CPSMA Submission
to
Joint Committee on Education & Social Protection
regarding the impact of the increase in pupil-teacher ratios on Small Primary
Schools as well as the cost issues facing those schools.
1.00. Submitting Party
1.01. The Catholic Primary School Management Association (CPSMA) is a
recognised school management organisation. It represents the boards of
management of in excess of 2,900 primary schools in Ireland. CPSMA plays
a key role in shaping national policy on the development of primary education
and the implementation of educational strategies and policies. It is in regular
contact, discussion and negotiation with all of the education partners including
the Department of Education & Skills (DES). It provides a wide range of
services to its members including advising on a multiplicity of issues, the
provision of a website that is constantly updated, the publication of a regular
Newsletter, issuing a Handbook, training on issues of relevance etc.
2.00. Executive Summary
CPSMA’s submission deals with the following issues:2.01. Background: A substantial proportion of the population lives in rural
communities. The contribution of the school to its local community is
enormous and extends far beyond the economic. Strategic thinking needs to
inform the current debate. Critically education outcomes for pupils in smaller
schools are the same as for those in larger schools.
2.02. The changes to the Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR) are outlined.
2.03. Statistical Analysis: CPSMA conducted a survey of schools of 85 pupils or
less in May of this year regarding the impact of the changed PTR and the
main findings are outlined.
2.04. The impact of the increase in the PTR is set out including what schools
describe as “the double jeopardy effect” i.e. where a school is facing an
uncertain future, parents in many cases seek to enrol their children
elsewhere.
2.05. The interests of pupils should be foremost in all decision making.
2.06. The legal basis for the funding of primary schools is explained.
2.07. The funding of primary schools and the inadequacy of funding provision is
detailed. Many schools are chronically underfunded. The ongoing cuts are
impacting significantly on schools that have a dual problem to contend with,
cash flow difficulties and inability to pay bills, as well as outstanding debt in
the case of schools surveyed.
2.08. Additional charges on schools: Schools are treated like businesses and must
pay standing charges. However they cannot avail of the advantages that
businesses enjoy e.g. VAT cannot be offset against purchases.
2.09. Procurement: CPSMA has consistently tried to ensure that measures are put
in place to reduce the costs that schools have to pay however it is also very
cognisant of the need to ensure that local businesses (that are often the
greatest supporters of schools) are treated fairly.
2.10. Amalgamations: The DES should incentivise amalgamations where this is
what the schools and local communities want.
2.11. Conclusion: Policy should not be driven by short term thinking. Decisions
should not be made in the absence of data. Schools must be considered in
Page 1 of 10
their context and their particular setting on a case by case basis. It is a truism
that every child is reared by the community.
3.00. Background
3.01. There are approximately 3,300 primary schools in Ireland. Schools historically
were founded on a parish basis. The parish structures were a response to a
uniquely scattered demographic settlement pattern. Almost 50% of Irish
people live in population centres of around 5,000 persons or less.
3.02. The Irish primary education system has been dependent on local voluntary
effort with regard to management and finance. There are close to 20,000
volunteers acting on boards of management. They receive no pay, travel
expenses or subsistence. This is a very notable example of local participatory
democracy. The remarkable aspect is that these schools are so well managed
at so little cost to the State. A primary school system, rooted in local
communities, serving a dispersed population at little cost in terms of
patronage and management, is a notable reality in terms of social capital. This
is an achievement which should be nurtured and rewarded in a time where all
political leaders are calling on the public service to deliver more at reduced
cost with greater responsiveness to people’s needs.
3.03. Research has confirmed that education provided in a smaller school setting is
as good in terms of pupil outcomes as that provided in larger school settings.
Catherine Mulryan Kyne points out that multigrade teaching is prevalent in
most educational systems throughout the world. She states “International
research on multigrade teaching has shown no significant differences
between the cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes of pupils in single-grade
and multigrade classes...multigrade teachers in two-teacher multigrade
schools in Ireland, unlike multigrade teachers involved in studies in other
countries, use a wide range of teaching approaches within and across subject
areas”. Interestingly she also indicated that “small rural schools are usually
more closely integrated with the local community than are larger
urban/suburban schools...” (Teaching & Learning in Multigrade Classrooms:
More Questions than Answers - Oideas 51 Spring 2005, pp 85 – 94)
3.04. Many so called “small schools” have viable enrolments. It is also the case
that the school population of any given area is cyclical. Any decisions arrived
at must take cognisance of these facts. Comparisons with countries
internationally must compare like with like.
