Several Members have declared an interest. The only interest I can declare is 30 years in the teaching profession in which it was obvious that there were serious inequalities. Now there is an opportunity to address those inequalities for all children, not just Protestant or Catholic children.

I have read the document carefully, and I may have made some mistakes and picked up some things incorrectly. However, even Sammy Wilson makes mistakes, if one is to judge by his latest press statement on the DUP website, in which he attacks the SDLP's policy on education. The Member really ought to use a spellchecker on it and rejig the grammar.

Agreeing a common funding formula for grant-aided schools has to be one of the greatest challenges ever faced by the Department of Education. Yet it is an absolute necessity, given that there are seven formulae in use at present, some with different emphases and with little to do with education, targeting social need or addressing basic equality factors.

The consultation document is well-presented and sets out what appears to be some very simple options. Yet, as the Minister freely acknowledges, children are more complex than that. The existing inequalities are much more fundamental. There has to be some degree of apprehension that in order to reach agreement, please the majority of people and win approval, key factors could be missed. That would be a tragedy. We have to ask: is the funding adequate?

Given that one in four people leave school with serious problems with literacy and numeracy - and I am not really including Mr Sammy Wilson in that - and that there are worrying differences in levels of attainment across the five education and library boards, one has to ask if the proposals in this document will improve the situation or make it worse in some cases. Will disparity between boards continue to exist? Does the reaching of a common formula divert the focus, at least temporarily, from serious issues that are making children different, causing them to under-achieve or, indeed, fail? What is in a common formula for those schools that are faced with serious challenges, which at times seem almost insurmountable? Will children who start out in life with horrendous disadvantages, such as broken homes, family upheaval, social disadvantage and other problems, be adequately accounted for by the new formula? It is critical, surely, that they are.

If economies have to be made, where will that happen? Term workers are all too often the victims of cutbacks. Their position must be ring-fenced, because they play a fundamental part, whether as classroom assistants or in other parts of the school, in ensuring that children receive personal attention. It is not clear what happens if substitute teachers are required. Will enforced economies mean that classes are doubled-up to make savings? The point I am making is that where reductions occur, soft targets must not be picked on, and the needs of children must not come second. Ideally, it would be much better to have no losers, but that is not possible, given all that must be done with the block grant.

It is to be welcomed that those schools qualifying for an increased budget will have access to it as soon as possible. That is critical if the reasons for inequality are to be addressed in the shortest possible time. We need to be clear about what is meant by relative need, and the principles of equality and targeting social need must apply to that definition. The delivery of the school curriculum must be clearly enhanced rather than diminished by changes in the funding formula, and the formula must underpin and reinforce the wider educational policy and objectives.

The success of this exercise will be judged by the degree of transparency that exists in the new policy. It is essential that it be logical, easy to administer and capable of being applied fairly. We need to be satisfied that children in every part of Northern Ireland, and in every kind of school, have an equal opportunity to achieve. Children who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own must have their needs ring-fenced so that the injustices that existed in the past are consigned to history. Is there sufficient scope to protect small rural schools in both primary and secondary sectors? How will the proposed changes fit into the challenge of regenerating the rural communities that are so important to life on this island?

I can assure the Minister that this is one document that will not gather dust. It will be scrutinised from cover to cover to ensure that the changes are in the best interests of the people who matter most; our children and their children's children.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an díospóireacht seo. De réir mo bharúla, is ábhar fíorthábhachtach é seo. Is é an rud atá faoi chaibidil againn ná an dóigh a leithroinneann an Roinn Oideachais airgead ar ár gcuid scoileanna.

I welcome the consultation. This subject has taken up a good deal of the Education Committee's time to date and will continue to do so in the coming weeks and months. Similar to Mr Dallat, I enjoyed Mr Sammy Wilson's contribution - he displayed tremendous ingenuity and imagination. I will never know how he managed to embroider Sinn Féin's electoral strategy west of the Bann on to this document. He also used phrases such as "jumping up and down" and "blowing gaskets". That terminology is perhaps more fitting to his behaviour than to that of those to whom he attributes it. He might deserve a gold star for his imagination, but there is room for improvement in his punctuality. He arrived late for an education debate today, not for the first time.

