Fiona O'Loughlin (Kildare South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator. The stark reality is that in 2019 the amount of funding schools are getting through capitation grants is 14% less than it was ten years ago. Unfortunately, schools must look for a voluntary fee, which is not voluntary, to simply open the doors and turn on the lights. It is not the fault of the schools or the boards of management; the problem is the State is letting down schools, students and parents. In our most recent report on this issue we made very strong recommendations and hope to have some engagement in the Dáil and Seanad Chambers and the Minister on them. There was good engagement by all stakeholders, but it is depressing when we must listen yet again to all of the challenges families face in trying to ensure their children receive a good basic education, even before they can have aspirations of going on to third level.

I appreciate the challenges the month of August brings, which Mr. Rolston noted. The challenges continue on when the school term finishes and the school lists are given to parents. I listen to friends and colleagues with children, who are trying to balance the books in deciding what they are going to get from one week to the next, and see all of the planning that goes into it. It is so sad that 22% of parents turn to moneylenders. One recommendation we made in our report was that there be proper engagement between the Departments of Finance and Education and Skills to examine why parents do this. Senator Ruane has given it as it is, stating people pay €35 on top of every €100 borrowed and noting why it is needed. I completely agree with her because the alternative is worse. Every parent wants to do the best for his or her child and ensure they have equality of access. However, one of the submissions we received stated the biggest inequality of all was in the equality we have. We think that by treating everybody the same he or she has equality, but that is not the case. We have to make sure every child from every family can go to school without putting added pressure on other elements of the household budget because that is what is happening.

I go back to some of the specific comments made. We asked the delegates to look at the issue of e-learning, in particular, because we are trying to examine and grapple with it. There is a relatively new phenomenon wherein some schools have introduced different tablets which they are asking parents to purchase, while also insisting that no books can be used. That is a big move. While there is a need for digital learning within schools, we have to figure out whether this is the best way forward. I appreciate that all of the delegates have addressed this issue in some way, but we need to have more engagement on complete digital learning versus book learning.

I refer to the book rental scheme. It was suggested by the ETBI that there be a leasing scheme for tablets also, but it was interesting to hear about the challenges regarding costs, delivery and the extra administrative burden such schemes put on schools, which must be recognised. There is also an issue with the differences between schools, as the scheme is sometimes administered by teachers and sometimes by parents. Barnardo's has suggested the Department update its guidelines and provide clarity on who should administer the textbook rental scheme.

Would that take away from the school's autonomy? There need to be clear guidelines.

We must recognise the burdens placed on teachers. Mr. Mulconry made the point that teaching and leadership in education were suffering because of the extra administrative burden. The book rental scheme is a good one, and the committee recommended that an extra €20 million be invested in the next budget. That amount would support up to 100 schools in accessing the scheme and reducing the cost of books for children. However, we must consider the administrative side of it. It is time intensive and imposes a significant organisational burden. Including iPads would require administration too. A suggestion was made about spreading the cost through voluntary contributions throughout the year. While that is well meant, it would be a further administrative burden. The committee hopes that, if the capitation fee was increased to what it was ten years ago, there would be no need for such a voluntary contribution. This is a major problem and it is not going to go away any time soon. It is worsening every year. We listened to representatives from SUSI in our earlier session. That the grant has not changed since 2012 is causing problems at third level, but there are also significant problems at primary and post-primary levels that we must resolve.

I will invite the witnesses to respond. They have identified the same problems that we as a committee have. Consequently, there were not many actual questions and members instead commented on what the witnesses brought to our attention. I thank the witnesses for that, and I will ask them to respond briefly as I am conscious that it is after 1.30 p.m. Perhaps we will take them in reverse order, starting with Ms Stakem. If the witnesses wish to revert to us with further information, they can contact the clerk, who will submit it to us.