3.05. A good starting point might be to establish what is meant by a “small school”.
It appears that the definition of what constitutes a small school is a moveable
feast. The Rules for National Schools and DES Circulars determine that once
a school’s enrolment falls below 8 pupils over two consecutive years, such a
school is not viable unless it is the sole school on an island. This suggests
that 8 is considered a viable number of pupils for a school to continue in
existence. The DES’s long awaited Value for Money Review of small schools
related to schools of 50 pupils or less, which suggests that the DES view at
the time the review was established was that a school with less than 50 pupils
was a small school. The DES currently seems to take the view that a school
with less than 86 pupils is a small school which would no doubt be contested
in communities throughout Ireland.
3.06. The Value for Money Review should be published as a matter of urgency, as
it could inform discussion of the issue. CPSMA has been informed that a lot
of the decisions that parents are taking regarding school choice are informed
by a lack of certainty in school communities about the future of the local
school rather than on any other basis. Schools report a predicted reduction in
Page 2 of 10
pupil numbers based largely on parental fears regarding the viability of the
schools. This is an excellent example of a self fulfilling prophecy.
3.07. Ireland’s economic crisis will pass and short term solutions may have
destroyed much of what is of value and valued by communities. Primary
schools play an important role in their localities. Attempts to close so called
“small schools” have consequences far beyond the economic. There are
consequences for communities, parishes, education and the social fabric of
society. Will small schools go the way of the railways, tramlines and the
waterways and lead to many regrets at a later time? Could their closure be yet
another example of precipitous actions taken in the absence of a strategy?
One of the great advantages of the current system and in particular the stock
of education buildings throughout the country is that there is great flexibility
and changing circumstances can be responded to. Once the schools are
closed this flexibility is lost. If the decision regarding the PTR has the real
effect of closing schools this means that a valuable resource could be lost to
education in the medium and longer term. There is a real sense in many
school communities that the increase in the PTR will lead to school closures.
This it is felt will in turn lead to what has been described to CPSMA as the
“decay of rural Ireland”.
3.08. The resourcing of the primary education sector compares poorly to the
funding of other sectors. This is despite international research which confirms
that the earlier in a child’s life that educational resources are allocated to
him/her, the greater the outcome for the pupil and for society. Professor
Heckman, the winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics has stated “Early
development of human capital results in greater economic returns for
individuals and society”. He has produced the world famous Heckman
Equation which demonstrates that the rate of return to investment is far
greater for programmes targeted towards earlier years i.e. pre-school and
primary education.
3.09. It would be remiss of CPSMA not to refer to the comments made regarding
PTR in the context of the very welcome decision not to further cut resource
hours. CPSMA has for the past two years called on the DES and the National
Council for Special Education to restore a pupil’s full entitlement to resource
hours. Before the most recently proposed cut, the entitlement had already
been reduced by 15%. The need for the full entitlement to be restored still
remains. However there is now a heightened fear that the reversal will be
used as the basis for an increase in the PTR for all schools. In the past when
the reversal of a cut was announced, all other schools suffered the
consequences e.g. when the DEIS resources were rightfully restored, all
primary schools suffered a further cut to the capitation grant. An further
increased PTR would be an extremely damaging and a retrograde step. The
OECD publication “Education at a Glance,” confirms that for primary
education Ireland ranks a very lowly 19 out of 35 OECD/other G20 countries
in terms of PTR which is rather surprising for a country which prides and
promotes itself in international circles, on the quality of its education system.
4.00. Changes to PTR
4.01. As part of Budget 2012 an announcement of an increase to the PTR for
certain schools was made.
