Northern Ireland Assembly

I will call two more Members to speak, and then I will ask the Minister to respond.

I would like to thank Mr Ken Robinson, who generously allocated me some of his time when this subject was debated last March.

This is an extremely important issue. It has been said that the most formative years of a child's life are those up to the age of five when he learns approximately three quarters of what he will learn throughout his life. He learns how to speak, how to walk, how to eat and how to go to the toilet. That is very interesting. The current pre-school selection criteria for children of two years of age in their penultimate pre-school year are laid down in Regulation 2:4 of the Pre-school Education in Schools (Admissions Criteria) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998.

What happens when two-year-olds in their penultimate pre-school year go to nursery school? There is no stipulation that these children should have any social training whatsoever. It is important that teachers are there to teach and educate, not to act as nannies. I do not take anything away from those who do act as nannies, but professional teachers need to teach. It is ironic that when these statutory rules were introduced they contravened article 32 of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which says

In my constituency there are two schools. One school is 25% undersubscribed; the other is heavily oversubscribed.

It used to be the case that the Catholic Maintained School was undersubscribed and it took the overflow from the school that was oversubscribed.

According to these criteria, two-year-olds could end up receiving two years of nursery education while certain three-year-olds may get none. That cannot be right. The applications must be received by the end of April. There is no longer any flexibility which will allow schools to work with each other so as to ensure that there is nursery provision for all children.

Mr Benson and Mr Bell touched on the issue of "provision by ward" as a way of determining social disadvantage. Mr Bell noted that in some areas the rate of unemployment is running at two-thirds. There are some areas within my constituency which have been designated, using the Robson indicators, I believe, as socially disadvantaged areas. There are certain pockets of real social disadvantage in those areas. However, there are also quite affluent areas within those wards. The system needs to be reviewed and refined street by street in order to ensure that the need is properly targeted.

Mr Sammy Wilson raised the issue of integrated education. Two integrated schools in urban areas were given the go-ahead to provide nursery units for 26 pupils, and one in Mr Wilson's constituency was not because of the insistence that the names of 52 pupils be provided. This is something which should be investigated. I feel that this is not in keeping with remit of the Good Friday Agreement. There are double standards and a lack of equality. We cannot talk about equality and only pay lip-service to it whenever it suits us. This is a very real issue for all parents in Northern Ireland and not just those who decide that they will send their children to integrated schools because they will have a better chance of getting them in. That would be fundamentally wrong.

As well as increasing the number of free pre-school places to 75% of primary school children, the Minister's statement said that there was going to be an extra £38 million. Mr Wilson said that about £24 million of that was allocated last year. Mr Robinson mentioned that £35 million is to be allocated in March of this year. We need to find out the true figure and what additional money has been allocated.

Unfortunately there are still a lot of mobile classrooms in our schools. There are schools with spare classrooms, and it may be that, as Mr Benson has suggested, instead of building new schools we could use these classrooms. That may allow more money to be spent on widening the provision further.

I thank Mr Poots for bringing this matter back to the Assembly. We should have as many children as possible in nursery education - as close to 100% as we can possibly get. I urge the Minister to reflect that this idea of social disadvantage - of having parents turn up at a school with a benefit book to show that they are either on income-based jobseeker's allowance or income support - is totally wrong. It creates a stigma and harks back to the days when some people got yellow dinner tickets and some got red dinner tickets, when people thought they were less well off because they got free dinners, and when certain children were stigmatised for being poor. Teachers should not have to make those decisions. The selection process should be suspended, if possible, so that new thought can be given as to how it should be carried out once all these extra free pre-school places are available.

Is this 75% of three-year-olds, 75% of four-year-olds or, bearing in mind the criteria, 75% of two-year-olds? Because two-year-olds have access to nursery education we do not know what the 75% represents, and we need to know that.

I said earlier that teachers are not nannies. If you bring two-year-old children into a classroom, it is likely that some of them will have accidents. If there is an accident, either the teacher or the classroom assistant will have to tend to that child, leaving only one person to look after 25 or 26 other children.

