JOINT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND SCIENCE debate -
Thursday, 22 Apr 2010

I welcome the officials from the Department of Education and Science: Mr. Jim Mulkerrins, principal officer, social inclusion unit; Mr. Hubert Loftus, principal officer, schools division; Ms Breda Loftus, principal officer, integration unit; Mr. Gary O'Donnchadha, assistant chief inspector; and Ms Anne O'Mahony, assistant principal officer, integration unit. The representatives will brief the committee on proposals to improve the provision of supports for children from multi-ethnic, multicultural societies, with particular regard to children whose first language is other than English. This follows on from a presentation given by a number of schools with a large number of students for whom English is not their first language. They spoke eloquently of the need for additional supports and to leverage the expertise they have built up over time. They could be used as role models as the number of these types of schools increases in the future owing to changing demographics.

I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but witnesses before the committee do not have the same privilege. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I ask Ms Naughton to begin the briefing on the proposals.

We welcome the opportunity to address the committee this morning and outline what we are providing to schools from the perspective of the Department of Education and Science.

One of the high level goals of the Department is to improve the quality, relevance and inclusiveness of education for every learner in our schools. To deliver on that goal the Department recognises the needs of students for whom English is not their first language. That is done primarily through the allocation of additional teaching resources. We emphasise that there are a small number of schools which have allocations of up to five or six extra teachers. The funding this year is almost €100 million and it is spent in providing schools with slightly more than 1,500 English language teachers. The level of extra language teaching support to schools is determined by the number of eligible students enrolled and the assessed level of the student's language proficiency. In fact, the annual application process for the coming school year has already begun.

We acknowledge that not one size fits all and to that end we provide additional supports for those schools at primary level with 25% of students enrolled who do not have English as a first language. This year, 73 additional language support posts were provided to 64 primary schools and some of those schools would have five or six additional teachers. At post-primary level appeals are allowed where a significant number of the total enrolment is made up of EAL students who need support. We specify that if these children are in the junior certificate class year or in senior cycle the schools can appeal the allocation they were given and in this academic year no application was received from any post-primary school.

To ensure we follow the most appropriate path to cater for the needs of our migrant students we have been carrying out significant research, particularly the report by the OECD. It was interesting to read the Official Report of the committee's meeting in February when it discussed the position in Denmark and the Netherlands in particular. The OECD report involved six countries. These included the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Austria. With them we have been examining they way those countries work with migrant students.

We also had a large-scale ESRI report that was both qualitative and quantitative and sought responses from 1,200 primary and post-primary schools. We have both of those reports and both of them are available on the websites of the Department of Education and Science and the Minister for integration. In fact, we have a portal on both websites which provides access to resource materials available on intercultural topics.

We also carried out a value for money review on the expenditure on EAL in our primary and post-primary schools. Also, the inspectorate has carried out an evaluation of the quality of teaching and learning. With the value for money review and the inspectorate's evaluation we work together to provide the recommendations for that and both reviews are being finalised currently. All of that work inputs into our intercultural education strategy along with consultations with the key stakeholders.

We emphasise, and I believe it was emphasised at the February meeting, the importance of not only looking after the EAL provision but also the inclusion, integration and intercultural perspectives in terms of the way we do this two-way process of integration.

We have provided continuing professional development, particularly for the EAL teachers and school leaders, and are taking a whole team approach.

In terms of DEIS, an extensive identification process was carried out in 2005 to support schools through the current DEIS programme but that is being reviewed and the next identification process for DEIS is taking place.

A departmental steering committee has been established which includes the Education Research Centre, the inspectorate and also the integration unit. The group will examine potential new variables in data sources. That process is happening.

We stress that migrant students are not automatically equated with being disadvantaged. The results of the last census show that migrant parents have an education level equivalent to that of their native peers.

Research, and in particular the ESRI research, shows that migrant students are a huge addition to the school because they raise the motivation of others and also the standards.

From last September the remit of the National Educational Welfare Board was extended to include the home-school-community liaison scheme, the school completion programme and the visiting teacher service for Travellers in addition to its original educational welfare service. The board is charged with developing a single, strategic approach reflecting equally the nature and strengths of each of the services. We will provide a new integrated service to children, families and schools. It is aimed at eliminating poor attendance and early school leaving and maximising school participation.

It is important also to emphasise that we now have the free preschool year, which is available for children from the age of three years and three months up to four years and six months. That happened this January.

Another aspect we want to acknowledge is that 20% of our schools are providing English language classes in the schools themselves. That is additional to the language classes provided by the vocational education committees.