4.02. Previously a school with 12 pupils had two teachers. As of September 2013,
it will need 20 pupils to retain two teachers, which is an increase of 8 in pupil
numbers. To retain two teachers the school needs to have
Page 3 of 10
 14 pupils on roll in September 2011
 17 pupils on roll in September 2012
 20 pupils on roll in September 2013
4.03. Previously a school with 49 pupils had three teachers. As of September
2013, it will need to have 56 pupils to retain three teachers which is an
increase of 7 in pupil numbers. To retain three teachers the school must have
 51 pupils on roll in September 2011
 54 pupils on roll in September 2012
 56 pupils on roll in September 2013
4.04. Previously a school with 81 pupils had four teachers. As of September 2013,
it will need to have 86 pupils to retain four teachers, which is an increase of 5.
To retain four teachers the school must have
 83 pupils on roll in September 2011
 85 pupils on roll in September 2012
 86 pupils on roll in September 2013
4.05. The resultant changes can be summarised as follows:
Number
teachers
including
principal
of School
Year
2 TEACHER
SCHOOL
3 TEACHER
SCHOOL
4 TEACHER
SCHOOL
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
No. of pupils required (based
on the enrolments on the
30th Sept. of the preceding
year)
14
17
20
51
54
56
2012/13
83
2013/14
2014/15
85
86
Increase
required in
pupil numbers
8
7
5
4.06. What was particularly difficult for schools was that the cut to teacher numbers
applied in respect of pupil numbers that were in place the September prior to
the announcement being made. This in effect meant that the cuts had
retrospective effect.
4.07. When one looks at the bald figures, it is sometimes easy to forget the human
story that exists behind them. For example a school with 19 pupils will have
one teacher who will be expected to teach all 19 of the pupils ranging in age
from 4 to 12 years of age across 8 streams as well as carrying out all of the
additional administrative duties that s/he must undertake as principal teacher.
One could venture to suggest that this could have the direct effect of closing
the school, as it is hard to imagine how one person could be expected to cope
with such a situation.
4.08. In a school with 55 pupils two teachers will be expected to teach 27.5 pupils
each, across a number of streams and one of these teachers must also carry
out the principal’s duties. In the case of a school with 85 pupils three teachers
will have to teach over 28 pupils each across a number of streams and one of
these teachers must also carry out the principal’s duties. There is a myth that
smaller schools have better PTRs. Until the cuts were put in place the system
Page 4 of 10
had an inbuilt equality. One of the advantages of the system before the
changes were introduced was that it had checks and balances i.e. in smaller
schools the number of pupils was lower but larger schools had administrative
principals which in real terms meant that the effects on PTR actually evened
out. In this regard it must be stated that there was always a squeezed middle
i.e. schools with 4 and 5 teachers. The change to the PTR has essentially
spread this unacceptable burden across a greater number of schools with a
disproportionate effect on rural communities. In essence the PTR should not
have been increased and instead greater supports should have been put in
place for the 70% of teaching principals who have to try to juggle teaching and
administrative functions. CPSMA can say, based on the calls to its office from
principal teachers during the summer months, that the notion of principals
being off for the summer is very misconceived. It is true to say that as well as
the herculean efforts of the many volunteers in the school system, the primary
school principals of the country have made an enormous contribution to
keeping the education system afloat.
5.00 Statistical analysis
5.01. CPSMA commissioned Amárach Research to conduct a survey in order to
investigate the impact of the decision to increase the PTR in schools of up to
85 pupils. A postal survey of such schools was carried out between 13 th and
31st May 2013 and an extremely high response rate was recorded (47%).
This evidences the very real concerns that exist in school communities. In
terms of geographical spread 44% of those surveyed were located in
Connaught/Ulster, 34% in Munster and 22% were in Leinster.
5.02. One of the key findings is that nearly half of the schools surveyed (42%) had
undertaken a significant level of building projects in the last five years. The
level of fundraising in regard to buildings was very high averaging almost
€16,000 per project. These schools have also by necessity incurred a
significant level of associated debt (on average for those who answered this
question it stands at €3,147). Thus, it is fair to conclude that up to this point
and through some of the most economically challenging times the country has
ever experienced, local communities invested in their own schools and kept
faith in the future of their locality. What was clearly apparent for them was the
value and importance of education for their children’s future. Should they not
expect the same level of support from those that represent them?
5.03. The average spend on the building works was €203,502 per school. The
average contribution from Oireachtas funds amounted to just over €174,000
per project. Having made such an investment in local schools, one would
have to question the wisdom of a policy which could lead to the closures of
some schools which now have the best of facilities.