I welcome the reassurance that this is to be a genuine consultation exercise and that decisions have not yet been made. I also welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. The way in which money is channelled to classrooms is a very important aspect of the education system. There is widespread concern among different schools that the seven different formulae used at present to determine budgets delegated to schools have led to discrepancies between board areas.

I agree with the Chairman of the Education Committee, Mr Kennedy, about asking the Minister to consider an extension to the consultation period. Schools, especially post-primary ones, are currently busy with final exam preparations. Thousands of pieces of coursework are being marked and parcelled away. Far from winding down, teachers are now on an upward curve of workload and stress. For many in education, the second half of June might be the first real opportunity to give this consultation document the serious thought that it merits. As one of the Education Committee members who asked for the deadline to be moved to the end of June, I would like the Minister to consider moving the deadline forward in the light of its delayed start. That point was adequately covered by Mr Kennedy.

I agree with the Minister that there is a need to standardise how delegated school budgets are calculated. That need for standardisation should not obscure the fact that we are dealing with a society riven with disadvantage. In particular, it is important to realise that disadvantage is not only due to the circumstances of a particular child and his or her parent's income. A child can also be disadvantaged by the area in which he or she lives. In a seminal piece of research carried out in Scotland in 1991 by Garner and Raudenbush entitled 'Neighbourhood Effects on Educational Attainment: A Multi-level Analysis', it was said that psychological studies have shown that some types of residential environments are associated with particular personality characteristics. These predispose individuals to respond differently to education. The nature of the residential environment can facilitate or constrain interaction among individuals. Restricted contact with adults has been shown to influence young children's language development, and some young adults may be more susceptible to peer group pressures in such an environment.

There are other socio-economic factors in areas in which people live to suggest that there is a substantial variation in educational attainment between neighbourhoods. That is an important factor that should be added to the overall equation. The effect of area or neighbourhood deprivation is additional to the effect of individual and family background influences. When translated into employment prospects, that may be of real significance in determining the future life chances of young people. To put it simply, a child carries with him or her disadvantage from the area in which he or she lives. Two academics from Queen's University, Daly and Shuttleworth, confirmed this trend - where one lives is as important as who one is or what one's characteristics are. There is a compounding effect of disadvantage; this has an impact on a school in terms of the number of children there who suffer from social disadvantage.

Research has clearly established the link between socio-economic status and positive attitudes to schooling. Therefore if a group of 10 pupils includes three from disadvantaged backgrounds and seven from better-off backgrounds, it is likely that the attitudes of the seven will influence the three. The reverse is also true.

I suggest that in targeting social need in schools the degree of social need of the whole catchment area or school population, and not just of individual pupils, should be included as a factor.

I express caution about the inclusion of Key Stage 2 results in the calculation of TSN funding, particularly in the case of primary schools. There is a lack of standardisation, and it is financially unsound, because it channels funding to a school on the basis of the results of its outgoing pupils, not the needs of its intake. That is unfair, because it penalises those schools that achieve better results against all odds.

I welcome the fact that Mr Tommy Gallagher and my Colleague Mr Gerry McHugh emphasised rurality. Reference was made to schools with similar characteristics. School transport pressures are enormous in rural areas.

I would be interested to hear views on the premises factor and the grounds factor - the sports factor - to which some Members have referred. Similar to other Members, I very much welcome the proposals that lead to an increase in full-time early years education. Over the long haul it will be a wise investment and economy. It is obvious that that needs to be better co-ordinated and financed than previously.

I want to make a few disparate points now - disparate as opposed to desperate; there is an "i" in there as opposed to an "e". I read an article recently in which a senior official from one of the teachers' unions referred to a demographic time bomb of dwindling numbers in secondary schools. We have that problem at present with our primary schools. Is the Minister looking at that trend?

Another area, which is often referred to by educationalists, is the duplication of services in relation to the five education and library boards and the Department. There is a need to direct more money into the classroom, rather than top-slicing the money for administration. We are talking about a review of educational administration and an increase in the overall pot.