The Department recognises that there are language and integration challenges for schools. We are taking a dual approach for schools with significant numbers of students for whom English is not their first language. The current pressures on the public finances mean it is not possible to provide additional resources to schools over and above what has been agreed by the Government as necessary to cater for demographics and to deliver on the commitments in the renewed programme for Government. Significant resources are already given to these schools and the challenge is to ensure they are used to maximum effect. The research projects, particularly the inspectorate's evaluation being carried out, will continue to help guide and develop Department policy into the future.

If a student comes to this country at, say, 15 years of age and seeks refugee status, automatically they are under the protection of the Health Service Executive. The HSE, with the work of the Department, then finds a relevant post-primary school for that student at, say, 16 years of age. My understanding is that when that student reaches the age of 18 they are removed from the school in question and sent from Dublin to another part of the country, largely based on cost. That student, who may have been doing the junior certificate or the leaving certificate applied and may have been in that school for two years and built up a rapport with the EAL teachers and all the other teachers, is taken from that school and sent to another school. The difficulty that arises is that this student would find it impossible to find a place in a new school because he or she would be over the age of 18 years of age. Is Ms Naughton aware of this? Can she give the committee evidence as to the number of such cases? It has been brought to my attention that on six occasions 18 year olds have been taken out of a school in Dublin and sent down the country and have been unable to complete their studies and courses. Effectively, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has acted over the heads of the officials and over those of the schools in question, which has resulted in these 18 year olds, or to use Ms Naughton's phrase, these learners in our schools, having been sent to another part of the country. Is Ms Naughton aware of that practice and can she give the committee evidence on its scale? Has she had discussions with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform about this practice, which I understand has become a common occurrence in Dublin schools?

I am aware of that practice because I worked in the Reception and Integration Agency, but I would like to correct the Deputy on one point. This happens in the case of unaccompanied minors rather than refugees while they are still in direct provision. The Reception and Integration Agency would be aware of this practice and I can get further details from that agency for the Deputy. I would not have exact details as to the whereabouts of everybody concerned.

What is the view of the Department of Education and Science on these young people being taken out of a school they have been attending, having obtained the support of that school in a multidisciplinary way? In fairness to the Department, it has provided an opportunity for those schools to provide a nurturing and loving environment for these children. I understand it is only in the past year or so that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has demanded that these 18 year olds be taken out of the post primary schools they are attending and be sent to another part of the country.

In this respect, we are talking about the remit of a few Departments and responsibility for unaccompanied minors who do not have status, as such, would lie with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Therefore, education is not a factor in terms of enabling those minors to stay in Dublin. If that Department decides that they must live in direct provision down the country, that is its decision.

I have one or two questions on the matter Deputy Hayes raised. I have had dealings with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the past and I believe that if I were to apply for citizenship, my application would be probably declined. Those in the Department are not the easiest people with whom to deal. I am not saying the Department of Education and Science should be involved in the decisions of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Is there a formal top-level system of negotiation in this respect? We are talking about a very small number of cases. By virtue of the fact that such a person's life has been disrupted, he or she may have fallen two years behind the normal educational cycle, such that when the person reaches the age of 18 he or she may be studying for the junior certificate or starting the senior cycle. Having talked to people, including the principal of the O'Connell School, I note there could be people in a class aged 20; the school is not sure of the exact age of these students but they are certainly over 18 years of age. We will raise this matter with the Minister because it is a political matter as much as an operational matter. Does Ms Naughton consider that people who are on the cusp of being integrated into our society — which is what this is all about — should not be deprived of the possibility of doing their leaving certificate in the schools they attend and that they should not be treated like cattle merely because they have reached the age of 18, are no longer the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science and have been lifted into the clutches of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform? I get the impression that there is not a high-level political co-ordination group for this specific area. In the absence of such a group, does Ms Naughton think it advisable for such a group to be established?

The Deputy might provide us with those details because as he said this is something new. We have a member of staff co-located in the Reception and Integration Agency. If the Deputy were to give us detailed information on this, we could check this out. Our obligation in this respect is that all children are entitled to a school education from the age of 6 to the age of 16. If asylum seekers come into the system before the age of 18, they are entitled to become involved in education.

I have two other questions I would like to deal with briefly as I believe a vote will be called on the Order of Business. The research in this area is interesting. Will Ms Naughton indicate the cost of it? If she does not have that information, she might communicate it to the committee.

The Department has applied a value for money evaluation for the teaching of English as a secondary language. Does the Department apply a similar logic to the teaching of Gaelic? Is there a value for money mechanism in terms of the amount of money spent by the Department of Education and Science on the teaching of the Irish language and, if so, would the methodology be similar to that which applies to the teaching of English as a secondary language?

My other question relates to item 5 in the executive summary dealing with the integration of education services. I note that from 1 September last year the remit of the under-resourced and over-stretched NEWB has been extended to include responsibility for home school community liaison, the school completion programme and the visiting teacher service for Travellers in addition to its core subject. How is that working on the ground?

