Ms Moira Leydon:

The committee has been given a very comprehensive and diverse picture of the issues, so, like Mr. Mulconry, I will paraphrase our written submission. First of all, we must be honest and state that nobody underestimates the complexity of the issues, including challenges in terms of demographics and spatial development. During the almost ten years of austerity from September 2008 onwards, the country did not have the money to engage in planning to address the issues which the committee is now addressing. We are all very mindful of that fact, and that the Department of Education and Skills has engaged in forward planning. The Department website states that 14 new schools catering for more than 10,000 pupils have been opened in the past five years, which indicates that the system has not stood still.

However, there are significant demands on the system and it is important for the committee to be aware not alone of the very pressing demographic demands but also demands due to technological developments, the integration of information and communication technology, ICT, into classrooms and the changing nature of education as a critical resource for society, the economy, labour productivity, etc. A 2016 ESRI report stated that there are infrastructural deficits in terms of the capacity of buildings to integrate new ICT, in addition to problems caused by the slow roll-out of broadband. There are also special educational needs demands on school buildings in terms of access, participation and accommodation, as adverted to by the Joint Managerial Body, JMB.

Ms O'Connor, my colleague from the INTO, referred to changes in the pupil-teacher ratio. The teachers' unions will not let that issue go away. It is a vital issue for us. Smaller pupil-teacher ratios require accommodation changes.

The ASTI considers the prioritisation of well-being to be a further driver of demand. We carried out research over the past eight years or so on the impact of austerity budgets on schools which revealed that chaplains and guidance counsellors in some schools had to give up rooms used to meet pupils on a one-to-one basis because the rooms were commandeered for teaching purposes. We must consider the capacity of schools to offer supports in terms of well-being and its priority in our curriculum and for the youth of this country. The ASTI also wishes to highlight the issue of the infrastructural capacity of our schools to facilitate the STEM - science, technology, engineering and mathematics - strategy, which is a very serious matter.

On curriculum change, it is very exciting that there is far more active learning. A teacher at primary or secondary level will have children sitting around tables, learning from each other, and the teacher will visit the tables. That is a far more dynamic environment than was previously present in schools. However, one cannot facilitate that in classrooms which are too small. It is important that committee members, as legislators, are aware that the demands are not solely due to demographics but, rather, are change demands which must be addressed.

I have two more points to make.