Ms Monica McWilliams asked a very sensible question in relation to the marginal increase in TSN money from 5% to 5·5%. How was that figure arrived at? The free school meals entitlement is as good a mechanism as any currently in existence for arriving at an analysis of deprivation. However, perhaps the incorporation of the neighbourhood effect into the calculations would further equalise opportunities for individuals presently suffering deprivation.

Finally, I raise a discordant note in relation to what some Members have said about support for Irish- medium education. It is only discordant for some Members, because I know that others support my view. I believe strongly that "a comparatively small factor" in the calculations should be the inclusion of support for Irish-medium schools and units. The Department proposes to bring this on to a consistent footing and to continue its inclusion in the future.

I record my party's support, and I express disappointment and surprise that the pro-agreement Ulster Unionist Party is attempting to see this aspect eradicated from the formula calculation. It is as if the Good Friday Agreement and the bounden duty on the Minister and Ministers and on the Department and Departments to take resolute action to promote Irish-medium education did not exist. Quite clearly it does exist. There is plenty of room for support for catch-up on the part of Irish- medium education and other sectors where there has been underinvestment in the past. Go raibh maith agat.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. I should declare an interest as a former teacher, the principal of a rural primary school and a member of some boards of governors.

We all wish to see education money going to where it is needed and wanted - to the classrooms and the pupils, and not to administration. Money that is well spent in the classrooms will have results for future generations. Northern Ireland has a small population of only 1·7 million, but we have a plethora of administrative bodies. Has the time not come for the House to look at some consolidation? Do we really need them all? Could savings not be made by reducing the duplication of administration and the plethora of education sectors?

The key principles listed on page 7 of the consultation document are laudable, but I am concerned with some of the wording. For example, in paragraph v.i at the first bullet point it says:

Who is going to decide what is relative? At the second bullet point it says:

Who is going to deal with that? It seems a bit wavery. Then it says at the third bullet point that

If schools are inspected only every seven years or more, who knows which school is doing what or what curriculum is being delivered?

Some rural schools are under intense pressure from a falling enrolment, and I welcome the additional funding that is to be found to enable those schools to employ an extra teacher to enable principals to spend one day a week on management and administrative duties. I was never afforded that luxury.

I note that the pupil count will exclude nursery and special classes and Irish-medium units. Children in those schools have a higher financial rating. How encouraging to have an Irish-medium unit to boost funding, but what about an Ulster-Scots unit? Can rural schools in Antrim and Down have parity of treatment and an Ulster-Scots unit?

Continuing on the theme of equality, I cannot understand why Irish-language schools need preferential treatment. I read with great amusement that these schools have been given an extra £100 per head in a lump sum - £31,000, almost £32,000, per school - for administration and management. On page 105 of the consultation document it states that this extra £100 is to meet the cost of teacher time spent on preparing materials and delivering an extra subject at Key Stage 2. If equality is to prevail in schools, should extra money not also be made available for a European language? That too could be considered as an extra and vital subject, given our developing European links. That should be considered carefully.

One group of children is not being treated equally, and that is the children in some of the preparatory schools. They have hardly even been mentioned in the document, and they gained funding set at only 30% of the approved teaching costs. Their parents have made a choice, exactly the same choice that is given to parents who wish to have their children taught through the medium of Irish. Why is there no equality of treatment for those children whose parents have made their choice? That must also be looked at carefully.

Boards of governors have a great responsibility in the appointment of staff, and they have the added concern of ascertaining how new appointments and salaries can affect the school budgets. More research should be done into the possibility of removing teachers' salaries from the LMS. Boards of governors are unpaid and should not have to undertake problems of school finance that should be, or perhaps could be, better dealt with by a central administrative body.

Schools of similar size have great variations in the salaries paid to staff, and some schools have principals and vice-principals holding protected salaries, even though their enrolments have fallen. This is an unreasonable burden on school budgets and another reason for removing teachers' salaries from the LMS.

In the chapter 'Funding Outcomes' such woolly terms as "assumptions", "reasonably accurate" and "may be considerably less" are used. These words are vague and could lead to abuse.