Most of the equipment in nursery schools is not suitable for children under 36 months. I urge the Minister to look at this aspect of the matter. He needs to concentrate on a better delivery for the three-and four-year-olds rather than on the two-year-olds.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I also welcome the additional funding which has been announced. The Assembly deserves honesty both from the Minister and from the Department. There is a lot of confusion over the Minister's announcement. It appears that the £38 million may comprise £12 million that has already been spent and £25·6 million which has been allocated to the next two financial years.

I support the concept of learning through play. It is very important for young children to develop basic social skills in a friendly, learning environment, and by playing they start to learn much more easily. I would like to concentrate on voluntary playgroups. My children have attended such groups over the past four years, and my wife was involved in the running of one.

Voluntary groups operated on a shoestring for many years before they received any funding. They continue to run car boot sales and hold other fund-raising events that the community participates in. There are financial pressures on a number of groups because of cash-flow problems. They have to pay staff weekly, while funding from the Department does not come until six or eight weeks later. This problem needs to be addressed.

We all agree with, and support, a raising of standards. However, we are under pressure to introduce new educational toys, and space has to be found for them to be stored. Many playgroups are in multi-use halls, and this creates the problem of storing toys safely and conveniently so that people do not spend valuable time carrying toys from A to B.

There is also a continuing need for the training and assessment of those who are running the playgroups, and this is very costly. The Department of Education pays for the training of nursery-school teachers, so it should be paying for the training of staff in pre-school playgroups. It is very expensive for a small group to finance this. Therefore it is important that there be continuing funding here. The mushrooming of playgroups has created a demand for those who have the necessary qualifications, and this can put smaller groups at risk.

If there are not enough trained staff in this area, qualified staff will be attracted to another group. If the smaller group is left without staff with recognised qualifications, its funding can be put at risk. The opening of new nursery schools has to be looked at very carefully.

During the past year media reports in England show that new state-funded nursery school places have resulted in the loss of pre-school education places. A nursery unit being opened beside a school resulted in the closure of two voluntary groups nearby which became unviable. Additional state money has resulted in fewer children being educated. The education and library boards, NIPPA and voluntary groups should all be carefully co-ordinated so that such costly loss of skills and educational places does not occur in Northern Ireland.

There have been comments from all sides on the need to change the existing criteria because of inequality. I am sure that all Members will support the preference given to children from disadvantaged backgrounds in their final pre-school year. But surely it is not right for children as young as two to be placed in a nursery unit with four-year-olds. Such inequality is very divisive in local communities. It is essential that inequality is quickly addressed so that in the final pre-school year every child is offered a position. Any additional places should be offered to younger children from a disadvantaged group. Few would disagree with such criteria, and I urge Members to work to achieve them through new regulations. I hope that the Minister and the Department of Education will take that on board.

Before calling the Minister I should like to make a few comments. The Minister, as a Minister should, has sat patiently through the debate. The Member who initiated the debate has also waited patiently. In a sense I am preaching to the converted. Most Members who are in the Chamber have asked questions and await the Minister's response. However, some of those who asked questions have not returned to the Chamber to hear the Minister. That is not the proper way to treat the House. I ask Members to convey my remarks to absent Colleagues, particularly to those who asked questions but have not returned to hear the Minister's response. I announced that there would be two more contributions and that the Minister would then respond. The purpose was to enable Members to be present.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Edwin Poots for initiating this debate. It comes at a fortuitous time for us in the Department because of my trip to Derry last week and because of my attempt to publicise the fact that time was running out for parents to fill in their applications before the closing date of 2 February. I also thank every Member who contributed to such an important debate.

I welcome the opportunity to hear Members' views on pre-school education. The pre-school education expansion programme, which commenced in 1998-99, is the largest ever investment in pre-school education here, with expenditure totalling £38 million and 9,000 new pre-school education places being secure. This is one of the most significant education developments in this area in recent years.

In 1999-00 almost 70% of all eligible children in their immediate pre-school years are in funded pre-school education. In September there will be free pre-school places for 75% of children in the year before they enter P1. This figure has increased from 45% just three years ago - a dramatic increase.