Yes, a VFM evaluation. We did a value for money evaluation of teaching English as an additional language, but there is also a clause in the circular that can be applied for additional resources in terms of Irish, but the value for money evaluation was done on the teaching of English as an additional language for migrants.

I understand the Deputy's question essentially is whether a similar type VFM evaluation would be done for the teaching of Irish in general. We liaise with the Department of Finance on VFM evaluations that are carried out and obviously the Department has a limited capacity to deal with a number of VFM evaluations. Given the extent of resources, some €100 million, allocated to the teaching of English as an additional language, the teaching of English was selected for evaluation. Whether such an evaluation would be carried out on the teaching of Irish in the future is something that could be considered.

The Deputy asked how the integration of the services under the NEWB is working out. Locally it is working out very well. As practices at local level were well integrated and people were working well together, that partly provided the rationale for proceeding with it in the first place. Regionally and nationally that was not the case and it made sense that if we were learning from what was happening in local communities that we would apply it to the system regionally and nationally. At a national level, it is working very well. In the recent past, the NEWB has run a number of seminars for the senior and middle management teams and the sharing of experiences has been positive. I attended both of those seminars and fed into them the Department's perspective on the rationale for integration. There are a number of outstanding IR and HR issues.

In terms of resources, the Deputy mentioned that the NEWB is underfunded. As an agency, in the past it was primarily responsible for school attendance and concerns were expressed about resources. The new integrated services bring an additional 600 staff, approximately, including home-school-community liaison people and full-time workers within the school completion programme. When the school completion programme is up and running at full steam there are an additional approximately 3,000 part-time sessional workers as well. It brings together approximately €70 million overall in the cost of those three programmes. We are leaving out the visiting teacher service for Travellers for the moment. The allocation this year to the NEWB alone was €9.9 million but the cost of school completion and home-school-community liaison are between €30 million and €31 million each.

The visiting teacher service is a relatively small element of this in terms of cost and numbers. There are only 41 visiting teachers for Travellers and it made sense to include them because they provide school completion and home-school-community liaison type work for Travellers.

On the day of the announcement last May, I rang the IPPN and informed it of what was being proposed. We ran a number of consultation discussions since then. The discussions were not just on the integration but we are also consulting about the identification process to be deployed in the new DEIS and on the evaluation of DEIS and the integration pieces fitting into that. The IPPN has been fully involved in that. I also spoke at the leadership development seminar before Christmas which was chaired by the chairman of the IPPN, Mr. Pat Goff.

The presentation Ms Naughton gave to the committee is impressive in that many numbers were mentioned. I am shocked at the amount of money spent on the research, especially the €250,000 to the ESRI, which is more than €300,000 already, given that so far there is no evaluation of the quality of language and learning outcomes for children with English as an additional language. Ms Naughton acknowledged that one size does not fit all in terms of the support needed. I understand that 31 children are required for one English language support teacher. Does Ms Naughton recognise that 31 children from Nigeria have more English than 31 children from Poland? What changes will be made to the allocation model used to appoint English language teachers based on the variety of needs that present in a school and the levels of English the children have?

There is a serious difficulty. Providing basic English is not adequate. It must be upgraded to providing curriculum English so the child can function at a particular level in a class. Take the example of children entering fourth, fifth or sixth class in a primary school. They are facing transition to second level education. If they are being pulled out of class to attend basic English lessons, where they learn their colours and numbers, they will be totally lost back in their class. What plans are in place to help them function at the academic level of their peers? That is critical. Does Ms Naughton have an evaluation of outcomes and, if so, how successful is the system?

I have been in contact with schools that have a large proportion of migrant children who need language support. Ms Naughton mentioned that where 25% or more of the children in a school are migrant children, the school will get extra language teachers. I am aware of a school where 33% of the children need English language support and it just has four teachers. Ms Naughton said some schools have five or six teachers. She needs to look again at those numbers.

Has the Department considered the fact that any further cuts to English language support or the premature exit of children from English language support will result in those children filling the general allocation model for learning support? As they cannot function at the required level, they will end up being put in learning support, which is not the support they need. They need language learning support; they do not necessarily have a learning difficulty. That is important. If that practice continues, the children will displace Irish children who need learning support for genuine learning difficulties.

Ms Naughton made a broad general statement in her report which she might explain. She said migrant parents have an education level equivalent to that of their native peers. What does that mean? In DEIS schools research shows that migrant students tend to raise the standards. Which standards do they raise? What percentage of migrant children raise standards? It is an incredibly general statement.