I urge all interested persons - parents, teachers, boards of governors, retired teachers, people with interests in children - to read the consultation in the interests of our children, and to try to ensure that all children have equal treatment with regard to school funding.

Everybody is in the humour for declaring interests, so I had better declare mine. I sit on a board of governors, and I have been a teacher for many years.

I support the motion, and I welcome the opportunity to deal with this serious problem. It is not a new problem; it has been a source of longstanding concern for many involved in the profession, and others. As Members are aware, it is also an important and significant part of the Programme for Government, which set out to create a single funding formula with regard for equality and the New TSN.

However, who could disagree with an investigation into how available resources should be more equitably distributed? One of the outcomes of the document is that there will be an increase - and a considerable increase, in some cases - of funding for smaller schools, particularly rural primary schools. That emphasis by the Minister of Education and the Department is to be welcomed.

Members have listened to, watched and lived through too many instances in which local rural schools were closed down, thus causing great distress to the community. Once the school goes, that community begins to lose its identity - it is like taking the heart of a rural community. However, it is good to see that efforts are being made to ensure small schools' survival because those schools can provide a competent curriculum - that is particularly important, and that is where resources are so important.

However, if the corollary of that is to try to reduce funding in the secondary sector, which is already hard-pressed, I fear that educationalists in both sectors will be unhappy. Robbing Peter to pay Paul will not work and will not be accepted.

I also looked with some interest at the effects on the education and library boards when a reduction of £15 million was suggested in the higher options. I noticed that the Belfast Education and Library Board managed to save some money in the funding arrangements, but other boards will have to pay for that reduction. The South Eastern Education and Library Board will have to pay £1·5 million, and the other boards will have to pay roughly £3 million, £4 million and £5 million. The £15 million received from that will be used to help with some of the proposals. I wonder if that has been rationalised. When the proposals are being examined it is hoped that sufficient time is given to examining how the boards will deal with that reduction.

Do we wait to see how the review of local services pans out? My own preference is that we proceed now with funding and the establishment of principles rather than wait for the outcome of the review. Perhaps the outcome is relevant to boards and what will happen to them, but the significant point to be addressed is how they are to achieve that saving. The Minister referred to TSN's providing some assistance through the Curriculum Advisory and Support Service (CASS) and other mechanisms. My fear is that the first thing to be cut will be the CASS provision that boards provide, which could result in redundancies. What will happen to substitute cover? The situation may arise in which a primary school head teacher cannot take a day away from school because substitute cover is unavailable.

Commonality of funding requires some detailed examination. Why should centrally held resources, which involve many schemes that schools welcome and readily participate in, be included in the general schools budget? Should that not come as an initiative from the Department? Does it not create an imbalance to have it included in the general schools budget? Perhaps separate funding is the answer.

We are told that the implementation of a common LMS formula will bring greater fairness, consistency and transparency to school funding. Members have already spoken about LMS, and I do not think I am alone in thinking that LMS is a con job carried out on educationalists and a secure basis on which to build a budgetary regime.

Several Members have already stated that on average, 80% of the schools' budget is spent on salaries. I agree with Ken Robinson's point, because my experience has been that the percentage is often 90% of the schools' budget. Some Members are not paying due regard to the awful situation that that can produce. As each year passes and the age profile of the teaching staff increases, a significant economic scissors exercise is initiated. That cuts into the non-salary part of the budget to such an extent that head teachers carry an enormous burden trying to make ends meet and provide additional resources. The Department has given some support, but essentially it is not a good system for debasing a budgetary profile, and it must not be tolerated.

Management committees are faced with the possibility of making staff redundant to undo the scissors effect. And who will be made redundant? Experienced teachers, the most valuable resource, will be made redundant, because they earn the highest salaries. Is that fair to our profession? Is this what we want to do - remove the best teachers? More importantly, is it fair to our children to remove their best resource - professional, experienced teachers? That is what has happened. Nobody in the Chamber today can put their hand on their heart and say that that has not happened. I am sure that Members know of examples, and I can give them to you if you need them.