The essential message is, therefore, that the number of free pre-school places available is increasing each year. There are enough places to go around, and parents should be encouraged to apply for a place for their child. The aim of the expansion programme is to achieve at least 85% provision by the year 2001-02. In the context of seeking additional resources, we will want to consider how best to build on that achievement.

The development of pre-school education provision is being taken forward through partnership between the statutory, voluntary and private sectors. Of the 9,000 new places available, approximately 4,200 will be in the statutory nursery sector, and 5,000 will be in the voluntary and private sectors.

I pay tribute to the hard work of all those involved, particularly the members of the pre-school education advisory groups in each education and library board. Their expertise and extensive local knowledge will ensure that the development of pre-school provision is effectively planned. The pre-school education expansion programme is an integral part of the overall drive to raise educational standards and levels of achievement in the long term, bearing in mind that those centres which receive funded places must fulfil certain important quality requirements. I know that this has been a recurring feature of the debate, and it is a very important one.

With regard to raising education standards, places are initially targeted at children from socially disadvantaged circumstances. Research has repeatedly shown that these children fare less well at school and benefit most from pre-school education. They are given first priority under the admissions criteria in cases where a school or other pre-school centre is oversubscribed.

The enrolment criteria do not exclude the children of working parents. Next September, even if all children from socially disadvantaged circumstances apply for and receive a place, there will still be places available for the majority of other children - around 70%. I believe that this position will improve further next year.

There was criticism of the admissions arrangements for nursery schools last year, and the related publicity may have had the unfortunate effect of deterring some parents from applying for places on the programme. This year the admissions arrangements have been revised to reflect the recommendations of a focus group on the open enrolment arrangements in the nursery sector. This group reported to my predecessor, John McFall. It comprised representatives of the nursery-school sector and other key education interests, and its remit was to review the operation of the open enrolment procedures for 1999. It also advised on the need and scope for improvements to the arrangements for 2000-01.

The key areas examined by the focus group included the definition of "socially disadvantaged"; criteria for priority admission; the admission of two-year-olds to nursery schools; multiple application procedures; children with special needs; and the timetable and publicity for admissions.

I am also grateful to those involved in the work of the focus group and for their recommendations. New legislation will be required to implement some of these recommendations, and I intend to take the first available opportunity to move this forward.

The timetable for applying for nursery places has been brought forward considerably this year in order to streamline the process and is now in line with the primary school admissions process. It has been designed to enable parents to have complete information about the range of pre-school education provision available when making applications, whilst allowing schools more time to process applications and prepare for next year.

In a wider context, the expansion programme is an important element of the Department of Education's strategy for tackling low achievement and underachievement and of the childcare strategy, 'Children First', which aims to secure high-quality, affordable childcare for children up to 14 years of age in every community.

Arrangements are in place to ensure co-operation between all Departments involved in the development of early years policy, particularly through the inter- departmental group on early years. These important structures enable Departments to work together to promote and develop childcare and pre-school education in accordance with international standards of good practice.

I also want to acknowledge the important contribution made by the European Union special support programme for peace and reconciliation and the MBW and LRI initiatives, through which the further development of pre-school education has been facilitated in recent years.

I will turn now to some of the particular issues raised by Members. Some Members referred to last week's announcement. I would like to make it clear from the outset that the purpose of my statement was to ensure that parents were made aware of the opportunities being made available under the ongoing expansion scheme and the need to apply by 2 February 2000. It was made very clear that this was a re-announcement of a previous statement by John McFall.

Ms Ramsey asked whether there were plans to expand the pre-school education scheme. The available resources - £38 million - will provide for places for at least 85% of all children whose parents wish to secure a free place. Further expansion, to provide universal provision, will be dependent on additional resources. Of course, I will be pressing for extra resources. It is also important to point out that not all parents take up the offer of free school education for their children. It is an achievable objective that in the future we will be in a position to offer free school places to the parents of all children. I know that that was a recurring theme of the debate today.

Mr Roche mentioned Lord Melchett's commitment to providing a place for every child. I remain committed to the long-term objective of ensuring a year of pre-school education for every child.