I am glad the Senator put emphasis on what is happening in schools and classrooms. The data we have is hugely valuable but the opportunity the inspectorate took to go into schools to evaluate teaching and learning has been very important. We have inspected 30 primary and 15 post-primary schools. In that inspection process we visited the schools, interviewed principals and staff, conducted extensive questionnaires with pupils and parents and visited the classrooms of both support and mainstream teachers. We reviewed planning documentation and so forth. Each of those reports resulted in a set of recommendations and advice sent directly to the schools concerned. The schools were representative of schools that have more than two EL support teachers. All the reports are available on the Department's website.

We have reported back to the individual schools and later this year we will produce a composite report to provide the overarching trends and findings with regard to quality. Our findings are encouraging regarding the quality of provision in primary schools. We found a very good culture of inclusion in the schools we inspected. Parents and pupils were overwhelmingly satisfied with the school climate. The principals are leading the integration and inclusion of migrants very well in schools in general and we found good quality teaching and good learning environments across the schools. There had been very good continuous professional development, CPD, engagement in many of the schools and we observed good planning processes in those schools.

It was very evident in the primary settings that the teachers had a very good understanding of the need both for general conversational language and academic language. All the work done on the implementation of the primary curriculum over the past ten years has paid great dividends in the understanding the teachers have that all teachers are language teachers.

The 30 inspections of primary schools and the 15 evaluations conducted in post-primary schools were published on our website. All of them are available. They contain an account of the strengths and weaknesses in each of the schools in regard to the integration of and provision for migrant learners. Later this year, we will publish a composite report in respect of that.

The evaluations of classrooms suggest there is very good practice in many of the schools and that the development of individualised teaching for EAL students and the support provided in the withdrawal settings has been working very well. There is good practice there.

As suggested by Senator Healy Eames, we would like to see more support within classrooms encouraged by inspectors. We would like to see that further developed. The new assessment kits which have been developed will provide a very good mechanism for schools to capture the particular learning needs of pupils at various levels and provide for appropriate interventions in the withdrawal settings and in the classrooms.

Deputy Quinn mentioned provision for Gaeilge and Gaeilge as an additional language. There is not really a direct parallel. Gaeilge is not an additional language in our system in that it is an official language taught in schools as a mainstream part of the programme. It is compulsory in the school system. In terms of establishing the costs of that, the costs can be inferred from the overall budget for the head count of the total number of teachers in the system. An exercise could be done to allocate the proportion of time schools spend on Gaeilge to get an estimate for the costs involved for the Deputy.

My role relates to the teacher allocations. Following up on some of the points raised by Senator Healy Eames, she mentioned 31 pupils entitled in a school to one teacher. For the purposes of clarification, that would entitle a school to two additional language support teachers.

In general terms, when we talk about language support provision it is important to make the point that the language support teachers are an additional resource to the school over and above the standard teaching cohort in the school. All of the pupils who require language support are counted in the same way as every other pupil for teacher allocations for the mainstream classrooms and for capitation, and so on. We then give an enhanced allocation to those schools based on the thresholds in the circular.

She also mentioned a school with 33% of the pupils requiring language support which had four teachers. My responsibility in the Department covers all primary and post-primary schools and I am not in a position to comment on individual cases, except to state that the school concerned may have been entitled to either two or three posts under the circular and, maybe, got one on appeal to bring it up to four. Essentially, the structure is that schools can get up to four posts under the circular and they may get up to one or two more posts under the appeals system. The main point to make is that part of the reduced numbers of language support teachers in the system comes through from the changes to the allocation thresholds but it is critically important to make the point that this all is demand driven and demand will dictate ultimately the numbers of language support teachers in the system.

On Senator Healy Eames's question about the level of education of the migrant parents which we had in our document, there was an excellent report produced by the CSO in 2008 based on the Census 2006 which looked at the answers in the census provided by what they classified as non-Irish nationals, and they asked them for their levels of education. If one looks at that, one will see the different levels of education of migrants. They looked at it from a perspective of the UK, the EU 15, the EU 15 up to 25 and the rest of the world, and they were able to classify the level of education of each. They found, unlike in countries such as Denmark and Germany, that in Ireland the majority of migrants possessed a level of education that was equal to or higher than the Irish. We must celebrate the fact that we have such level of education among migrants and they are a considerable asset to society.

We were also criticised for spending money on research. We are damned if we do and we are damned if we do not. We estimated — while the committee had a short sos — that 0.25% was spent on a once-off basis.

As well as the ESRI and the OECD reports which we paid consultants to produce, we carried out the value for money review within the Department at no extra cost. Between that and the inspector's evaluation, we are looking to see the quality of education. We are using the skills and capacity within the Department. As with other documents, we work with the inspectorate to provide us with advice on the quality of teaching and learning. I think that is all the questions answered.

I understood Ms Naughton mentioned a reduction of 100 teachers in the professional development area, from 250 to 150. Will she confirm it?

