Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

471. To ask the Minister for Education and Skills further to Parliamentary Question No. 223 of 30 April 2013, in view of the exception entered into years earlier by her Department with just one private commercial organisation that provided funding based on six children, one teacher and three tutors, the reason her Department wrote in 2013 to other parents of children with autism regarding the home tuition scheme and advised them that the grant was not under any circumstances to be used where a child is receiving tuition in a group setting or in any setting that is not strictly 1:1 tuition. [37902/14]

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

472. To ask the Minister for Education and Skills further to Parliamentary Question No. 223 of 30 April 2013, in view of the statement by an official in her Department on 18 June 2007 that the arrangement was for a year pending the roll out of ASD pre-school services, the reason the arrangement with the one private commercial organisation was annually renewed thereafter and further extended to the point where the organisation now has 16 classes across nine different locations across the country. [37903/14]

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

473. To ask the Minister for Education and Skills further to Parliamentary Question No. 223 of 30 April 2013, the reason for the apparent inconsistency in her Department's policy whereby her Department has an arrangement in place for a number of years with just one private commercial organisation providing educational support in its services to groups of six children with autism in a classroom for every one teacher and three tutors, whereas the standard staff ratio in State funded ASD units within schools is for one teacher and two special needs assistants for every six children. [37904/14]

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

474. To ask the Minister for Education and Skills further to Parliamentary Question No. 223 of 30 April 2013, the reason her Department did not seek tenders for the provision of services with the one private commercial organisation mentioned in the reply especially in view of the amount of money being spent, which in 2010 alone reportedly totalled €1,634,365 and increased further in subsequent years. [37906/14]

Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

475. To ask the Minister for Education and Skills further to Parliamentary Question No. 223 of 30 April 2013, the reason the exception referred to in that reply was made by her Department for just one private commercial organisation involving the education of children with autism. [37907/14]

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 471 to 475, inclusive, together.

The purpose of the Home Tuition Scheme is to provide a compensatory educational service for children who, for a number of reasons such as chronic illness, are unable to attend school and therefore it is generally the case that the tuition is provided at the child's place of residence. In the majority of home tuition cases there will be one child in receipt of an individualised educational programme on a 1:1 basis.

A focus of my Department in the implementation of the scheme has been to ensure that the services which the Department pays for are delivered in line with the sanction provided. My Department has no preference, from an educational perspective, in the delivery of the scheme for 1:1 provision. 1: 1 provision is not an educational feature of the scheme but is an effective consequence for these children, other than in the case of siblings, who are tutored in their homes.

My Department has a responsibility to ensure that the funding for the scheme is managed and monitored appropriately. To ensure that the funding is used fully for its intended purpose the Department specified in 2013, and subsequently, to parents of children, for whom the tuition is being provided in the home, that tuition must be 1: 1, again with the exception of siblings. This is to avoid the possibility that group arrangements would be arranged without the knowledge and authorisation of the Department.

This is not a requirement of parents which have been approved for the group arrangements.

Where parents of children who are eligible for home tuition have sought alternative arrangements to be put in place for the tuition my Department has responded and facilitated by putting arrangements in place with private commercial organisations which provide group tuition to children in a class type setting. Payment in these cases is made directly to the service provider and is calculated on a group rate basis. My Department has no contract with these providers and therefore the question of procurement or tendering does not arise.

The arrangements facilitate the transfer of home tuition payments, normally paid directly to the parents, to the provider and a reduction of the rates paid in recognition of the fact that the service is less expensive than normal, as the children are tutored together. The agreed group rate is not directly comparable to the cost of school based provision which includes teacher and SNA salaries, capitation and the various other supports provided by my Department, many of which, including capitation, are not available to the private providers referred to by the Deputy.

As the Deputy is aware home tuition is not an alternative to school and is provided in very limited and specific circumstances. For children with a special educational need seeking an educational placement, tuition will be approved as an interim measure, until a school placement has been identified. The National Council for Special Education (NCSE) will assist parents experiencing difficulties in this regard. The arrangements in place with private providers are clear that where school placements are found for participating children the providers will support the child's integration into the school setting. It is for this reason that the arrangement with the initial private provider was intended to be for one year only pending the roll out by the NCSE of school based provision. However the arrangement has continued due to further requests from subsequent parents of children on home tuition to use such facilities.

The Deputy has queried further to Parliamentary Question No. 223 of 30 April 2013, the reason the exception referred to in that reply was made by my Department for just one private commercial organisation involving the education of children with autism. At that time the organisation concerned was the only one with whom my officials had concluded an agreement. Also at that point in time my officials were aware of other groups of parents of children on home tuition seeking similar arrangements. Therefore there are now similar arrangements in place with other private commercial organisations which provide group tuition to children in a class type setting.