With regard to the role of the pre-school education advisory groups, (PEAGs), a policy guidance document entitled 'Investing in Early Learning', which was issued to all partners in April 1998, made it clear that PEAGs would be established and that the annual pre-school education development plans were subject to local planning and submission to the Department by the education and library boards

Another Member raised the issue of school age and the curriculum. A research project is under way which is looking at the benefits of the provision, standards and curriculum available to children in all types of pre-school provision - nursery, reception, playgroups and private day nurseries - and in the home.

Mr Roche and Mr ONeill, among others, raised the issue of qualifications. The Department of Education, together with the Department of Health and Social Services and the Training and Employment Agency, arranged a bursary scheme under the EU peace package to assist all funded providers to meet the staff qualification requirements of the expansion programme.

Ms Lewsley mentioned the matter of pre-school playgroups and their difficulties. Several points were raised in the debate on behalf of pre-school providers and of NIPPA, which is an umbrella organisation representing and providing valuable and committed support to many of them. The expansion programme is being taken forward through a partnership approach, with the participation of the statutory, voluntary and private sectors. I pay tribute again to all participants in these very productive arrangements.

It has been suggested that some playgroups are facing closure at a time of expansion. I do not expect this to be widespread. All decisions on the location of new provision are taken through agreement at local level and the voluntary sector is involved in this process. With quality as the key consideration, all PEAGs have agreed to follow a set of principles that aim to keep displacements of existing pre-school provision to a minimum. My Department is taking these principles into account in responding to the draft plans.

There have been calls for capital funding for the voluntary sector. The capital funding secured for the expansion programme is to allow the statutory education sector to expand and participate in the programme. Without it, all expansion would have to be done through recurrent funding of the voluntary and private sectors. These sectors, on the other hand, have existing premises and equipment, as well as access to a wider range of funding sources than the statutory sector. I am sure that they will actively seek to access funds from other sources. We must give priority, within the resources available, to providing as many children as possible with access to pre-school education.

NIPPA has called for funding for its early-years advisers. I must say that funding is indeed provided for the support which pre-school centres require, as part of the recurrent funding that they receive for each place. In the statutory education sector an element of this is held back by the boards for their own support services. In the voluntary and private sectors it is up to each centre to decide how to secure the support it requires. NIPPA is only one potential source of such support, and to provide it with central funding for this purpose would be unfair to other potential providers of support, such as individual teachers.

The issue of social disadvantage also came up. In 1999-2000, 9,700 children were admitted to nursery schools and classes. Of this number, 3,000 qualified under the social disadvantage admissions criteria. Some 6,300 children were admitted without reference to social disadvantage.

On the subject of two-year-olds, one of the issues examined by the focus group was the admission of two-year-olds to nursery schools. I must stress that children in their final pre-school year - three- and four-year-olds - are always given priority over all other children in admissions to pre-school education. The pre-school curriculum is specifically designed for children of this age group. Children in their penultimate pre-school year can be admitted to nursery schools and classes if there are places remaining after the admission of all children in the final pre-school year whose parents have applied. It is expected that relatively few two-year-olds will be admitted, and that these will be mainly in areas where the population has declined, as new places are being targeted so as to match extra pre-school provision with need.

I recognise that in the few cases where this does occur, the admission of large numbers of two-year-olds could pose practical difficulties for schools. My Department has made resources available to assist the very few schools that are in this position. I will look carefully at the possibility of bringing forward legislation which would be necessary to restrict the admission of very young children.

Edwin Poots and Billy Bell raised the issue of pre-school provision in Seymour Hill. The development proposal for the establishment of a new nursery unit at Dunmurry Primary School is currently being considered, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment. There is currently no formal proposal in relation to Seymour Hill Primary School. Any such proposal would have to be put forward by the South Eastern Education and Library Board and the pre-school education advisory group.

With regard to the pre-school expansion programme and the phasing out of reception provision, as part of the drive to maintain and develop high-quality pre-school education the Department's policy is to replace reception provision, over time, with alternative nursery or playgroup provision which meets the standards of the expansion programme. The PEAGs have been asked to take this into account in drawing up their plans.

