Damien English (Meath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 45: To ask the Minister for Education and Science the method of evaluating expenditure on specific initiatives in place in her Department; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40246/06]

Mary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My Department approaches the evaluation of its programmes and initiatives in a number of different ways. One of these is the formal Government programme of value for money reviews, formerly called expenditure reviews, in which my Department participates. The objectives of these reviews, which were introduced in 1997, are to analyse Exchequer spending in a systematic manner and to provide a basis on which more informed policy and expenditure decisions can be made.

Value for money reviews are one of a range of modernisation initiatives aimed at moving public sector management away from the traditional focus on inputs to concentrate more on the achievement of results. They are organised on the basis of three year planning periods. The current programme of reviews is scheduled to be completed in the 2006-08 period.

A critical component of my Department's approach to evaluation is the work of the evaluation support and research unit of the inspectorate, which focuses on educational outcomes. The unit co-ordinates periodic evaluations of the quality of educational provision in primary and post-primary schools and centres for education. The approach to conducting these evaluations usually involves collection of data about student achievement levels and observation in classrooms by inspectors to determine the quality of learning and teaching. Interviews and meetings are also held with key stakeholders in the relevant schools and centres for education.

Over and above this, my Department, through its line management divisions, examines particular issues, programmes and elements of programmes to inform changed approaches. This forms part of the general obligation on public sector managers to ensure that State funds are utilised in an efficient and effective manner.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My question relates not so much to schools as to other bodies set up by the Department of Education and Science, for example, bodies such as the National Educational Welfare Board to which the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, referred in his reply to Deputy Gogarty. The Minister of State said that board meets its obligations. What I am curious about is how he judges it meets its obligations. We do not know there is an improvement in school completion rates or in the number of students making the transition from primary to post-primary level. How do we evaluate that?

We could also look at the example of the school completion programme which has one national co-ordinator, four assistants and 65 cluster co-ordinators. Separate advertisements are issued for all of these at a cost of €3,000 each. The Department still makes the major decisions on the programme and there is an automatic increase in funding each year. Are we actually getting more students to complete school each year?

I support Youthreach and am glad to see more funding allocated to it. However, it is still at pilot stage and we have not evaluated whether it should be extended or more could be achieved through it. I would like to see more evaluation done on these types of initiatives. How do the Minister and her officials evaluate such bodies?

Mary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The best way to answer the question is to give examples of the evaluations that have taken place. Two of these were published during the summer, namely, the review of the supply teacher scheme for primary schools and the review of the small school and permanent accommodation initiative. These reviews covered two very different areas.

It is easier to assess something like capital funding because one can see results, whereas it is not so easy to see results in other areas. The review of the small school and permanent accommodation initiative showed it provided value for money for taxpayers. The schools in the initiative got better accommodation more quickly than if they had gone through the traditional programme and acquired permanent rather than temporary accommodation. The funding control mechanisms were found effective and school management authorities were satisfied. It was easy, therefore, to assess that initiative.

The review of the supply teacher initiative concluded the scheme generally contributes positively to primary education in the areas in which it operates, though levels of success vary. The scheme was found to be relatively expensive in terms of cost per day of substitution, but that had to be balanced with other educational and policy issues. The review concluded that the effective provision of quality substitution would need a mixed market approach to supply the teacher scheme agency supplying casual substitution. This is valuable information for future policy direction. We know now we should not just take one route on the supply teacher scheme but that we need to have a balance. The review, therefore, identified a particular issue of value to us.

The DEIS scheme arose from the evaluation of existing schemes which were deemed too disparate and not sufficiently concentrated. This led directly into policy.

Deputy Enright mentioned she was interested in Youthreach. Some of the reviews under way include a review of the youth encounter projects, the schools ICT support services and the ICT undergraduate skills programme. New reviews proposed are a review of Youthreach, senior Travellers training centres, teacher education and school insurance arrangements. A range of reviews is being undertaken to establish the initiatives we will use for the next couple of years. These reviews look at education from the point of view of people and the buildings involved and at various other areas.

I accept the Deputy's point that we need to be able to evaluate the results of these initiatives. That is the aim of this project. We used only look at things in the context of the inputs we made, but now we also look at the results. These types of reviews will help us to determine future policy.