I hope that the inquiry into the local management of schools, which I understand is in tandem with this consultation, will ensure that this Thatcherite policy is got rid of. That policy was about trying to make schools more businesslike. We cannot make businesses out of our schools. We have learned that it cannot be done - mostly with regret. In any new proposals, the Department of Education should meet teaching costs in full.

As a former history teacher, I would like to be permitted to give the Minister and my good friend, Sammy Wilson, a brief history lesson in TSN. In the early 1990s, the former Department of Education for Northern Ireland set aside 5% of the schools' budget for social need. That was meant to ensure that schools with deprived children would receive extra funding. The money was then allocated on the basis of the number of children who were entitled to free school meals, which was the indicator that was used at the time.

The setting aside of only 5% was criticised in 1997 by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its report 'Underachievement in Northern Ireland Secondary Schools'. It concluded that

There was no rationale; the figure was based only on previous expenditure.

TSN funding is money that should have been spent on educational projects, but in a new money scenario. In other words, it should not have been done in the same way as before.

The Committee looked at the identified needs of TSN in 1997.

That 5% was also criticised by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights (SACHR), who agreed with the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that the allocation of TSN was merely old money with a new name. SACHR said:

That is important, particularly for those interested in the private or preparatory school agenda. I repeat:

- that is, the higher -

That is some disparity. Do not challenge me on those statistics - challenge the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights.

The Minister's proposals are before us. He suggests raising the figure to 5·5%, and, as he indicated, that means an extra £4 million for schools with many disadvantaged children. Plainly, this does not constitute a significant skewing of resources towards those most in need, especially when one considers that the 5% never represented new money in the first place. I find this aspect of the document disappointing. The Minister needs to review the notional cost of educating children from poor and rich backgrounds and then make a realistic inroad towards equalising it.

It is clear that an extra £4 million will not do that.

We heard comments about the number of disruptive children being on the increase. All the educational research that I ever came across linked disruption in the classroom with social disadvantage of one sort or another. There is an increasing need to provide resources to help deal with those problem children.

It is not all the responsibility of the Minister of Education. There is also a responsibility on the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to provide additional resources in many areas to help with disruptive children. The Minister will recall that the last time I spoke on this subject in the House, disruptive children were the problem that I was endeavouring to identify, but other people were talking about different kinds of political disruption. It is an issue that needs to be addressed. Under the heading of social need, a great deal could be done.

We should welcome this document as a first step, but we need to cautiously await the outcome of the consultation period with the individual schools. Only then will we get a real picture of how we should proceed, and from that we will get our recommendations.

I am trying to squeeze in a couple more Members before the Minister responds.

How very perceptive of you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to detect that I have just finished my speech.

I welcome the opportunity to speak about this document, and I have to declare an interest as I am also on a board of governors.

While it is laudable to desire a common formula, we must not blind ourselves to a number of crucial points. Too often since the Minister came to power we have seen wholesale discrimination in a number of areas. Education is now, in my opinion, the most discriminatory Department in Northern Ireland. There is a very real concern that this common formula is a mask to encourage yet more discrimination against the controlled sector.

Devising a new methodology for funding education is a bureaucrat's delight. If we read the spin, everyone is a winner. We heard the same thing when the student-powered unit of resources (SPURs) formula was introduced into higher education, although no one in the Department is capable of explaining why some colleges have been losing out.

First, any common formula must not simply be a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul. If it is a matter of removing money from the secondary/grammar sector for the primary sector, that will not be acceptable. Any legal challenges that they might bring forth because of any losses would be right and proper.

Secondly, the primary sector has not been receiving its proper and legitimate share of the funding. There is no doubt that the primary sector will be the biggest gainer from this new formula. That will not, however, address the underinvestment that is only too readily apparent. No common formula will address that. The real question for the primary sector is what steps will be taken to deal with the underinvestment. The debate over a common formula must not be used as a foil to cover up this crucial issue.