Patricia Lewsley raised the issue of rural areas. Currently we are seeing through the plans drawn up by the PEAGs, which include innovative approaches to meeting the needs of rural areas for example, they propose community nursery units, from which children would transfer to several primary schools. The voluntary and private sectors will clearly continue to play a key role in rural areas. Reception provision will continue to be funded until it can be replaced with alternative, quality provision.

The issue of children with July and August birthdays was also raised. Children with birthdays in those months are four by the beginning of the school year. If they were not part of the initial target group for pre-school education expansion, those who failed to gain a pre-school place would not have any educational experience until after their fifth birthday.

The issue of special educational needs also came up frequently. It is a hugely important educational issue. Statistics in the Department clearly show that some 20% of pupils require different levels of special education. On my recent visit to the United States I asked officials in the Department of Education in Washington about the corresponding figure for the United States of America. They are working to a figure of approximately 11%. That highlights the seriousness of our problem. It also shows the importance of the concept of teaching children from the earliest possible age. It is a huge debate, and I am keenly interested in it.

The responsibility of the Department of Education begins when children are three. Prior to that, children are the responsibility of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. However, much work can be done. There is also an onus on parents to spot any difficulties that their children are experiencing at an early age.

The enrolment of some children with special educational needs in nursery schools is an issue that all parties and the Department of Education wish to see continuing. Under current legislation it is not possible to limit the numbers of such pupils who are admitted. My Department has encouraged nursery schools to give priority to children with special needs in the admissions arrangements - after socially disadvantaged children and those with July/August birthdays, and before other children. If a child has a statement of special educational needs which specifies a nursery placement, he or she can be admitted over and above a school's pre-school enrolment figure. In any event, many children with special needs will be admitted into nursery education under the general criteria. The Department is monitoring this position to determine how it operates in practice. Some 270 pupils with special educational needs have been admitted in the current school year.

The matter of cross-community provision was raised. I know that the PEAGs' plans have taken seriously the need to examine the scope for developing provision on neutral sites, and through partnerships, to secure places which can be attended by children from all religious backgrounds. I pay tribute to those who have worked hard to achieve this wherever possible.

With regard to the effect of the pre-school education expansion programme on existing provision, the programme's primary aim is to ensure that as many children as possible receive high-quality educational opportunities before they begin their compulsory school career, in whatever setting. I know that in drawing up their plans the PEAGs have been assiduous in taking into account, where possible, the need to encourage and maintain facilities which attract children from all religious backgrounds.

Mrs Bell raised the issue of the relationship with the childcare strategy. The pre-school education expansion programme is designed specifically for children in their immediate pre-school year. Alongside this programme there will be an increase in childcare provision for children in the 0-14 category. These programmes are complementary. The childcare strategy is being led by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

Ms Morrice said that parents need a better understanding of how the system works. I agree that parents should have better information on what services are available and how they relate to each other. My Department, through the interdepartmental group on early years, is working closely with the other Departments and agencies involved.

I think it was Mrs Carson who raised the matter of using vacant accommodation in schools for nursery provision. My Department and the relevant school authorities are seeking, where appropriate, to provide accommodation for nursery units in surplus classrooms in existing schools in areas where there is a shortfall in pre-school provision.

Sammy Wilson and some other Members referred to the £38 million for the pre-school programme. Last week's announcement was not a spin, nor was it intended to announce new money. The pre-school programme has been running since 1998-99, and the £38 million covers the four years from 1998-99 to 2001-02. The announcement, which I thought was clear, was intended solely to alert parents to the need to apply for places before 2 February.

Sammy Wilson also raised the issue of there being no places for children from working families. In his constituency of East Belfast there are already places for over 90% of children in their pre-school year, so his area is much better off than some others.

It is important to mention, on the subject of queues, that up until last year the criteria for admission to nursery schools were non-statutory. In some instances, places were allocated on a first-come-first-served basis and involved parents queuing for long periods, sometimes at night. This was not an effective or desirable way to allocate places.