The way professional development of teachers is bring provided is different than in the past where the Department offered it to the schools. My information, from a number of schools, is that they must apply for it now and they may not get it in certain instances. Could Ms Naughton elaborate on that? She mentioned to Deputy Brian Hayes that the Department was looking at other ways of providing it. Would she expand on what she means by other ways of providing that professional development? On the ground it seems less available than it was.

Some schools that have up to 90% of children requiring language support are concerned that the system is not flexible enough to take account of their circumstances. Will Ms Naughton to address that issue? My sense of it, from the small number of schools involved, is that they are not getting the flexibility they deserve.

Ms Naughton mentioned that the Department received no appeals from post-primary schools. I ask her to expand why that is. Is it because there is not a need for it? Is it because the schools think they will not get the original decision overturned? Is it an independent appeals process? What is the process?

Has Ms Naughton any information on whether following the change in the economy there are fewer students because their parents who were here working have left?

We know from the most recent CSO statement up to April 2009 that people were leaving the country. However, we also know that people with children are not leaving. Traditionally, those are the final migration patterns to change, which makes sense. If one is established in a country, one will not pack up bag and baggage unless there is a strong incentive.

Our figures for post-primary schools show an increase from 24,000 in the previous academic year to 28,000 in this academic year. The numbers of migrants have risen at post-primary level.

At primary school, we have figures for 2007-2008 but, unfortunately, we do not have figures for subsequent years. We should have figures for this year available shortly. The figures for 2007-2008 are 44,000 and we expect that those will increase, particularly with the birth rate where there are many migrants settling in Ireland and having children here.

The figures appear to show that at post-primary the numbers are increasing. At primary level we are waiting for final figures for this year but we expect the system to continue to include a large number of migrants. In the past we might have had migrants coming in at older ages, such as aged 7 or 8, whereas much of the time now we are having migrants coming right through the system, and the English language support needs may be less. We just do not know. We must see how it progresses.

Two questions were posed in respect of why some schools have allocations of up to 90% and there is a feeling that the system is not sufficiently flexible. Following the Government's decision in budget 2009 in respect of the allocation thresholds, we wanted to set out a transparent and structured method in respect of the allocation of language support provision. As a result, we published circular 15/09, which sets out a structure and transparent mechanism in respect of the allocation of up to four language support teachers. There is flexibility in the system to give additionality to schools with high percentages of pupils who require language support.

The threshold at primary level is that if more than 25% of a school's pupils require language support, that school is eligible to appeal under our staffing appeals process. We received more than 60 appeals for the current school year from primary schools. This resulted in more than 70 additional teaching posts being allocated to the schools in question. Typically, most would have got one additional post while a small number were given two.

At post-primary level, the threshold for making an appeal is that a school must have a significant number of pupils requiring language support. There is no defined number in respect of post-primary schools and this grants a greater degree of flexibility. The circular also provides that if post-primary schools have cohorts of pupils, in either the junior or senior cycles, who require language support, they can appeal to the Department. No appeals were received, which is ultimately an issue for individual schools. We published the circular and made schools aware of it. As part of our allocation process for the coming school year, we have highlighted the fact that there is an appeals process.

Why is this happening? It may be that pupils moving to post-primary level who have already received a few years of quite decent language support at primary level are fairly well established in the context of such support. We provide more than 360 language support teachers in addition to the other teaching posts we provide to post-primary schools. The post-primary system has enhanced teaching allocations for language provision. It is just that none of the schools sought additionality over and above that through the appeals process.

We are not prescriptive in our circulars in respect of how schools should use the resource. We give them flexibility. If, therefore, schools have particularly high concentrations of pupils with language needs, it is open to them to reduce their class sizes for that cohort of pupils and use their additional language teachers in that way.

A question was posed with regard to the new format for professional development in schools. There is no doubt that our objective in respect of continued professional development, CPD, is to obtain the maximum return from the available resources relating to such development. The research and the information gleaned on foot of the 45 school inspections we have carried out indicate that we are not dealing with just an issue of teacher expertise. There is also the major contribution that really good school co-ordination and planning processes can add to quality in schools.

We envisage that any future CPD process should have a particular impact on the co-ordination function in schools and on how advice, support and guidelines in respect of how schools co-ordinate EAL provision and how the expertise available among support teachers can be communicated right across schools through staff meetings and other curriculum initiatives. In impacting on the co-ordination function through CPD, it is possible to obtain a major return, in the context of quality, as a result of adopting a whole-school approach.

Like Deputy O'Mahony, I was somewhat confused with regard to the aspect of flexibility. However, that matter was dealt with by Mr. Loftus when he outlined the position regarding circular 15/09. Am I correct in stating that under said circular schools can obtain up to four teachers and that, thereafter, further teachers might be obtained through the appeals process?