5.04. Essentially communities were encouraged to improve facilities and invest in
their localities. However the effect of the increase in the PTR is to leave these
very communities with debts and the prospect of a school closure. The
question of who ultimately might be liable for these debts if the schools were
to close does not appear to have been thought through nor included in any
cost analysis. Clearly, a local community that was, and is, motivated to invest
in education will continue to support its school. In the absence of the school it
would be a travesty if the community had to shoulder the burden of the debt.
6.00. Impact of Increase in PTR
6.01. In terms of the loss of mainstream staff: 9% of the schools surveyed have lost mainstream staff.
Page 5 of 10
 7% are going to lose mainstream staff this September.
 9% expect to lose mainstream staff the following school year.
6.02. In 2005 the DES introduced the General Allocation Model of Support (GAM).
The GAM model provides schools with additional teaching resources for the
delivery of learning support. Schools were given freedom to allocate teachers
to pupils in line with the pupils’ needs with provision for in-class as well as outof-class teaching support. In 2012 the GAM model was changed. Schools
must now also use this resource to cater for pupils who require additional
language support. Critically in respect of the current matter, the allocation of
GAM support was from then on based on the number of teachers in the
school. This has the direct effect of adversely affecting schools where the
PTR has been increased. If these schools lose a mainstream teacher, there
is a consequential drop in the number of hours to which a school is entitled
under the revised GAM model, even though the school still has the same
number of pupils.
6.03. Schools also receive teaching resources for children with particular special
educational needs which are known as resource hours (also known as low
incidence hours). Until 2012 schools were allowed to combine the GAM and
the resource hours in their own school to create a unified teaching position.
However, for what appears to be administrative ease, schools are no longer
allowed to combine these hours into one post which means that teachers are
in many instances passing each other on the road travelling to and from the
same schools, while the pupils in the schools are not being taught during the
travel time. This means that GAM and Resource hours are even more thinly
spread in the schools, firstly by the requirement to use the GAM resources to
cater for language needs which had previously been separately resourced,
secondly by having less resources for the same number of pupils and thirdly
by the further erosion of the time that should be spent on teaching, to
accommodate travel time. The DES has conceded that schools can use “so
called” local arrangements to try to alleviate travel time, however in reality
such arrangements apply in very limited situations. In speaking with
Principals, CPSMA hears of teachers spending time on the road rather than in
the classroom. In addition as schools generally are required to share posts
rather than being able to employ a teacher/s on a part time basis. This means
that the loss of teaching time to travel time has been needlessly exacerbated.
If each school could individually employ the teacher on a part time basis there
would be no loss of teaching time to travel time, there would be greater time
on task for pupils and the teacher would still receive the same pay.
6.04. CPSMA survey results indicate that
 13% of schools have lost GAM hours.
 7% expect to lose GAM hours in the coming school year.
 8% expect to lose GAM hours in the following school year.
6.05. Appeals regarding staffing levels can be made under three categories, one of
which is the small school criterion. 14% of the schools surveyed appealed the
decisions of the DES in regard to staffing. A significant number of those who
appealed were successful in the appeal, conditional on retaining or securing
the numbers required by a specified date. This is indicative of the fact that the
system needs to be responsive to local situations. However in the meantime
valuable resources in both the school and the DES had to be used to process
an appeal rather than the resource being used for front line education.
Page 6 of 10
6.06. The negative impact that the increase in the PTR is having on school
communities include: The increased pressure on staff due to bigger class sizes and greater
demands on them due to loss of teaching staff and GAM hours.
Schools as a generality have unfortunately had to learn to cope with
larger class sizes but in the case of smaller schools there is an onus to
teach the curriculum to a number of different classes in the same room
across a wide range of ages.
 Pressure on schools to maintain enrolment figures causing fear and
stress and also putting local schools and communities at loggerheads.
In many cases the schools in a locality now have a heightened sense of
awareness of each other’s enrolments. CPSMA is experiencing an
increased level of calls from schools concerned that other schools in the
locality are canvassing parents. The consequential effects of this on
staff and community morale hardly need stating.
 Many classrooms cannot accommodate the increased numbers.
 The double jeopardy effect, in that where a school is facing an uncertain
future, parents in many cases seek to enrol their children elsewhere in
the fear that the school will not remain open for the duration of their
children’s education.