Sammy Wilson also raised the issue of working parents. Assistance is given to working parents who do not receive a free place, through the working families tax-credit scheme. This is designed specifically to assist low-income families, and it provides a childcare tax credit worth 70% of all eligible childcare costs.

Barry McElduff brought up the matter of Irish-medium education. It can receive funding under the expansion programme. Irish-medium interests are also represented on each of the pre-school education advisory groups. In the current school year about 300 Irish-medium pre-school places have been funded in 17 centres.

Sammy Wilson raised the issue of pre-school provision at Cregagh Primary School in Belfast. This school could not demonstrate that it could attract sufficient pre-school children to make a statutory nursery unit viable. Therefore my Department could not provide new-build accommodation for the voluntary playgroup that uses part of the school building. However, the Department has invited alternative proposals for providing accommodation. Another key factor is that there is undersubscribed nursery provision within walking distance of the school.

Billy Bell referred to the viability criteria for new nursery units. The minimum number of pupils for whom my Department can approve a nursery unit is 26. However, a unit that could attract 52 children would receive the maximum benefit from the capital investment. Pre-school education advisory groups have been encouraged to consider the needs of all sectors when drawing up plans. There is no question of different treatment for the integrated sector - or for any sector, for that matter.

Jim Shannon raised the issue of full-time versus part-time nursery-school provision. In the 1999-2000 school year 8,300 full-time places and 7,400 part-time places are available over all the pre-school centres. With regard to part-time enrolment the pre-school expansion programme is being taken forward on the basis of the creation of part-time places - two and a half hours, as opposed to four hours for full-time places. This means that provision can be made for the maximum number of children within the available resources. Whether or not the pre-school provision should be increased in duration, or extended, is a matter that could be considered in the context of the 2000 spending review.

Ken Robinson mentioned the pre-school programme funding and whether it amounts to £38 million or to £35 million. The £38 million relates to a four-year period, as I said earlier. The £35 million is the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, which covers three years. I hope that is clear.

All of the pre-school education expansion places are carefully monitored from the point of view of quality. We ensure that the common curriculum drawn up by the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment is followed. We also ensure that there is at least the minimum staff-to-child ratio. There must also be at least the minimum accommodation requirements, and the Education and Training Inspectorate inspects all funded centres.

There are consistent staff qualification requirements, and an early-years specialist is involved in every centre to provide support in the planning and the assessment of children. Mr Ken Robinson raised the issue of the number of places being allocated to two-year-olds. In the 1998-99 school year the total number of nursery school places was 13,300. Of these, 330, or 2·5%, were allocated to two-year-olds. In the 1999-2000 school year there were 15,500, of which 550, or 3·5%, were allocated to two-year-olds. Their places are funded in all pre-school settings.

Mr O'Connor raised the matter of open enrolment and of multiple application forms. The use of a multiple application form would be desirable for nursery education, but it is not possible under existing primary legislation. In respect of this, as with other focus group recommendations, the first opportunity will be taken to amend the law. In the meantime, a phased application process with clear stages will apply for the year 2000-01. This should lead to a smoother operation of the admissions processes. In circumstances such as those described by Mr O'Connor it will be open to parents to apply to both schools. That would apply in the cases that he mentioned.

Mr O'Connor also raised the issue of teachers having to spend time checking parents' eligibility under social disadvantage criteria. From the year 2000-01 arrangements have been made for social security offices to certify eligibility under the social disadvantage criteria. This will avoid the need for teachers to make checks. That is a very important point.

With regard to funding for training, it is intended that this should be covered from their £1,130 grant per place.

I intend to write to Members about specific pre-school projects and playgroups which have not been covered in my response today. If I have overlooked any other issues or points raised please contact me or my Department, and we will gladly reply.

The Minister did not address a particular question. I am sure his civil servants have been working furiously in the background, but -

Order. It is not allowable to put questions after the Minister has spoken.

This is grossly unfair, Mr Speaker.

Order. It is not allowable to raise another question. If the Member wishes to take the matter up with the Minister he may do so, either at another time in the Chamber or in writing, but it is not in order to do so after the Minister has started to speak.

<<Prev