Yes. We wanted to put in place a transparent process so that schools would understand that to which they are entitled. The circular provides that, under the thresholds set down, they can have up to four teaching posts. There is also flexibility for schools with particularly high concentrations of pupils with language needs. There is a staffing appeals process that deals with those applications. Under that process, additional posts can be granted. This has resulted in some schools having up to five or six language teachers. The important point is that all these teachers are additional to the mainstream classroom teachers who are already in situ in schools.

That is extremely helpful. Senator Healy Eames referred to schools with 31 pupils who require language support. Would Mr. Loftus reply to her by stating that in such cases there would be two rather than one additional teacher? Does this mean there would be two additional language teachers as well as one teacher in the classroom, that there would be three teachers?

There were 28 pupils requiring language support in one of the schools in my constituency. I was just trying to figure out the mathematics of the situation. Are we stating that these children will have their class teachers, that there will be a second teacher allocated if up to 30 of them require language support and that a third will be allocated if the number is 31 plus?

Mr. Loftus and Ms O'Mahony referred to the demand-driven aspect of this matter. Ms O'Mahony stated that approximately 28,000 pupils at post-primary level and in the region of 44,000 at primary level come into play in this regard. She then referred to the birth rate and the fact that individuals, not necessarily families, may return home or that people may remain here and that their children may be born here. If a child is born here, is he or she considered a migrant by the education system? I would have thought that if he or she was born in Ireland, he or she would have been treated in the same way as the rest of us.

It is a complex issue. Ms O'Mahony referred to that group of people. Ms Naughton referred to some migrants who may come here and who may possess a higher level of education than some of their Irish counterparts. It is not straightforward and it is not possible to say that 20 pupils should be catered for in a particular way.

It is interesting that no appeals were made by post-primary schools. However, this might be explained by the fact that when these children move to second level they may be better versed in their use of the English language. This entire matter relates to the use of the English language. Children born in Ireland can use English better at the age of four than a child who has just entered the country. When they go to a post-primary school, they will have progressed and perhaps the teachers will feel it is not necessary to make the appeal. The officials are dependent on the school's assessment of that.

It is demand-driven and that ultimately dictates the numbers. At post-primary level, we put in more than 360 teachers. There are many teachers in there and it can be a reflection of the job being done. We should congratulate the primary school system for the job it does in addressing the language needs of pupils.

The appeals board will examine those cases. Access to the board is determined by whether the school has more than 25% of its pupils with a need and the board would then make its decision having regard to the proportion of the pupils. The appeals board operates independently of the Department. I do not make those decisions but——

With regard to the level of post-primary appeals and a significant enrolment, Mr. Loftus said the Department did this to be flexible. At what level does flexibility kick in? There must be a benchmark for what the Department regards as a significant level of enrolment. What percentage of appeals are successful?

I refer to the DEIS classification. How do migrant children fit in to a school achieving DEIS status? I acknowledge the process is under review but Mr. Loftus stated that migrant status is not equivalent to disadvantaged status. While I accept that, what is the thinking behind this and how will it have a role in the DEIS designation?

We do not necessarily see a success rate in appeals. The appeals board makes its decisions and, ultimately, that is the outcome of it. In total, 100 appeals were made and 64 schools got something from the process. Approximately two thirds got something extra. All those schools had more than 25% of pupils with language needs.

When we drafted the circular, we deliberately did not include the 25% figure to ensure eligibility to make appeals to give a little flexibility to the system, just in case there was a genuine and hard case in a school with 23% or 24% of pupils with a language need. It would be of that order. Ultimately, all that was doing was giving access to an appeals board. The board would then assess each case on its merits to see whether something was warranted. Given that there were no appeals at post-primary level, in our documentation to the school system for the coming school year's allocation, we have given more prominence to the fact that there is an appeals process. We will probably have a better idea of what is required after we go through the allocation process during the summer.

I seek clarification on the appeals process based on my experience with a school in Galway. It did not mean the school was provided with an additional teacher. It had four language teachers and this number was reduced to two. On appeal, it managed to get back up to three. That does not mean more teachers are being provided. How is that reflected in the Department's figures?

There is a new application process for language support teachers every year. It is conducted in the spring and summer each year and it is a significant additional teaching resource given to the schools. The resource under the terms of the 2009 circular would have given that school two posts and under the appeals process it was given an extra post. That was its entitlement in that year. There will be a new application process. The school's requirement for language need will dictate what it gets under the circular and if more than 25% of pupils require language support, that will determine whether it is eligible to appeal. A new appeal process will dictate whether it gets additionality.

Deputy Flynn asked how we might regard migrants in the context of the review of DEIS and the introduction of DEIS 2 or the new cycle. DEIS is a programme to deal with educational disadvantage, which is defined under section 32(9) of the Education Act 1998. It essentially means the impediments to education arising from social or economic disadvantage, which prevent students from deriving appropriate benefit from education. There is no doubt many migrants will carry one or a number of social or economic disadvantage characteristics. The characteristics used in the primary sector in 2005 were unemployment, local authority accommodation, lone parenthood, the number of Travellers within a school, the number of children from families with five or more children and the percentage of pupils eligible for free books under the free book scheme.

