential that schools which lose resources should only do so over a period of time. Many of the schools losing resources will rightly point out that the support they received was used to move pupils more quickly between bands which will be more difficult to do in the future." These are genuine concerns of the IPPN about the how the report's recommendations will be implemented. Will the Minister respond to those concerns?
It certainly is not the intention to create what the IPPN might describe as "ghetto schools". I do not understand that terminology. The Deputy is aware that as children with special needs move quite fluidly through the school system, the challenges each school faces in supporting and caring for children with special needs change and evolve over time. It is not reasonable to expect that the resources available to each school will somehow remain static.
They must change and evolve alongside the changing needs of children within the school. Concerns the IPPN might have should be addressed within the consultation model proposed by the Minister and I am very confident that they will be.
Obviously, consultation is good, as is the idea of a model that is more flexible and responsive to need. However, given the oft-repeated phrase "finite resources", problems can emerge. One particular question raised by the INTO concerns the moratorium on posts of responsibility and posts involving special duties, given that schools may have a difficulty in getting what they need and making the case for what they need because of the moratorium. In fact, the INTO claims the recommendations will be unworkable without lifting the moratorium. I would like to hear what the Minister of State has to say about this.
It is sad that the Minister of State has said he does not understand what the ghettoisation of schools means. It occurs when the mix in a school is lost. If all disadvantaged and disruptive students, as well as students with special needs, are in one school and the natural mix is lost, that is not good for the pupils and education. We hear a lot of talk about the allocation of resource teaching hours. What is going to happen in the case of children with Down's syndrome in September? A couple of months ago the Government accepted my Bill, the Down's Syndrome (Equality of Access) Bill, but I do not know what is going to happen in the provision of resource teaching hours. I have heard a lot of talk about the allocation of such hours and it was said the Minister had done a great job, but I do not think so. This morning I received a letter from the parent of a student in St. Michael's House, Baldoyle, which was losing a teacher and a special needs assistant. It provides an excellent service in Baldoyle for severely disabled children. I would like the Minister of State to respond on the allocation of resource teaching hours.
In response to Deputy Finian McGrath's question, there are an extra 480 resource teaching posts available in the school system this year and another 480 will be made available next year. By the end of this year there will be the highest number of SNAs ever employed in the school system in the history of the State and that number is set to increase next year. Within the finite resources available to us, we have, as best we can, protected special needs education within the overall education budget, which has been a central tenet of the work of the Minister, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, in the past three years.
To reply to Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett's question, if the INTO has a concern that, without lifting the moratorium, schools will not have the required resources available to them, I again suggest it take up that question in the upcoming consultation process.
64. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Education and Skills if his Department will be issuing a new circular on special needs assistants in view of the recent acknowledgment that the circular issued before Easter was badly phrased; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29395/14]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe circular referred to by the Deputy has been designed to clarify and restate the purpose of the SNA scheme, which is to provide schools with additional support staff to assist children with special educational care needs. My officials have held a number of meetings with management bodies and parent representative groups to address concerns which have arisen since the circular issued. The purpose of the circular is not and was not to reduce the level of SNA support being allocated to schools. For the coming school year, over 10,900 SNAs are being allocated to schools, which is more than at any time previously.
In order to address concerns parents may have about the circular, the National Council for Special Education has been asked to prepare an information booklet for parents to explain the provisions of the circular and allay fears they may have. To be frank, there were fears as a result of the circular. On reflection, when one considers that we are preparing an information booklet for parents to explain the provisions of the circular, it might have been better phrased.
In several of his responses today the Minister of State has indicated that the number of SNAs is higher than it has been in the past. However, the problem is that on the ground, when one goes to any school, the reality is very different. Teachers, principals and parents will tell the Minister of State what they are telling the rest of us, namely, how difficult it is to ensure SNA support is provided for a student whom they feel very much needs it.
More and more, they are being asked to share SNA resources among students. The burden and task of deciding how an SNA resource is allocated among students with a need is left with the teacher. This is a totally unfair position to leave teachers, principals and school management in because resources are stretched. Although numbers may be high, the difficulty involved in ensuring that adequate care and support is given to students who need it is very different.
This particular circular only added to the difficulty. The circular said in respect of SNA support that:
The care needs outlined must be of such significance that they are beyond that which would normally be expected to be provided to a child by the child’s class teacher, support teacher, or other school teachers, or beyond the level of assistance which could be offered to the student by his or her fellow pupils in school.
In respect of post-primary level, the circular stated that only students with chronic and serious care needs should require SNA support and that continued and ongoing access to SNA support is generally not desirable for post-primary students. The phraseology led to many of the concerns. I know the Department is putting together an information booklet but alongside this, would it not be better to withdraw that circular and put out a fresh one, which would hopefully allay many of the concerns it has caused?
I do not think it is necessary to withdraw the circular. The intent contained within it is perfectly legitimate. Recent Department and National Council for Special Education reports concluded that while the SNA scheme has been very successful in supporting the care needs of children with special needs in schools, the intended purpose of that scheme was not always generally well understood by parents or schools and the scope and purpose of the scheme needed to be clarified within that circular, which is what happened. The purpose of the circular was not to scare or somehow lead parents to conclude that there was going to a reduction in SNA supports. It was simply to clarify the role of the SNA within the school setting and I am confident that it did that. An explanatory booklet will be available for parents in the very near future. Since 2011, we have protected resources within special education in very difficult economic circumstances.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. Could he clarify his previous response to Deputy Finian McGrath about the supports children with Down's syndrome can expect this September? As has been rightly pointed out, there was a High Court case in the past couple of weeks involving two families who challenged the Government because their children with Down's syndrome were not entitled to resource teaching hours. The High Court judge ruled that those children should get the full allocation of resource teaching hours.
The only way those children got those hours was because their families went to the High Court. As things stand, the only way other children with Down's syndrome will get the same supports is through their families having the financial wherewithal to go to the High Court. This is completely unacceptable. I believe we should see a situation whereby the Government allocates resource teaching hours in September 2014 to all those children diagnosed with Down's syndrome, not just to those whose families can afford to go to court to get the hours. Can the Minister give us absolute clarity about the situation facing children with Down's syndrome who are starting school and going back to school this September?
And no ducking the question this time.
It would not be the intention of this Government to force any parent to go to the High Court or any other court to be able to access the supports their children require within the school setting irrespective of the special needs they have. I will endeavour to talk to the officials concerned in the Department and if possible, to bring that clarity to Deputies McConalogue and Finian McGrath in the very near future.