Thirdly, no common formula will address the obvious gravy-train effect that some elements bring to some schools. If we take TSN, for example, in the form of free school meals, there is overwhelming evidence that there is a lower take-up in the controlled sector than in other sectors. As a result, controlled schools are losing out, because Protestants traditionally do not seek Government handouts. There is absolutely nothing in this document that will address that issue, nor any indication that either the Minister or his Department has any interest in dealing with it.

Fourthly, there is an imperative that per capita weighting actually reflects what it costs to deliver the core curriculum in the classroom. So far, that has not been reflected in primary funding. It cannot be overlooked in favour of the more popular add-ins that are so favoured by the Department, such as social deprivation. Those elements have been milked to good effect in some schools.

Finally, there is the obvious point that the single greatest gainer by far in every section is the grant-maintained integrated (GMI) school. Is it not amazing that that sector is the one favoured by the Minister? Is it not also amazing that the new common formula helps those that the Minister is biased towards? For example, if you take large primary schools with low free school meals (FSM) the grant maintained integrated school is a massive £100,000 better off. If you take large secondary schools with low FSM, some of the most efficient will be worse off, but the one that gains most is the GMI - by a massive £300,000. That tells us everything.

The long-term impact of this new proposal will be to compound the state that education is now in. Any common base that exists soon loses its commonality once you start to add in a whole host of other data. The result will be that those elements that attract extra funding will, in time, be used by schools to get extra funding. That will inevitably mean that schools that cannot use those elements are discriminated against. Therefore instead of being reversed, the current trend will be enhanced.

We are witnessing the impact of a policy for which one child is worth more than another. It is therefore in a school's interest to concentrate on those who are worth more financially than the rest. That is grossly unfair, yet it is the policy now favoured by the Minister.

While the debate on funding will be taken up by many, it is essential that all those matters are given exposure, otherwise we will have a result where only the favoured ideas get mentioned. I implore all those involved in education to study this document very carefully. The implications are far-reaching. Equally, I would expect the Department to be flexible if the time limit has to be extended to facilitate a full response.

I want to register an interest in this subject, first, as a parent of primary-school-age children, and secondly, as a parent-governor of my local primary school. As others have stated, there are severe pressures on the primary school sector. Many are concerned that they currently have an inadequate budget, and that needs to be addressed.

Of particular concern to me, as a member of the Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee, is the large number of adults who have been through primary and secondary school but who still do not have basic educational skills. Some were failed at primary school; they struggled through the secondary school system, and eventually they came out without the education that we all would like them to have. It is important that these failings are picked up and addressed at the earliest possible level so that people's formative years in education are to their best advantage and to the best advantage of the entire community and the economy of Northern Ireland. Therefore I support additional funding for the primary school sector.

Another issue that I feel strongly about is equality. In this document we see the Irish language being set out for special treatment. That is not equality. That is creating inequality in our society. Current figures are proposing a sum of £100 per pupil to assist the development of the curriculum and an additional £25 per pupil. In a classroom of 30 pupils, that could mean an additional £3,750. The reality in existing primary schools is that they are running at a deficit or are on the breadline, through no fault of their own. They find that they are struggling to survive; they have no money whatsoever for the purchase of additional books and equipment. It is essential that this sort of thing does not happen, for it creates inequalities in society.

It is important that people have a choice in how and where they are educated. Let that be reflected in a fair system that is applied to everyone equally. Inequalities should be removed, not created.

In smaller schools in the primary school sector, and in the smaller rural schools, teaching salaries make up a vast proportion of the budget given over for local administration. However, through no fault of the school or the governors, as teachers move up the scale - through age, experience, additional training or points - their wages increase. As a result of a teacher's simply remaining at a school for a longer period, less of a budget is available for books and equipment. Surely that is wrong and needs to be addressed.

Mrs Carson asked about how we can improve the educational system in Northern Ireland, how we need to address the bureaucracy created over the years as well as the amount of money spent and the amount of duplication that occurs in the various structures developed. We have education and library boards, the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE) and the CCMS. Do we really need such duplication of services? An integrated approach to managing all schools would be better as it would ensure that the maximum amount of funding reaches our pupils.