A number of children attending schools all over the State, irrespective of whether they are in DEIS, will carry one or several of those characteristics and, therefore, these individual characteristics do not necessarily imply a child is educationally disadvantaged. However, it is recognised that where there is a multiplicity of these characteristics, particularly where they are experienced by high concentrations of children within a community or school, it is more likely they will be affected by barriers to their education. Essentially we are talking about barriers that might be experienced within the home, community or school.

We know from the June 2009 ESRI report on adapting to diversity in particular and other research, that migrant children whether or not they carry these characteristics, are performing at equal to or better than their Irish peers. We recognise that they are bringing a new dimension to schools that was not there in 2005 when we considered this in the first instance. Ms Naughton mentioned that we have commenced the review of DEIS. At the beginning of the year we put in place a steering group which has met a number of external agents of the Department to look at the variables we will need to deploy next time out to identify schools carrying concentrations of disadvantaged children and the efficacy of the programmes we have in place to see whether they are meeting the needs of disadvantaged children. We recognise that we will have to look at the impact on schools of high numbers of newcomers. We hope that by the commencement of the autumn season we will be in a position to commence a comprehensive consultation process with the education partners, including schools, so that we can ask those questions. Obviously, the Department is somewhat isolated and is not in a position to determine this without the benefit of the experience of the school, school communities, the trade unions and the management bodies. We hope to have a fairly comprehensive consultation process in place at that stage. That will dovetail with the extensive evaluation we have maturing towards the end of the summer of the whole DEIS process and the findings of testing that has been taking place in rural and urban primary schools. We had our first round of testing in May 2007 and the second round will take place this coming May. I hope we will be in a position to gauge the impact of the supports we have in place in DEIS. I will be happy to return to the committee when that work has matured and to provide a progress report or update on it.

I was struck by what Mr. Loftus said on the flexibility allowed in the circular. This is not something one immediately associates with the Department of Education and Science. I wonder, in relation to what Mr. O'Donnchadha said about language as a communicative language and language as an academic language. There seems to be a convergence in measures of literacy, that young working class boys from the ages of 12 to 14 start to experience academic literacy problems in language and tend to drop out. The statistics show this. Does the flexibility for an English language support teacher enable a principal to combine a class that would have migrants who were having difficulty with academic English with a group of local Irish working class boys who were having difficulties with English as an academic language?

The additional resource we give for language support is primarily to meet the needs of pupils that have English language needs. The flexibility predominantly applies in a scenario where a large cohort of the pupils require language support. It provides options in terms of how additional provision is given. It gives flexibility at school level, which might mean withdrawal of a pupil for support, the language support teacher coming into the classroom or splitting up the cohort into two smaller classes.

I will give a specific scenario. In a school where a group of native Irish youngsters have difficulties with academic English and are falling behind as a consequence and where there is also a group of relatively bright migrant children who, because of their background, have good communicative English, but problems with academic English, could the school management decide to use the one teacher to address their same need, which has arisen from two different starting points?

The reality is that the problems and language needs are likely to be different. The most successful place for the development of the migrant student with good communicative English is within the mainstream class, by ensuring the contextual cues are all there in terms of supporting that person's integration.

I understand that since the ban on recruitment, the number of inspectors has reduced by approximately 20%. Two years ago there were 160 inspectors, but now there are only 133. These are the figures I received in response to a parliamentary question yesterday. How does this impact on the work of the inspectorate in this area?

We are all trying to achieve the same end. We want to bring our migrant children to as high a level as possible of English language acquisition. Has the Department or inspectorate considered the following and if so, what commitment have they made to them? Have they considered: intensive summer camps where migrant children would experience immersion in the English language; intercultural or multicultural centres in communities where there is a high density of migrant children, for example, Doughuisce in Galway; a practice called "sheltered immersion" which involves in-class rather than withdrawal support where the children are supported in the classroom; and a specific, additional English language inspectorate? Just because we do things one way does not mean that is always the right way. Have the Department and the inspectorate an open mind and what are they doing with regard to these?

In terms of how we go about the work, we do not carve up the set of inspectors and term one group a set of EAL inspectors and another a set of DEIS inspectors. We adopt a business plan approach and look at the needs of the system. Where, for example, EAL was a priority in recent years, we prioritised that in our business plan and allocated a serious level of inspection resources to it. We also ensured we had high levels of continuing professional development, CPD, in our inspectorate. Therefore, we engaged in a high level of gearing up for the work so that we had the necessary expertise. We continue to have that. In that sense, it is not appropriate to cut off a number of people for the inspections.