 Great concern about the quality of support available to pupils with
special educational needs, through the consequential loss of GAM
hours.
6.07. There is no doubt that the longer lasting effects of the loss of the local school
will have far reaching effects for many rural communities. The local school is
now often the sole remaining focal point. In the current economic climate
where people generally are under enormous pressure and many have no
immediate prospects for the future, the loss of the school has a multiplier
effect as a result of unemployment and emigration.
6.08. There is also the prospect of loss of employment in a local economy that is
already reeling from the effects of unemployment. 70% of schools surveyed
employ an SNA, 84% employ a secretary and 72% a caretaker. With the
increase in PTR and the closures of some schools, it is inevitable that jobs will
be lost.
6.09. School closures have other additional economic costs e.g. increased cost of
school transport. In addition the prospect of young children having to sit on
schools buses for inordinate periods of time to get to school is not an
appealing prospect. In many of the debates the interests of the pupil, which
should be at the heart of every decision are often forgotten about. It is time
for the education system to put the interests of pupils to the fore.
7.00. The legal basis for the funding of primary schools
7.01. Article 42.4 of Bunreacht na hÉireann states that the State shall provide for
free primary education. It is the only sector of education to which this
constitutional imperative applies yet notwithstanding this, it is the sector that is
the most chronically underfunded. The OECD publication “Education at a
Glance” confirms that the annual expenditure per pupil at primary level in
Ireland ranks 14th out of 34 OECD/G20 countries whereas it ranks 8th and 10th
respectively for secondary and third level education.
7.02. The provision for the funding of education was given statutory recognition in
the 1998 Education Act
Page 7 of 10




The Preamble specifically recognises that the Act is to inter alia “...
provide for the recognition and funding of schools”.
Section 7 stipulates inter alia that it is a function of the Minister to
provide funding to each recognised school.
Section 12 provides that the Minister is required to determine and
publish in each school year criteria by which recognised schools are to
be funded in the following school year from monies provided by the
Oireachtas.
Section 15 requires boards of management to have regard to the
efficient use of resources and in particular the efficient use of grants
provided.
8.00. Funding for primary schools
8.01. The funding of primary schools has been based primarily on the capitation
grant. The capitation grants are based on the numbers of pupils enrolled on
the 30th of the previous September i.e. for this coming academic year
(2013/2014) a school’s grant is based on the number of pupils on the roll on
30th September 2012.
8.02. The grant is paid in two moieties, 70% in February and 30% in the succeeding
June. The latter moiety of 30% is adjusted to take account of enrolment of the
applicable academic year. No school receives a capitation grant for less than
that applicable to a 60 pupil enrolment.
8.03. Over successive budgets the capitation grant has been progressively cut. In
2010 the capitation grant was €200 per pupil, this was initially reduced to
€183, then to €178 and is currently €176. Provision has been made for two
further cuts which ultimately will leave schools with just €168 per pupil. This
is a cut of €32 per pupil and an overall cut of 16%.
8.04. In addition to the capitation grant schools receive a book grant of €11 per
pupil, a supervision grant is payable to 1,2 and 3 teacher schools, a
Standardised testing grant of €5.10 per pupil (subject to a minimum of €140
per school) is payable as well an ancillary services grant of €147 per pupil
(subject to a minimum of €8,820). The ancillary services grant is to assist
towards the payment of secretarial and caretaking services. DEIS schools
receive additional grants.
8.05. Even in the so called good times schools had to rely on other grants to meet
day to day costs. The minor works grant was paid annually to schools and
was used for ongoing maintenance issues such as replacing panes of glass,
windows & roof repairs, re-painting and re-decorating etc. This grant has now
been abolished as has the Summer Works Scheme. Crucially the minor
works grant was a source of funding to cash starved schools in
November/December when the capitation grant had long since been
exhausted. It enabled schools to stay afloat until the next instalment of
capitation payment was received the following February. It is perhaps not
understood that many schools are experiencing serious cash flow issues as
they have to survive from June of the previous school year to February
without any significant cash injection. The minor works grant was paid at a
flat rate of €5,500 with a top up of €18.50 per mainstream pupil and €74 for
pupils with special educational needs. Thus a school with 100 mainstream
pupils and five pupils with special education needs received a grant of €7,720.