The money should be spent on our children so that they receive the maximum amount of funding and benefit during the formative years of their education, both at primary and secondary school. We should not, for political or other reasons, allow money to be wasted, duplicated or spent through bureaucratic structures, which result in a degree of social engineering and which inhibit integration in our society.

I endorse the concept of equality and a single system of ensuring equality of funding to our schools, but I do not see that in the report. There may be some good things in the report, but work still needs to be done. My colleagues in the Committee will continue to press those points so that a fair system of equality can develop in Northern Ireland.

A LeasCheann Comhairle, I apologise to Mr Beggs for leaving the Chamber during his speech.

I am grateful to all Members who contributed to the debate. It has been important and has served to reinforce the importance attached by the Assembly to the commonality of school funding. A large number of substantive matters were raised in the debate. Given the time constraints, I will deal with as many points as possible.

Mr Kennedy raised the issue of the consultation period. The deadline of 29 June effectively allows schools three months to respond, which is substantially in excess of the standard eight-week period for consultations. Briefing conferences are being held at the end of April in each board area to explain and clarify the proposals to schools and chairmen of boards of governors and to assist them in framing responses.

Response forms, allowing for tick-box responses and further written comments if desired, have been sent to all recipients of the document to facilitate matters. Four schools have already responded.

Those measures should help ensure that schools can meet the timescale. The school summer break dictates the end of June deadline, as does the need to allow sufficient time to consider the responses to consultation and to discuss any revised proposals with the Education Committee and the Executive before they are finalised. Adequate time must also be allowed for making the necessary changes to operational arrangements in the Department and the boards to ensure the smooth implementation of a common formula in April 2002.

Schools are the key constituents. At a meeting of around 250 principals from the South Eastern Education Library Board area today no mention was made of the consultation period's being too short. The consultation period is manageable if we work at it.

Danny Kennedy, Barry McElduff, Joan Carson and some other Members raised the matter of the Irish- medium schools and units. I am satisfied that the proposals in the document are fair and equitable. Irish-medium schools and units have significant additional costs associated with their particular type of provision, and the formula must take them into account. The approach is in full accord with the principles under which the formula was developed that provide for funding according to relative need. Irish-medium schools and units do not have access to the same range of curriculum materials as other schools. At Key Stage 2, Irish-medium primary schools and units must teach English, so they carry an additional curricular requirement to English-medium schools. To fulfil this demand it is proposed that Irish-medium schools and units will receive additional help to meet the cost of teachers' time spent on developing curriculum materials and delivering an additional subject at Key Stage 2.

Irish-medium units are small; they have an intake of around nine to 10 pupils a year. They operate as discrete units under the management arrangements of host English-medium schools. They face the same problems as small schools in that they must provide the full curriculum for pupils within the limited budget generated by their small enrolment. The help proposed for Irish-medium schools is along similar lines to that proposed for small schools. The help is, however, slightly less generous in recognition of the fact that the units operate under the management framework of host schools.

Monica McWilliams, Danny Kennedy, Tommy Gallagher, Billy Hutchinson, Sammy Wilson and Joan Carson raised the question of teachers' salaries. The problem of above-average salary costs is most evident in small schools - mainly primary schools. All LMS formulae contain a teacher's salary protection factor that helps to compensate schools for these extra costs. Above-average teaching costs are unavoidable in some schools. However, there is evidence that, in some cases, variations are due in part to the decisions of boards of governors in determining the structure of the schools through the awarding of responsibility points for teachers and increased salaries for principals and vice-principals. Removing teachers' salaries from the LMS would bring its future into question, as teacher costs comprise 80% of a school's budget. A centralised model for determining and allocating staff would be required, and flexibility to determine staffing at school level would be lost.

Will the Minister give way?

I am told that, as Minister, I have only 20 minutes, but I will gladly give way.

Does the Minister accept that if the document is to be truly consultative and issues are to be dealt with in a proper manner, he and his Department should leave themselves open to the suggestion that actual teacher costs rather than average teacher costs should be met? He seems to be dismissing that out of hand from the Dispatch Box at the very outset of the consultative process.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>