The Senator mentioned sheltered immersion. That is very good proxy for the kind of best practice we are actively pursuing, in particular in primary schools where we suggest the EAL support teacher could work within the classroom and alongside the mainstream class teacher.

I accept that. On the learning support process, we encourage in-class support and our inspection reports highlight that a level of that goes on. As children progress through primary school into more senior classes, the student or learner prefers the withdrawal model. I understand, therefore, that there are other context factors that run against our advice.

I am not validating it. What I am explaining are some of the context factors that surround how schools employ learning support or EAL withdrawal. However, we are strong advocates of providing the best blend of models, withdrawal support where that is appropriate, but also in-class support. We want to ensure we minimise the lost curriculum time for learners, whether they are learning support category or ——

I do not think the Department is monitoring the situation that closely. My experience from talking to children at the upper end of the primary school is that they often do not want to be pulled out for support. Getting the support in the class is not about embarrassment. It is often to do with the traditional model not being changed.

When we engage with schools in whole school evaluation, we examine the support for students very carefully. Where weaknesses are identified, in terms of either learning support or EAL support, we communicate that clearly to the board of management and to the whole staff in a plenary staff session and where we regard it as sufficiently serious, we follow up with schools.

We are currently joining up our inspection processes so that inspections in 2009 or 2010 become a development agenda which we can use when we return to a school for either a whole-school evaluation or for an unannounced inspection. We can then follow up on whether the school has moved on in that regard.

There are examples of summer camps which have been provided to the programme refugees who come into the country. This model is being examined because we are looking at different models. The VECs, including in Galway, have worked with several schools to provide resources to the schools where the migrant parents and the Irish parents can work together. They can access language tuition and work on aspects of child care, and English and intercultural studies for non-Irish parents can be provided. We try to work from the mainstream model. The funding provided to adult literacy and adult language courses is provided through the VECs.

The Department confirmed today that there are 600 fewer language support teachers and there has been a reduction in the number of inspectors and 100 fewer people available for professional development. We have also been told there is an increase in pupil numbers in primary and secondary schools. The problem is how to provide a better service or an increase in services with the numbers being cut all around the place.

Teacher allocation is my area. The circular No.15/09 sets out thresholds for the allocation of the language support teachers. If there is increased demand in the system the number of teachers will increase accordingly. It is demand-driven and this will ultimately dictate how many teachers will be in the system. After the summer, we will probably have a better idea of the number of language teachers in the system and the demand in terms of pupils.

The new application process has begun. We are receiving applications which will give us a better understanding of the numbers expected in the system in September. Even though numbers might increase at post-primary level, ultimately, the numbers requiring language support could be a different figure. The figures given to the committee were for the overall number of migrants but many of them might have very good English and would not require any language support. It is important to look at the full picture.

In common with many other public services, we are talking about working smarter. I made the point that it is not so much about seeking more resources for schools. We have put resources into schools and now it is time to ensure we are getting the yield from that resource. Many decisions can be made in schools which will have a different outcome in terms of quality, such as decisions about co-ordination, school planning, joining up the work of withdrawal teachers and mainstream class teachers. Resources are available for CPD which can be co-ordinated in an intelligent way. These are all relevant to working in a smarter way.

The inspectorate is working in a different way. We have introduced a new practice of unannounced inspections at primary level so we will be able to get around to more schools and follow up on particular items.

I wish to clarify to the Deputy that the migrant numbers I gave refer to migrants who speak English as an additional language and those who do not. We estimate around 30% of the cohort are native English speakers so they can be removed from our calculations. The profile of our migrants is changing. There is a big difference between a teenager with no English coming into the system and a four year old with no English coming into the system. There is a critical period hypothesis which says that children learn English much easier at earlier ages and this experience is reflected in the schools. We might be looking at a different profile of students and this may also affect demand.

I wish to raise a number of points. I know the journalists do not write the headlines but I refer to some very reprehensible headlines arising from the previous committee meeting. I suggest another headline for today, "Cloud of volcanic ash covers committee". It looks as if there has been a great deal of hot material spewing out of the volcano and we are not getting to the nub. At the previous meeting I said I understood the Department of Education and Science had taken an interest in the debate that morning and I proposed we invite a delegation from the Department to respond to the recommendations made by the delegates. This was agreed by the committee. Page 10 refers to one recommendation but other than that, the whole debate between the committee members and the visiting delegation bears no relevance to what took placeon 11 February. It is as if they are two separate meetings. It would be remiss of me not to put the points made on 11 February to the members which is what I am going to do, no matter how long it takes. I will acknowledge that the DEIS 3 was mentioned on page 10 but it was not mentioned in the executive summary or in the opening remit. However, I appreciate that DEIS 3 was mentioned.