Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for attending this debate. I am disappointed that the Tánaiste is not present, but I hope the Minister of State will convey to her my views on this important issue. If the Government is serious about tackling educational disadvantage, it will re-examine its recent decision.

At issue is the supply of substitute teachers who provide cover in the event of classroom teachers being absent for one reason or another. On any one day in the primary school system, there is a demand for up to 800 qualified substitute teachers. Often, there is considerable difficulty in getting them, especially at short notice or in disadvantaged areas. This has been a live issue for some time and it is incredible that we are the only OECD country that does not have a proper national supply teacher system. In the absence of a system we have had a pilot scheme for a number of years that mainly covers disadvantaged areas. This supply teacher panel comprises some 60 teachers. The scheme has been working satisfactorily until now, but the Government inexplicably and indefensible took a decision recently to abolish the panel with effect from next September. This will have a significant negative impact on many schoolchildren, particularly in disadvantaged areas. I ask the Minister of State to reconsider the decision and to discuss the matter with the senior Minister in his Department.

No money can be saved by scrapping the panel unless the Government is planning to use untrained substitutes on an unqualified rate of pay, but even that would only be in the short term. The scheme was reviewed a number of years ago, a report of which came out in July 2006 and to which I will refer in one minute. Overall, the review of the operation of the pilot scheme was favourable.

Most of the panels are in disadvantaged communities where it has proven difficult to find trained substitute teachers. The advantage of a panel is the provision of a consistent service in a prompt manner so as that the children in those classes do not lose a half day, a day or even a few days in the event of difficulty finding a substitute. Someone is available to come in at 9 a.m. to take over from the absent teacher.

There is no doubt that this system has provided fully qualified and vetted teachers. The situation in certain schools is indefensible, namely, that many of the untrained people brought in are not vetted. There are associated risks. A strong advantage of an existing panel is the vetting of the teachers involved, which means there are no worries in that regard. Where a panel operates, a regular number of teachers are known to the schools and pupils, which helps the situation. If the panels are cut, principals' workloads will increase significantly.

The review to which I referred, the Talbot value for money report published in 2006, was positive about the pilot scheme. It sought to balance the economic issues with educational and policy issues. According to it, simple discontinuance of the panel would not be a satisfactory option, as it would lower substitution costs in the short term without doing anything to address the issues around the quality of casual substitute teaching, the difficulties in disadvantaged areas or the potential risks in casual substitution, such as temporary teachers not being vetted. It is somewhat disingenuous of the Minister in her replies to parliamentary questions to use this review as some kind of justification for the cost cutting measure - seeking to abolish the panels - in which she has engaged.

There is no question but that the pilot has been a success. I have been contacted by teachers in my constituency, specifically the Ballymun area, but it also applies in the Finglas area. There are three parishes in Ballymun where, unfortunately, every school meets the criteria for being classed as seriously disadvantaged. A panel consisting of five teachers has been operating in the area for a number of years. This means that classes in Ballymun are rarely, if ever, without a qualified teacher, which makes a considerable difference to the children's respect for the schools and to reaching their educational potential. It provides consistency and quality of teaching, which is important.

Charlie O'Connor (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Shortall has gone well over time.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a matter of cutting costs. It is a retrograde step, short-sighted and a false economy. I strongly appeal to the Minister of State to ask the Minister to revisit this decision.

Seán Haughey (Dublin North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am replying to this matter on behalf of my colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Mary Coughlan. I thank the Deputy for raising it and I will be glad to outline the general position regarding the supply teacher scheme at primary level.

The scheme was initially set up at primary level over 15 years ago when schools had difficulty obtaining the services of substitute teachers. It operates on the basis of an additional full-time teacher being allocated to a school to cover certified sick leave absences in that school and a cluster of neighbouring schools. If the teacher is not required in a school on a given day to cover sick leave absences, he or she generally assists with other work such as administrative duties. There are 60 posts allocated under the scheme. A value for money review was published in July 2006 and this found that approximately 60% of these teachers' time was used to cover sick leave absences, with the balance used in respect of various other school duties. This reflects the unpredictable nature of sick leave absences.

While there are benefits for schools in having these full-time teachers available to them, it is considered more cost-effective to use the normal substitution arrangements that apply to all other schools to cover sick leave absences instead of having a cohort of full-time teachers on call-----

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What is the basis of that claim?

Seán Haughey (Dublin North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----at all times in these schools in order to cover sick leave absences which may or may not arise.

The supply teacher scheme will cease from the start of the 2010-2011 school year. It is expected that this will save €400,000 in 2010 and €1.1 million in a full year. The teachers concerned will be redeployed in accordance with the existing redeployment arrangements to other schools that have vacancies.

It is recognised that the majority of schools in Ireland may include among their pupils children from disadvantaged backgrounds. In general, most schools are equipped to support the individual needs of such children without recourse to supplementary targeted resources. Evidence shows, however, that when disadvantage levels are found in significant concentrations, schools will require additional supports to supplement their efforts to address the educational needs of all their pupils.

Delivering equality of opportunity in schools, DEIS, is the Department of Education and Science's action plan for educational inclusion. It provides for a standardised system in identifying levels of disadvantage and for an integrated school support programme. The process of identifying schools for participation in DEIS was managed by the Educational Research Centre on behalf of the Department and was supported by quality assurance work co-ordinated through the Department's regional offices and the inspectorate. There are currently 881 schools in DEIS. These comprise 679 primary schools, which include 200 urban band 1 schools, 145 urban band 2 schools and 334 rural schools, and 202 second level schools.

The main focus of social inclusion measures continues to be to retain resources in DEIS schools. There is a need to focus targeted resources on the schools in most need and this approach is in line with the broad thrust of the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which are set out in his report of 2006 on primary disadvantage. The basis of those recommendations is that the Department should focus its educational disadvantage measures on those schools serving the most disadvantaged communities.

I again thank the Deputy for raising this matter.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Discontinuing the supply teacher scheme will affect the most disadvantaged schools.