Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise this important issue with the Minister for Education and Skills and I thank him for his attendance. The House will be aware that the Government has increased the pupil-teacher ratio in fee-charging schools to 21:1. It is 19:1 in other State-funded schools. Public debate on this issue has been shrouded in claims of elitism and privilege and a false perception, exemplified by the comments of the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Alan Kelly, that parents who make a choice and sacrifice to send their children to fee-charging schools can afford to pay more and more such that the State can pay less and less. Many fee-charging schools are being kept open by donations, trusts, legacies and by little cost to the taxpayer.

Protestant fee-charging secondary schools have a diverse and varied pupil make-up. They are located throughout the State. They comprise people from differing socio-economic backgrounds and different academic achievement. Many of these schools are struggling to stay open. Article 44.2 of the Constitution has been cited as a reason to change the status and fee-paying structure. This is a narrow interpretation and it fails to recognise the equality deficit in practice.

When planning his innovative free education scheme the late Donogh O'Malley acknowledged that because the Protestant minority of the population was so small and scattered the State would be unable to provide for their children in the same way as for their majority Catholic colleagues. Successive Governments have agreed to provide a special block of funding, currently to the tune of €6.5 million. There are 26 Protestant fee-charging schools and there is a need to recognise and preserve choice and diversity in education. There is a need to cherish the plurality of educational expression.

There are 26 such schools in 12 counties. Many people living in my constituency do not have a school in close proximity. Many of those who wish to avail of a Protestant or minority faith education must travel, while many must board. If the pupil-teacher ratio is to rise further, the cost of providing an education will rise, the range of subjects on offer will fall, schools will close and the result will be greater cost to the taxpayer.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with Deputy Charles Flanagan's remarks. We are discussing this item as a Topical Issue because on Sunday evening a Minister went on television and stated the Government was considering removing the subvention for teachers who taught in fee-paying schools. I welcome all debates, discussions and comments from all sides on any matter to do with the budget. We should have an open budgetary process, about which I have been speaking for a number of weeks. My question for the Minister, whom I thank for being here, is whether it is true that the Government is considering this option. If so, let us have a full and informed debate on it and look at all the facts such as that while a €100 million subvention is paid to fee-paying schools to pay for the salaries of teachers, there is a saving to the State to the tune of €93 million, as it is €3,500 cheaper for it to have a child taught in a fee-paying school. This is something that must be recognised when we debate this issue. If we are trying to save money for the taxpayer, let us look at the actual saving to the State. If we are to have a debate on the education budget, let us look at all aspects of it. Let us look at the €63 million that will be paid next year in increments to teachers in schools, at the €50 million paid to teachers in primary schools for yard duty and at the options facing us in order that we can have a proper and informed debate on the matters that we need to discuss and the cuts that must be made in the forthcoming budget. If the issue raised is not being considered, I put it to the Minister that this is an indication that a Minister is able to fly a kite on a particular issue, yet new Government Deputies are being shut out of the process completely. Does he agree that we should be trying to open up the budgetary process to broader debate in the Dáil and among the public in order that people will not be misinformed about what the Government is thinking?

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies Charles Flanagan and Eoghan Murphy for raising this sensitive issue. I welcome the opportunity to clarify the position on it.

fee-charging schools do not receive capitation grants from the Department. Teacher allocations are approved annually in accordance with established rules based on recognised pupil enrolments. The most favourable staffing arrangements at post-primary level are targeted at disadvantaged schools. As Deputy Charles Flanagan indicated, all DEIS post-primary schools operate on the basis of a standard allocation of 18.25:1. All fee-charging schools operate on the basis of a standard allocation of 21:1. All other post-primary schools operate on the basis of a standard allocation of 19:1. The most recent statistics show that more than 25,600 pupils attend fee-charging schools. In total, there are 55 fee-paying schools, on which the State spends approximately €100 million. This money is spent entirely on teachers' salaries. As part of budget 2012, the standard staffing allocation for fee-charging schools was increased from 20:1 to 21:1.

I also announced in budget 2012 that the Department would conduct an analysis of tuition fee income available to schools in the sector and its utilisation. This analysis will inform future policy on the potential extent and nature of Exchequer investment, including funding for teacher posts in the fee-charging sector. The analysis conducted by the Department involves looking at the level of fee income based on fee rates and pupil numbers. It has taken account of Exchequer investment forgone, in terms of teacher allocations and recurrent grants, because such schools are charging fees. In this way, the additional or discretionary income available to fee-charging schools relative to other schools can be assessed. This information was shared with the schools involved and each was provided with an opportunity to provide further information on its finances and liabilities that might impact on the level of income available to it. This analysis is nearing completion and the final report will feed into the consideration of the budget. As I have said on several occasions, no decisions have yet been taken on the forthcoming budget. However, the Cabinet must examine all available options.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his comments and the clarification that no decision has yet been made on this issue, notwithstanding the current budgetary process. On minority faith schools, particularly those of the Protestant persuasion, I refer to the block grant of €6.5 million. I impress on the Minister the importance of retaining the full sum, having regard to the points I made and the difficulties being experienced by these schools.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for being here to discuss this issue. I welcome some of his comments and clarifications, particularly that the Department recognises the investments already made by individuals in fee-charging schools that have meant the State has not had to carry the burden. When the report is finalised, Members of the Dáil should have the opportunity to discuss it and look at all of the details before a decision is taken in the budget in December.

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Much of the information is being given to us from the schools on condition that a certain degree of confidentiality is maintained. I have to consider that request if we are to have a meaningful discussion on the issue prior to the budget.

The programme for Government contains a commitment to a provision for diversity in the education system. There is diversity in many directions dating back to before the foundation of the State when all second level schools had a contract with it which ensured teachers' salaries were paid in all schools. The payment of salaries was in return for schools teaching the State's curriculum, including for the intermediate certificate examination, as it was known at one time, and all subsequent examinations.

As Deputy Charles Flanagan stated, in the 1960s Donagh O'Malley introduced free education. The deal was simple: if schools voluntarily chose to enter the scheme, they would forgo the fees they charged in return for a capitation grant which, in theory, was supposed to replace their lost income. There was a scale of fees for different kinds of schools across the country, with which everybody was familiar. Because of the scattered and low density nature of the reformed church community, a special provision was made for that community whereby in order for it to administer a free fees scheme, it received a block grant, to which Deputy Charles Flanagan referred, which it administered in its own way. That system has been operated since the 1960s and there are no proposals to change it. The remaining schools are of the Catholic tradition of varying size in various parts of the country. As I stated, we have asked them to indicate to us what their income is and what it is used for - for example, whether it underwrites the cost of new buildings or is used to pay for additional services and tuition. We are in the process of completing the examination and will then consider what options, if any, are open to us.

No section of the budget has been ring-fenced or is sacrosanct other than what is protected by the Croke Park agreement. That will remain the case until a new deal is put in place. If there is to be a new deal, it is up to all involved to decide what they want to put on the table.