8.06. In a previous study conducted by CPSMA in November 2011, 44% of all
schools were facing a deficit and a further 22% were breaking even. Now over
a year and a half later, with the additional cuts which have been imposed in
Page 8 of 10
the meantime, one can only presume that that the problem has greatly
deepened. In addition the capitation grant had traditionally been paid in
January but is now being paid in February and the standardised testing grant
is now being paid in April whereas previously it had been paid in October.
This further exacerbates cash flow issues for schools.
8.07. When the reduction in the capitation grant and the removal of the minor works
grant are combined this means that a school with 100 mainstream pupils and
five pupils with special education needs is down a staggering €10,435 in
funding i.e. a quarter of its income. Schools have asked CPSMA to advise
what happens when a school cannot pay its bills.
9.00. Additional Charges on schools
9.01. Schools are treated as businesses in regard to the purchase of gas, oil,
electricity etc. for example. Almost one third of utility bills can be attributable
to standing charges which arise even when schools are shut for holiday
periods. An Post also charges schools to retain post during the summer
months even though schools are not allowed to collect the post.
9.02. Water rates have also placed enormous burdens on many schools.
9.03. Schools must also pay the usual bills that businesses encounter e.g. bin
charges, cleaning materials, office materials, photocopying, bus hire,
insurance, the annual fire certificate costs which can run into thousands of
Euro, not to mention the costs of monitored alarms etc.
9.04. Even though schools have to pay VAT they cannot offset same against
purchases.
9.05. Against the above backdrop schools find themselves in a very difficult
situation. They are faced with few choices other than to try to source monies
elsewhere e.g. by asking parents to pay voluntary contributions so that
essential bills e.g. heat and light can be paid. Schools are extremely
conscious of the effect that this has on already hard pressed parents. The
alternative of engaging in fundraising events again targets the same audience
i.e. parents. In view of the recent recommendations emanating from the
Committee regarding the voluntary contribution, it is presumed that the
Committee will be calling on the DES to reinstate funding to schools as
otherwise schools will not be able to function i.e. they must have money to
pay bills.
10.00. Amalgamation:
The amalgamation of schools could be an option where this is a viable and
acceptable solution to the community. CPSMA has produced a discussion
paper for Patrons and others on this topic. Amalgamation, where feasible,
needs the support and encouragement of all the partners in education and
particularly that of the DES. Currently there are no incentives for schools to
amalgamate.
11.01. Procurement:
11.01. CPSMA has engaged extensively with the National Procurement Service
(NPS) soon to be known as the Office of Government Procurement, arranging
for schools to sign up with NPS for a competition for the supply of electricity
and currently for gas. CPSMA continues to engage with NPS regarding
savings for schools and will continue to do so.
11.02. CPSMA has repeatedly asked the DES to issue a circular so that schools are
aware of the legal requirements regarding procurement. It is also vital to
ensure that local suppliers are not put out of business. A balance needs to be
Page 9 of 10
achieved and factors such as the timing and quality of the service must also
be factored in as well as cost.
12.00. Conclusion:
12.01. Strategic thinking is even more necessary in a time of crisis. Ireland is a rural
community. Many so called small schools have viable enrolments and need to
be maintained in their own context/situation. Millions of Euros have been
spent on these schools in the last number of years and these precious
resources should not be wasted. Decisions are being made in the absence of
a comprehensive analysis of costs. CPSMA calls on the DES to publish the
Value for Money Review of small schools, which presumably could assist in
such an analysis. It is likely to be the case that when other factors are taken
into account e.g. the cost of school transport, there may well be no cost
savings at all.
12.02. In addition the enormous contribution of schools to the local community
should not be lost in a rush to judgment. Let the discussion be broader and a
strategic view should be taken of what is of greatest value to Irish society in
the longer term. Money is not the only value to be considered, even at a time
of an economic dip. It would be particularly poignant if the closure of schools
were to occur in the belief of saving on costs, only to find out later that there
was no cost saving in real terms and that much of value had been lost in the
process. In the meantime many communities would have been needlessly
decimated. Act in haste and repent at leisure is a sean fhocal – let’s not make
it a reality.
Page 10 of 10